Oxford Electronics, Inc. d/b/a Oxford Airport Technical Services, Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. (W

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 6, 2020

369 N.L.R.B. 6 (N.L.R.B. 2020)

369 NLRB No. 6
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Oxford Electronics, Inc., d/b/a Oxford Airport Tech-
nical Services and Worldwide Flight Services,
Inc., Joint employers, and Oxford Electronics,
Inc., d/b/a Oxford Airport Technical Services
and Total Facility Maintenance, Inc., joint em-
ployers, and Oxford Electronics, Inc., d/b/a Ox-
ford Airport Technical Services and Twin Staff-
ing, Inc., Joint Employers
International Union of Operating Engineers Local
399, AFL–CIO and Transportation Workers
Union of America—Local 504, AFL–CIO (Ox-
ford Electronics, Inc. d/b/a Oxford Airport
Technical Services, Worldwide Flight Services,
INc., Total Facility Maintenance, Inc., and Twin
Staffing, Inc.) and International Union of Oper-
ating Engineers Local 399, AFL–CIO. Cases 13–
CA–115933 and 13–CB–115935
January 6, 2020
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS KAPLAN
AND EMANUEL
On May 31, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Kimber-
ly R. Sorg-Graves issued the attached decision. Re-
spondents Oxford Electronics, Inc. d/b/a Oxford Airport
Technical Services (Oxford) and Worldwide Flight Ser-
vices, Inc. (Worldwide) filed exceptions and a supporting
brief; Respondents Total Facility Maintenance, Inc. (To-
tal) and Twin Staffing, Inc. (Twin) filed exceptions and a
supporting brief; Respondent Transportation Workers of
America—Local 504, AFL–CIO (Local 504) filed excep-
tions; and Charging Party International Union of Operat-
ing Engineers Local 399, AFL–CIO (Local 399) filed
exceptions. Local 399 and the General Counsel filed
answering briefs to the Respondents’ exceptions, and
Respondents Oxford and Worldwide filed a reply. The
General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting
brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions only to the extent consistent with
this Decision and Order.1

1 Respondents Oxford and Worldwide have requested oral argu-
ment. The request is denied as the record, exceptions, and briefs ade-
quately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
A threshold issue in these cases is whether the Em-
ployer Respondents’ operations and employees at Chica-
go’s O’Hare International Airport (O’Hare) are subject to
the Railway Labor Act (RLA) or to the National Labor
Relations Act (the Act).2 The Administrative Law Judge
concluded that the Respondents’ O’Hare operations are
subject to the Act and that the Employer and Union Re-
spondents violated the Act in various respects as alleged
by the General Counsel. The Board subsequently re-
quested that the National Mediation Board (NMB),
which administers the RLA, review the record, including
the judge’s decision, and provide an opinion as to wheth-
er the NMB has jurisdiction over the Respondents. On
August 30, 2019, the NMB issued an advisory opinion
stating its view that the Respondents’ O’Hare operations
are subject to the RLA. Oxford Electronics,
Inc./Worldwide Flight Services, Inc./Total Facility
Maintenance, Inc./Twin Staffing Inc., 46 NMB 71 (2019)
(Oxford Electronics). For the reasons discussed below,
we agree. We therefore dismiss the consolidated com-
plaint.
Background
Section 2(2) and (3) of the Act exclude “person[s] sub-
ject to the Railway Labor Act” and their employees from
the Board’s jurisdiction. Persons subject to the RLA, in
turn, include, in relevant part, “every common carrier by
air engaged in interstate or foreign commerce,” and “any
company which is directly or indirectly owned or con-
trolled by or under common control with any carrier . . .
and which operates any equipment or facilities or per-
forms any service (other than trucking service) in con-
nection with” air transportation. 45 U.S.C. §§ 151 First
and 181; see also ABM Onsite Services-West, Inc. v.
