DHL Worldwide Express, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 2003

340 N.L.R.B. 1034 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1034
DHL Worldwide Express, Inc. and Local 804, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, a/w AFL–
CIO. Case 29–RC–9845
November 21, 2003
DECISION AND DIRECTION
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS
LIEBMAN
AND WALSH
Upon a petition filed under Section 9(c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Scott R. Kardel. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer filed a brief. Following the hearing, and pursuant
to Section 102.67 of the Board’s Rules, the case was
transferred to the Board for a determination of whether it
has jurisdiction over the Employer.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
On the entire record in this case, we find that DHL
Worldwide Express, Inc., is a Delaware corporation, en-
gaged in the business of package delivery by air and
ground.
The parties stipulated that in the 12 months preceding
the hearing, the Employer, in the course and conduct of
its business operations, provided services in excess of
$50,000 directly outside of the State of New York.
The Employer contends that the petition should be
dismissed because it is subject to the jurisdiction of the
Railway Labor Act (RLA). The Petitioner submits that
jurisdiction is properly with the National Labor Relations
Board.
Section 2(2) of the National Labor Relations Act de-
fines “employer” to exclude any person subject to the
RLA. Accordingly, we requested the National Mediation
Board (NMB) to determine the applicability of the RLA
to the Employer. On June 12, 2003, the NMB issued its
opinion1 advising us that:

DHL is not controlled by or under common control
with a carrier. Therefore, the control prong of the
NMB’s jurisdictional test is not satisfied, and the NMB
finds that DHL Worldwide Express, Inc., is not subject
to the RLA.2

On the basis of the record facts, and in view of the
substantial deference given to the NMB’s opinion, we
concur with the findings of the NMB. Accordingly, we
find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert ju-
risdiction.
We shall remand the case to the Regional Director to
take further appropriate action.
DIRECTION
IT IS DIRECTED that the Regional Director for Re-
gion 29 shall take further appropriate action consistent
with this Decision.

1 30 NMB 368 (2003).
2 The Employer subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration with
the NMB, which the NMB denied. 30 NMB 431 (2003).

340 NLRB No. 122