Holiday Resources, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 3, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 19 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

HOLIDAY AIRLINES 19
Holiday Airlines, a Division of Holiday Resources, Inc,
and Airline, Aerospace & Allied Employees Local
2707, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
Petitioner. Cases 31-RC-2839 and 31-RC-2840
January 3, 1975
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTIONS
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
consolidated hearing was held before Hearing
Officer Robert Gross. Following the hearing, this
proceeding was transferred to the Board for decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is a California corporation with
its principal place of business at the South Lake
Tahoe Airport. It is engaged as a scheduled passen-
ger and freight air carrier serving various cities in
southern and northern California and South Lake
Tahoe. Approximately 95 percent of its business
consists of being the sole scheduled passenger air
carrier serving South Lake Tahoe Airport, which is 5
to 6 miles from the California-Nevada state line. The
Employer advertises Nevada attractions in the Tahoe
area, and has travel packages with the ski resorts in
the area. During the summertime, the Employer's
peak season, it operates three round trips a day with
three airplanes between southern California and
northern California and South Lake Tahoe, Monday
through Thursday, with additional flights added on
Fridays and Sundays. The Employer currently
carries no United States mail but as of the hearing
had applied for a mail contract. It has no interline
arrangements with other airlines. The Employer
performs common carriage charter flights within the
State of California. It also has contract flights outside
the State of California to such places as Seattle,
i Title If of the Railway Labor Act extends the coverage of that Act to
"every common carrier by air engaged in interstate or foreign commerce
... and every air pilot or other person who performs any work as an
employee ... of such carrier ......
2 See, e .g., Voyager 1 000, A Corporation, 202 NLRB 901 (1973); Lynch
Washington; Portland, Oregon; and Reno and Las
Vegas, Nevada.
This case was transferred to the Board because of a
question as to whether or not the Employer is a
common carrier by air engaged in interstate com-
merce within the meaning of the Railway Labor
Act,l and thus not within the Board's jurisdiction.
The Employer asserts that it is covered by the
Railway Labor Act.
Because of the nature of the question presented
here, we requested, as we have in other cases in the
past,2 the National Mediation Board (as the agency
primarily vested with jurisdiction, under the Railway
Labor Act, over air carriers, and having primary
authority to determine its own jurisdiction) to study
the record in this case and determine the applicabili-
ty of the Railway Labor Act to the Employer. We
were administratively advised by the National
Mediation Board, by letter dated October 30, 1974,
that:
Review of the record materials submitted with
your request and a previous National Mediation
Board investigation (NMB File No . C-4037) 3
involving Holiday Airlines indicates that Holiday
engages nearly exclusively in intrastate opera-
tions . Apparently, Holiday continues to operate
exclusively within the confines of the State of
California ; has no interline or other ticketing or
baggage arrangements with interstate air common
carriers ; and, only uses the Reno, Nevada airport,
(by special exemption of the Civil Aeronautics
Board), when weather or field conditions require
use of this alternative facility.
Under these circumstances, the National Media-
tion Board confirms its previous opinion that
Holiday Airlines is not engaged in interstate
commerce pursuant to the provisions of Section
201 of Title II of the Railway Labor Act and,
therefore, NMB jurisdiction would be inappropri-
ate.
It was stipulated that the Employer does in excess of
$500,000 business annually, and that the Employer
annually purchases goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly from firms located outside the State of
California. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that
the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
Flying Service, Inc, 166 NLRB 961 (1967), and cases cited therein
3 We note that in the previous case involving Holiday Airlines before the
National Mediation Board the Employer took the position that Railway
Labor Act jurisdiction was lacking
216 NLRB No. 3
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate units
The parties stipulated that the following two units
requested by the Petitioner are appropriate:
Case 31-RC-2839
All ground crew employees , including passenger
agents , reservations agents , mechanics, cargo
handlers, and dispatchers; excluding all other
employees, flight crew employees , office clerical
employees , professional employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
Case 31-RC-2840
All flight crew employees including pilots, flight
engineers , and flight attendants , but excluding all
other employees , ground crew employees , office
clerical employees, professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Accordingly , we find that the above mentioned
units are appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
[Direction of Elections and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]