NLRB, 849 F.3d 1137, 1139–1140 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
When an employer is not itself a carrier, the NMB ap-
plies a two-part test to determine whether that agency
nonetheless has jurisdiction over the employer. First, the
NMB determines whether the work the employer per-
forms is traditionally performed by carrier employees.
Second, the NMB determines whether the employer is
directly or indirectly owned or controlled by, or under
common control with, a carrier or carriers. Both parts of
the test must be met for the NMB to assert jurisdiction.
See, e.g., Air Serv Corp., 33 NMB 272, 285 (2006). In
determining whether the second part of the test is satis-
fied, the NMB holds that “the . . . carrier must effectively
exercise a significant degree of influence over the com-

2 The General Counsel’s allegations involving the Union Respond-
ent in Case 13–CB–115935 also turn on which law governs the Em-
ployer Respondents’ operations. “Respondents” hereinafter refers to
the Employer Respondents unless otherwise noted.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
pany’s daily operations and its employees’ performance
of services in order to establish RLA jurisdiction.” ABM
Onsite Services-West, 45 NMB 27, 34 (2018). Factors
the NMB has traditionally considered in making this lat-
ter determination include (1) the extent of the carrier’s
control over the manner in which the company conducts
its business, (2) the carrier’s access to the company’s
operations and records, (3) the carrier’s role in the com-
pany’s personnel decisions, (4) the degree of carrier su-
pervision of the company’s employees, (5) whether com-
pany employees are held out to the public as carrier em-
ployees, and (6) the extent of carrier control over em-
ployee training. No one factor is elevated above all oth-
ers. Id. at 34–35.
In determining whether Section 2(2) and (3) of the Act
preclude the Board from exercising jurisdiction over an
employer, the Board gives “substantial deference” to
NMB advisory opinions regarding RLA jurisdiction.
See, e.g., DHL Worldwide Express, 340 NLRB 1034,
1034 (2003). However, there is no statutory requirement
that the Board refer a case to the NMB for an advisory
opinion prior to asserting jurisdiction, and the Board’s
longstanding practice has been to assert jurisdiction
without referral in several circumstances, including
where jurisdictional issues arise in a factual situation
similar to one in which the NMB has previously declined
jurisdiction. See, e.g., Spartan Aviation Industries, 337
NLRB 708, 708 (2002); see also United Parcel Service,
Inc. v. NLRB, 92 F.3d 1221, 1224–1226 (D.C. Cir. 1996)
(discussing Board’s historic referral practices), enfg. 318
NLRB 778 (1995).
Procedural History
The consortium of air carriers that operated O’Hare’s
international terminal at times relevant to this case—
known as CICA TEC3—contracted with noncarrier com-
panies to operate, maintain, and repair mechanical bag-
gage conveyor systems and passenger boarding bridges.
Until June 30, 2013, Charging Party Local 399 repre-
sented a unit of dispatchers, mechanics, helpers, and en-
coders4 employed by ABM Engineering Services (ABM)
under a contract between ABM and CICA TEC. On
June 30, 2013, CICA TEC replaced ABM with Respond-
ent Oxford. Oxford is a wholly owned subsidiary of Re-
spondent Worldwide. Oxford subcontracted the dis-
patcher, mechanic, and helper work to Worldwide and

3 The full name of CICA-TEC was The Chicago International Carri-
ers’ Association Terminal Equipment Corporation. The NMB found
that, on May 12, 2018, CICA TEC expanded and changed its name to
the Chicago Airline Terminal Consortium (CATCo). Oxford Electron-
ics, 46 NMB at 72 fn. 2.
4 Encoders electronically sort and direct baggage through the con-
veyor system.
the encoder work to Respondents Total and Twin.
