Northern Air Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 24, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 465 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

NORTHERN AIR SERVICE, INC.
Northern Air Service, Inc. and District Lodge 97 of
the International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 7-
RC-12868
July 24, 1975
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND
KENNEDY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Vincent
Candiello. Following the hearing and pursuant to
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
this case was transferred to the National Labor Rela-
tions Board for decision. Both the Employer and the
Petitioner waived their right to file briefs. The Hear-
ing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
1. The Employer is a Michigan corporation with
its principal place of business at the Kent County
Airport, Kent County, Michigan. It is engaged in the
sales and service of aircraft and related equipment
and operates a private nonscheduled air taxi service
and a flight school. The air taxi operation and the
flight school are certified by the FAA. The Employer
does not have a fueling contract with a common car-
rier. It does not have any interline agreements with
common carriers, but on an ad hoc basis the Employ-
er may transport passengers who have disembarked
from common carriers. On an emergency basis, a
carrier may ticket passengers through the Employer.
The Employer also does not carry any U.S. mail.
The Employer's equipment consists of 18 single-
engine planes, each capable of carrying four passen-
gers, 3 two-engine planes each having different ca-
pacities up to eight passengers, and 2 Lear Jets, each
capable of carrying six passengers. The Employer
possesses two hangars at the airport and an adjacent
465
office facility. In addition, it rents a third hangar at
the Kent County Airport and has some space and a
small operation at the Detroit City Airport in De-
troit, Michigan.
The parties stipulated that the Employer earned in
excess of $500,000 in gross revenue in the last year
and had purchases from outside the State of Michi-
gan exceeding $50,000. The record reveals that 17
percent of the Employer's total gross revenues are
derived from nonscheduled air taxi operations which
include both intrastate and interstate flights. The
amount of gross revenue derived from interstate air
taxi service is approximately 5 percent.
Because of the jurisdictional nature of the question
presented here, we have in this case, as in other simi-
lar cases in the past, requested the National Media-
tion Board, as the agency primarily vested with juris-
diction 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 to
determine the applicability of the Railway Labor Act
to the Employer. We are administratively advised by
the National Mediation Board under date of June 27,
1975, that:
The record demonstrates that the only opera-
tions of the Northern Air Service, Inc., which
would bring it within coverage of the Railway
Labor Act are de minimis. Based on this record,
the Board is of the opinion that the Northern
Air Service, Inc., does not meet the definition of
common carrier by air set forth in Title II, Sec.
201, of the Railway Labor Act, and that there is
not sufficient basis for this Board to assert juris-
diction.
Accordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein. We, therefore, assert jurisdiction here-
in.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization seeking to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. We find in accord with the stipulation of the
parties that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time airframe
and/or power-plant mechanics and apprentice
mechanics ; building and equipment mainte-
nance and cleaning employees ; avionics instal-
lers and repairmen; inspectors; and repairmen/
leadworkers ; and all line service employees, in-
cluding towing , parking, fueling, and
washing/cleaning employees but excluding all
sales, clerical , and confidential employees; all
pilots and flight instructors ; all professionals,
guards , and supervisory employees as defined in
the Act , and all other employees.
[Direction of election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]