Ogden Aviation Services

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 12, 1996

320 N.L.R.B. 1140 (N.L.R.B. 1996)

1140
320 NLRB No. 150
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 Chairman Gould dissented.
2 Ogden Aviation Services, 23 NMB 98 (1996).
3 In so finding, we find it unnecessary to rely on the documents
the hearing officer admitted into evidence over the Employer’s ob-
jection. In addition, we note that the NMB, while observing that the
Union has collective-bargaining relationships with the Employer at
other airports, did not rely on those relationships in concluding that
it lacks jurisdiction over the Employer at the airport involved in this
case. We therefore shall deny the Employer’s request to reopen the
record in light of the hearing officer’s ruling.
4 For the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in Federal Ex-
press Corp., 317 NLRB 1155 (1995), Chairman Gould would elimi-
nate the Board’s general practice of referring cases involving RLA
jurisdictional claims to the NMB for an initial ruling. On the facts
of this case, Chairman Gould finds there is ample basis for the
Board’s assertion of jurisdiction. Accordingly, Chairman Gould con-
curs in his colleagues’ decision to assert jurisdiction over the Em-
ployer and to remand the case to the Regional Director for resolution
of any unresolved issues and to take further appropriate action.
5 The parties disagree about whether the petitioned-for unit is ap-
propriate.
Ogden Aviation Services and International Associa-
tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL–CIO, District Lodge 141, Petitioner. Case
20–RC–17097
April 12, 1996
DECISION AND DIRECTION
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS BROWNING
AND COHEN
Upon a petition filed under Section 9(c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Kay M. Hendren. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer and Petitioner filed briefs. Following the hear-
ing, and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the Board’s
Rules, the case was transferred to the Board for deci-
sion.
The Board has delegated its authority in this pro-
ceeding 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 affirmed.
On the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is a Delaware corporation with a
place of business at the San Francisco, California
International Airport and is engaged in providing var-
ious services to airlines at approximately 85 airports.
The Employer annually purchases and receives at its
California facility goods and/or services valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 directly from sources located outside
the State of California.
The Employer contends that the petition should be
dismissed because its operations that are the subject of
this petition are covered by the Railway Labor Act and
therefore the Employer is not an ‘‘employer’’ within
the meaning of Section 2(2) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act. The Petitioner submits that jurisdiction is
properly with the National Labor Relations Board.
Section 2(2) defines ‘‘employer’’ to exclude any
person subject to the Railway Labor Act. Accordingly,
we requested that the National Mediation Board deter-
mine the applicability of the Railway Labor Act to the
Employer.1 In reply, the National Mediation Board
found ‘‘that Ogden Aviation Services’ operations at
[San Francisco International Airport] are not subject to
the Railway Labor Act.’’2 Therefore, we find that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act,3 and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.4
2. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the Peti-
tioner is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. We remand the case to the Regional Director for
resolution of any unresolved issues and to take further
appropriate action.5
DIRECTION
IT IS DIRECTED that the Regional Director shall take
further appropriate action.