Worldwide has a long history of bargaining with Union
Respondent Local 504 under the RLA as the representa-
tive of its employees at other airports. Beginning in Oc-
tober 2012, in anticipation of the contract change, Oxford
and Worldwide informed employees of ABM previously
represented by Local 399 that continued employment
after Oxford took over the contract would be contingent
on their joining Local 504 and becoming subject to the
terms of Local 504’s system-wide contract with World-
wide under the RLA. Oxford required Total and Twin to
enter into contracts with Local 504 incorporating the
terms of Local 504’s contract with Worldwide, including
by requiring encoders employed by Total and Twin to
become dues-paying members of Local 504.
On October 29, 2013, Local 399 filed the initial charg-
es in these cases, alleging, in sum, that the Employer and
Union Respondents’ conduct unlawfully interfered with
employees’ rights under Section 7 of the Act to bargain
collectively through Local 399 as their chosen repre-
sentative. Around January 2014, the General Counsel
requested an opinion from the NMB whether the Re-
spondents’ O’Hare operations were subject to the RLA.
During 2013 and 2014, the NMB issued a series of ad-
visory opinions that placed increased emphasis on the
third of its six traditional factors for assessing carrier
control—the extent of the carrier’s control over the em-
ployer’s personnel decisions (particularly discipline and
discharge)—and declined to assert jurisdiction where
such evidence was lacking.5 The Board followed suit, in
keeping with its policy to grant substantial deference to
NMB advisory opinions regarding RLA jurisdiction.
Thus, the Board asserted jurisdiction in cases where the
NMB declined to do so under its revised test. See, e.g.,
Airway Cleaners, LLC, 362 NLRB 760, 760 fn. 2 (2015).
In addition, consistent with its longstanding practice, the
Board asserted jurisdiction, without referral, in cases that
were factually similar to cases in which the NMB had
declined jurisdiction. See, e.g., ABM Onsite Services-
West, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 179, slip op. at 1 (2015), va-
cated and remanded 849 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2017);
Allied Aviation Service Co. of New Jersey, 362 NLRB
1392, 1392 (2015), enfd. 854 F.3d 55 (D.C. Cir. 2017),
cert. denied 138 S. Ct. 458 (2017).
Early in 2015, without having received a jurisdictional
opinion from the NMB in the instant case, the General
Counsel withdrew his request for an opinion and re-

5 See Huntleigh USA Corp., 40 NMB 130 (2013); Aero Port Ser-
vices, Inc., 40 NMB 139 (2013); Bags, Inc., 40 NMB 165 (2014); Air-
way Cleaners, LLC, 41 NMB 262 (2014); Menzies Aviation, Inc., 42
NMB 1 (2014); see generally ABM Onsite Services-West, Inc. v. NLRB,
849 F.3d at 1144–1145 (discussing shift in NMB’s analysis).
OXFORD ELECTRONICS, INC., D/B/A OXFORD AIRPORT TECHNICAL SERVICES 3
sumed processing the charges. Ultimately, the General
Counsel issued a consolidated complaint. The adminis-
trative law judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on the
complaint allegations in January 2017.
On March 7, 2017, while this case was pending before
the administrative law judge, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its
decision in ABM Onsite Services-West, Inc. v. NLRB, in
which it criticized post-2013 NMB and Board decisions
as an unexplained departure from longstanding prece-
dent. 849 F.3d at 1144–1146. On May 31, 2017, the
judge issued her decision in the instant case. The judge’s
decision acknowledged the court’s criticism but never-
theless concluded that the Board had jurisdiction under
then-controlling Board precedent and the NMB’s post-
2013 decisions. The Respondents filed timely exceptions
to the judge’s decision, arguing, inter alia, that their
O’Hare operations were subject to the RLA.
