Mark Aero, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 14, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 304 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mark Aero, Incorporated ' and International Associa-
tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO. Case 14-RC-7084
November 14, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY AND PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Roy V.
Hayden. Following the hearing the case was trans-
ferred to the National Labor Relations Board
pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations and State-
ments of Procedure, Series 8, as amended.
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:
The Employer has its principal facility at Lambert
Field, St. Louis International Airport, Missouri, and
a small facility at Greenville, Illinois. It is engaged in
servicing and storing aircraft, selling fuel, providing
pilots and service to an air travel club, and running
an air taxi. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of
mechanics and related employees, including leads,
ramp agents, line servicemen, stockroom paint shop
and upholstery shop employees. The Employer
contends that it is a common carrier by air engaged
in interstate and foreign commerce within the
meaning of the Railway Labor Act,2 that its
operations and employees are covered by the
provisions of that act, and that this Board is therefore
without jurisdiction.
The Employer has about 80 employees, of which
10-12 are pilots, and during the 14-month period
through May 1972 it received gross revenues of
$1,709,238. The Employer's air taxi service provides
1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Title II of the Railway Labor Act extends the coverage of that Act to
"every common carrier by air engaged in interstate or foreign commerce
200 NLRB No. 7 ... and every air pilot or other person who
nonscheduled chartered air transportation through-
out the United States and into foreign countries
pursuant to a Part 135 Air Carrier Operating
Certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration, but has no interticketing or interlining
arrangement at the present time. The air taxi service
uses about 10 aircraft of varying sizes which the
Employer either owns or leases. During April 1972
the Employer flew 378 passengers in 112 trips;
during May it flew 385 passengers in 115 trips; and
during the first part of June it flew 187 passengers in
59 trips. A witness for the Employer testified, without
contradiction, that these are typical figures. In the 14
months through May 1972 the air taxi operation
received revenues of $462,943, or 27 percent of the
Employer's total gross revenues. Out of $443,640
total air taxi revenue received from actual flying,
$331,037, or about 75 percent, was derived from
interstate flights.
The Employer also stores, services, and operates
one airplane for an air travel club from which it
received revenues of $94,509 in the 14-month period.
The rest of the Employer's revenue comes from
providing services and fuel to aircraft not associated
with the air taxi or the air travel club.
Because of the nature of the jurisdictional question
presented here, we have, as in other cases in the
past,3 requested the National Mediation Board to
study the record in this case and determine the
applicability of the Railway Labor Act to the
Employer. In the present case we are administrative-
ly advised by the National Mediation Board that:
Mark Aero engages in interstate air common
carriage to a degree sufficient to bring it within
the jurisdictional definition of Section 201 of Title
II of the Railway Labor Act.
In view of the foregoing, we shall dismiss the
petition in its entirety.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition in Case
14-RC-7084 be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its
entirety.
performs any work as an employee . . . of such carrier ... .
3 Lynch Flying Service, Inc., 166 NLRB 961; International Aviation
Services ofNew York, Inc., 189 NLRB No. 15.
200 NLRB No. 47