On May 18, 2017, while the Respondents’ exceptions
were pending before the Board, the Board responded to
the court’s remand of ABM Onsite Services, supra, by
requesting that the NMB study the record in that case in
light of the court’s decision and determine the applicabil-
ity of the RLA to the employer’s operations at issue in
that case. On February 23, 2018, the Board similarly
requested that the NMB review the record in this case in
light of the court’s decision in ABM Onsite Services and
provide an opinion as to whether the NMB has jurisdic-
tion over the Respondents’ O’Hare operations. On Feb-
ruary 26, 2018, the NMB issued an advisory opinion in
ABM Onsite Services, reaffirming its traditional six-
factor carrier control test in which “[n]o one factor is
elevated above all others” and overruling cases requiring
carrier control over personnel decisions, including those
relied upon by the administrative law judge in the instant
case. 45 NMB 27, 34–35 & fn. 2 (2018). Consistent
with the Board’s policy of giving substantial deference to
the NMB’s advisory opinions, the Board deferred to the
NMB’s opinion and found that the record in that case
supported the NMB’s assertion of RLA jurisdiction un-
der the traditional six-factor carrier control test. ABM
Onsite Services-West, 367 NLRB No. 35 (2018). Final-
ly, on August 30, 2019, the NMB issued an advisory
opinion in which it applied its traditional six-factor carri-
er control test to the facts here and found that the Re-
spondents’ operations at O’Hare are subject to the RLA.
Oxford Electronics, 46 NMB at 71.
In light of the NMB’s decision to overrule cases the
administrative law judge relied upon in finding Board
jurisdiction, the Board’s supplementary decision revers-
ing course in ABM Onsite Services-West, and the NMB’s
advisory opinion asserting jurisdiction over the Respond-
ents’ O’Hare operations, we find merit in the Respond-
ents’ exceptions to the judge’s finding of NLRA jurisdic-
tion.6
Discussion
Having received the NMB’s advisory opinion, we will
give it the substantial deference the Board ordinarily ac-
cords such opinions. See DHL Worldwide Express, su-
pra. Considering the record in light of the NMB’s opin-
ion, we find that the Respondents’ dispatchers, mechan-
ics, helpers, and encoders at O’Hare perform work that
has traditionally been performed by air carrier employ-
ees, and that, during the relevant time period, CICA TEC
effectively exercised a significant degree of influence
over the Respondents’ daily operations and their em-
ployees’ performance of services at O’Hare, establishing
RLA jurisdiction under the NMB’s traditional six-factor
carrier control test.
Under the first factor of the carrier control test, the
record supports the NMB’s determination that CICA
TEC exercised a significant degree of control over the
manner in which the Respondents conducted their day-
to-day operations. CICA TEC required Oxford to per-
form specific enumerated tasks and such other tasks as
CICA TEC directed on a 24-hour-a-day / 7-day-a-week
basis, and CICA TEC’s contract with Oxford gave CICA
TEC the authority to manage, monitor, and coordinate
Oxford’s performance. CICA TEC imposed certain re-
quirements pertaining to gate procedures, bag room pro-
cedures, and severe weather operations on the Respond-
ents’ employees. CICA TEC representatives met with
Oxford regularly and frequently to discuss areas of con-
cern, request performance of specific work, follow up on
information contained in various work reports, or ask for
updates. CICA TEC also sometimes directed Oxford to
ensure that Worldwide employees performed certain
tasks, or to adjust the staffing levels of Worldwide em-
ployees in specific areas. Moreover, individual airline
members of CICA TEC sometimes directly informed
Oxford or Worldwide of mechanical problems, which
Oxford and Worldwide then directly addressed. Finally,
in accordance with requirements imposed by the City of
Chicago, CICA TEC’s contract required Oxford to en-
sure that certain percentages of the contracted work be
performed by unionized employees, a “minority business
enterprise” (MBE), and a “woman business enterprise”
(WBE). Oxford complied with these requirements by

6 The judge’s additional reliance on the Board’s decision in Allied
Aviation Services Co. of New Jersey, supra, does not support a different
course because the Board there found that NLRA jurisdiction would lie
under either the NMB’s pre- or post-2013 precedent. See Allied Avia-
tion Services Co. of New Jersey v. NLRB, 854 F.3d 55, 63 (D.C. Cir.
2017), enfg. 362 NLRB 1392 (2015).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
subcontracting work to Worldwide (with the understand-
ing that Worldwide’s existing contract with Local 504
would apply to its operations and employees at O’Hare)
and to Total (an MBE) and Twin (a WBE).
There is also substantial record support for the NMB’s
determination that the second carrier control factor
weighs in favor of RLA jurisdiction because CICA TEC
had significant access to the Respondents’ operations and
records. The Respondents provided CICA TEC and in-
dividual airlines with extensive formal and informal op-
erations reports on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis,
and they regularly followed up on inquiries about infor-
mation contained in such reports. In addition, CICA
TEC’s contract with Oxford provided that CICA TEC
owned all documents prepared or used under the con-
tract. CICA TEC also provided office space to Oxford’s
operations manager, Robert Jensen.
Finally, the record supports the NMB’s determination
that the third carrier control factor, CICA TEC’s role in
the Respondents’ personnel decisions, also supports a
finding of RLA jurisdiction.7 The CICA TEC-Oxford
contract authorized CICA TEC to approve Oxford’s se-
lection of a project manager, and CICA TEC exercised
that authority by approving Oxford’s selection of Jensen
for that role. CICA TEC also effectively recommended
that Oxford hire a particular individual as a supervisor,
and it requested and received increased staffing by
Worldwide employees in one work area. The contract
further provided that all employees would be paid not
less often than monthly, and it reserved to CICA TEC the
right to remove any personnel from performance of ser-
vices under the contract upon material reason given in
writing. On one occasion, CICA TEC provided Oxford
with a surveillance tape that resulted in discipline of an
encoder.
Moreover, the NMB’s opinion in this case as to RLA
jurisdiction over Worldwide’s operations and employees
at O’Hare is consistent with prior NMB determinations
involving RLA jurisdiction over Worldwide’s operations
and employees at other locations.8
In sum, the record supports the NMB’s finding that ev-
idence bearing on three of the six traditional carrier con-
trol factors establishes that the Respondents are con-

7 The remaining factors—the degree of carrier supervision of the
Respondents’ employees, how those employees were held out to the
public, and carrier control over employee training—do not support
RLA jurisdiction. The NMB has previously asserted jurisdiction on the
basis of the first three traditional factors where evidence was similarly
lacking as to the last three. Air Serv Corp., 33 NMB 276, 281, 283,
285–288 (2006).
8 See Worldwide Flight Servs., Inc., 31 NMB 386 (2004); World-
wide Flight Servs., Inc., 27 NMB 96 (1999); Worldwide Flight Servs.,
Inc., 27 NMB 93 (1999).
trolled by the carriers, and this finding is consistent with
prior NMB precedent. Therefore, we agree with the
NMB’s determination that the carriers exercise sufficient
control over the Respondents’ O’Hare operations to es-
tablish RLA jurisdiction. Accordingly, we find that Sec-
tion 2(2) and (3) of the Act preclude us from exercising
jurisdiction in this matter, and we shall dismiss the com-
plaint.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the consolidated complaint in Cases
13–CA–115933 and 13–CB–115935 is dismissed.
Dated, Washington, D.C. January 6, 2020
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
________________________________________
William J. Emanuel Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
J. Edward Castillo, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Martin P. Barr, Esq. (Camell, Charone, Widmer, Moss & Barr,
LTD), for Charging Party.
Roger H. Briton, Esq. (Jackson Lewis, LLP) and Kathryn J.
Barry, Esq. (Jackson Lewis, LLP), for the Respondents Ox-
ford Electronics, Inc. and Worldwide Flight Services, Inc.
Michael Lied, Esq. (Howard & Howard PLLC) for Total Facili-
ty Maintenance, Inc. and Twin Staffing, Inc. Richard
Boehm, International Representative for Respondent Trans-
portation Workers Union of America—Local 504, AFL–
CIO
DECISION AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
INTRODUCTION
KIMBERLY R. SORG-GRAVES, Administrative Law Judge.
The primary issue in this case is whether the work performed
by these joint employers at Terminal 5 of the O’Hare Interna-
tional Airport in Chicago, Illinois, falls within the jurisdiction
of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) or the Railway
Labor Act (RLA). The unit employees at issue, who operate
and maintain the baggage conveyor and sorting system and
maintain the jet way systems for Terminal 5, have been repre-
sented by the Charging Party under the NLRA. The Respond-
ents contend that because Respondent Worldwide Flight Ser-
vice, Inc. has a bargaining history with the Respondent Union
pursuant to the RLA for its performance of similar work pursu-
ant to other contracts at other airports, and because of the con-
OXFORD ELECTRONICS, INC., D/B/A OXFORD AIRPORT TECHNICAL SERVICES 5
trol that the contracting consortium of airlines in this case has
over the Respondent Employers, the Respondent Union is the
appropriate bargaining representative of the employees. As
discussed below, I find that, contrary to the Respondent Em-
ployers’ and the Respondent Union’s assertions, the employ-
ment relationships at issue in the instant case are within the
jurisdiction of the NLRA. Accordingly, as discussed more
fully below, Respondent Employer’s recognition of Respondent
Union, and Respondent Union’s acceptance of that recognition,
and the unilateral changes that occurred as a result violate the
NLRA.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 29, 2013, International Union of Operating En-
gineers Local 399, AFL–CIO (Charging Party or IUOE Local
399) filed an unfair labor practice charge, docketed by Region
13 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as Case 13–
CA–115933.1 The charge and its subsequent amendments filed
on August 27, November 18, and December 17, 2015, allege
that Oxford Electronics, Inc., d/b/a Oxford Airport Technical
Services (Oxford) and Worldwide Flight Services, Inc.
(Worldwide), Total Facility Maintenance, Inc. (Total), and
Twin Staffing, Inc. (Twin), collectively referred to herein as
Respondent Employers, as joint employers, violated the NLRA.
On October 29, 2013, IUOE Local 399 also filed an unfair la-
bor practice charge against Transportation Workers Union of
America—Local 504, AFL–CIO (Respondent Union or TWU
Local 504), docketed by Region 13 of the Board as Case 13–
CB–115935, alleging violations of the NLRA, which was sub-
sequently amended on March 18, 2016.2 (GC Exh. 1(a)-1(l).)
On January 14, 2014, the NLRB referred Case 13–CA–
115933 to the National Mediation Board (NMB) for an adviso-
ry opinion as to whether the employment relationship at issue
falls within the jurisdiction of the RLA. (R. Exh. 2.) Prior to
receiving an advisory opinion from the NMB, on May 28,
2015, the NLRB withdrew its request for an opinion and re-
sumed processing the charges, and the subsequent amendments.
(R. Exh. 3.)
Based on an investigation into these charges, on July 25,
2015, the Board’s General Counsel, by the Regional Director
for Region 13 of the Board, issued a consolidated complaint
and notice of hearing, which was subsequently amended on
December 28, 2016, alleging that Respondent Employers: inter-
fered with, restrained and coerced employees exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the NLRA; rendered unlawful
assistance to TWU Local 504; discriminated in regard to hiring
or tenure or terms or conditions of employment of its employ-
ees by encouraging membership in a labor organization; unlaw-
fully unilaterally changed employees’ terms and conditions of
employment; and failed and refused to bargain with the exclu-
sive-bargaining representative of their employees, in violation

1 All dates are in 2013, unless otherwise indicated.
2 On March 4, IOUE Local 399 had filed similar charges in Cases
13–CA–099518 and 13–CB–099519 that were subsequently dismissed
by Region 13 as being untimely filed because Respondent Employers
did not become the employers of the unit of employees at issue until
July 1. (GC Exh. 5 and 6; R. Exhs. 7 and 8.)
of Section 8(a)(5), (3), (2) and (1) of the NLRA.3 The consoli-
dated complaint, as amended, also alleges that TWU Local 504
restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the NLRA, and attempted to cause
and caused an employer to discriminate against its employees
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the NLRA, in violation of
Section 8(b)(3) and (2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the NLRA. (GC Exh.
1m and 1u.)
On April 12, 2016, Respondent Union filed an answer deny-
ing all alleged violations of the NLRA. (GC Exh. 1n.) Re-
spondents Total and Twin filed an answer on April 14, 2016,
and an amended answer on January 10, 2017, denying the
NLRB has jurisdiction in this matter and denying all alleged
violations of the NLRA. (GC Exh. 1p and 1w.) Respondents
Oxford and Worldwide filed an answer on April 14, 2016, and
an amended answer on January 17, 2017, denying the NLRB
has jurisdiction in this matter and denying all alleged violations
of the NLRA. (GC Exh. 1o and 1y.)
I heard this matter on January 17–19, 2017, in Chicago, Illi-
nois, where I afforded all parties a full opportunity to appear,
introduce evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
argue orally on the record. General Counsel, IUOE Local 399,
Respondents Oxford and Worldwide, and Respondents Total
and Twin filed post-trial briefs on March 16, 2017, in support
of their positions. Respondent IUOE Local 504 did not file a
post-trial brief.
On the entire record, including my observations of the de-
meanor of the witnesses,4 and after considering arguments
made at the trial and in posthearing briefs, I make the following
findings, conclusions of law, and recommended remedy and
order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
Oxford admitted, and I find, that at all material times Oxford,
a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Re-
spondent Worldwide, with an office and place of business in
Elmont, New York, has been engaged in the service and repair
of ground support equipment and baggage systems at various
locations including at Chicago O’Hare International Airport in
Illinois. Oxford further admitted, and I find, that within a 12-
month period, it has provided services valued in excess of
$50,000 to customers outside of the State of Illinois. (GC Exh.
1m.)
Worldwide admitted, and I find, that at all material times, it

3 I granted General Counsel’s oral request during the hearing to
amend par. 13 of the consolidated complaint to add a specific allegation
that Twin and Total, by their supervisors or agents, “gave assistance
and support to Respondent-Union by conditioning employment on
employees’ signing membership cards and dues check-off authoriza-
tions for Respondent-Union.” (Tr. 367–368, 408–411.) This amend-
ment was based upon employee testimony that supervisors or agents of
Total and Twin told them that they must sign Local 504 membership
cards and dues check-off authorizations as a condition of employment.
(Tr. 216–219.) Total and Twin denied the allegation. (Tr. 411.)
4 I found all of the witnesses to be credible as there was little dis-
crepancy amongst their testimony and nothing in their demeanor caused
me to believe otherwise.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
has been a Texas corporation with an office and place of busi-
ness in Irving, Texas, engaged in the operation and mainte-
nance of baggage handling systems at various locations includ-
ing at Chicago O’Hare International Airport in Illinois.
Worldwide further admitted, and I find, that in conducting these
services, it has provided within a 12-month period, services
valued in excess of $50,000 in states outside of the State of
Illinois. (GC Exh. 1m.)
Total admitted, and I find, that all material times, it has been
an Illinois corporation with an office and place of business in
Wood Dale, Illinois, engaged in the business of providing staff-
ing services to various entities at various locations including at
Chicago O’Hare International Airport in Illinois. Total further
admitted, and I find, that in conducting these business opera-
tions it provided within a 12-month period, services valued in
excess of $50,000 for Oxford, an enterprise directly engaged in
interstate commerce. (GC Exh. 1w.)
Twin admitted, and I find, that at all material times, it has
been an Illinois corporation with an office and place of business
in Westchester, Illinois, engaged in the business of providing
staffing services to various entities at various locations includ-
ing at Chicago O’Hare International Airport in Illinois. Twin,
further admitted, and I find that in conducting these business
operations it provided within a 12-month period, services val-
ued in excess of $50,000 for Oxford, an enterprise directly
engaged in interstate commerce. (GC Exh. 1w.)
Respondent Employers contend that the work they perform
at the Chicago O’Hare International Airport in Illinois is sub-
ject to the jurisdiction of the RLA, while General Counsel and
Charging Party IOUE Local 399 contend the work is subject to
the NLRA. The issue of whether Respondent Employers are
subject to the jurisdiction of the NLRA is a preliminary ques-
tion to consider and decide prior to a determination of whether
Respondent Employers committed any of the unfair labor prac-
tices alleged in the complaint. Because many of the factual
findings relevant to the jurisdictional issue are also relevant to
other issues that arise in this case, and because I find that Re-
spondent Employers are within the jurisdiction of the NLRA, I
have set forth my factual findings below before discussing the
preliminary question of jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed
below, I find that Respondent Employers are engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
NLRA.
As I explain in more detail below, I find that Respondents
Oxford and Worldwide jointly employee the dispatcher, me-
chanic, helper, and working foreman employees, that Respond-
ents Oxford and Total jointly employ certain encoders and that
Oxford and Twin jointly employ the other encoders. All of
these employees are members of one appropriate bargaining
unit described below.
Although Respondent Employers deny that IOUE Local 399
and TWU Local 504 are statutory labor organizations, the evi-
dence of record clearly indicates that they are organizations that
exist to deal with employers regarding employee wages, rates
of pay, and conditions of work. (Tr. 37–38, 579–581; Jt. Exh. 1;
GC Exh. 2.) Thus, I find that IOUE Local 399 and TWU Local
504 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the NLRA.
FACTS
1. Background
In about 1993, the City of Chicago constructed Terminal 5
(T-5) to service the international flights to and from the O’Hare
Airport. The City of Chicago required airlines seeking to oper-
ate out of T-5 to form a corporation to provide the necessary
equipment and to operate various aspects of the terminal, in-
cluding the work at issue in this matter. The consortium of
airlines formed CICA Terminal Equipment Corporation (CICA
TEC). (R. Exh. 28.) CICA TEC’s board of directors is com-
prised of representatives from each of the airlines. Various
positions for CICA TEC are elected from amongst the board
members, including the management committee which appoints
an executive director to carry out the oversight of CICA TEC’s
operations at T-5. (Tr. 513; R. Exh. 28, p. 45.) The City of
Chicago enforces various requirements of CICA TEC, includ-
ing requiring that certain percentages of the work be performed
by unionized employees, a minority business enterprise (MBE)
and, a woman business enterprise (WBE). (R. Exh. 28.)
Since 1993, CICA TEC has subcontracted to various em-
ployers the work performed by the unit of employees at issue.
The unit employees operate, maintain, and repair T-5’s baggage
conveyor and sorting system, jet ways,5 and electrical, water
and pre-conditioned air systems that are associated with each
jet way. The unit consists of mechanics, helpers, encoders, and
dispatchers.6 From 1993 until June 30, 2013, the unit employ-
ees were represented by IUOE Local 399 pursuant to the
NLRA.7 (Tr. 39.)
From about 1996 until June 30, 2013, ABM Engineering
Services, Inc., formerly known as Linc Facility Services and by
other names, contracted with CICA TEC to perform this work,
and employed the unit employees. ABM entered into succes-
sive collective-bargaining agreements with IUOE Local 399
covering the unit employees, the most recent of which was
effective from October 1, 2011, through September 30, 2014

5 Jet ways are the ramp systems by which passengers traverse from
the terminal to the planes.
6 ABM had employed a working foreman, but that position has not
been filled since Respondent Employers took over on July 1.
7 The collective-bargaining agreement between ABM and IUOE
Local 399 defined the unit as:
all employees engaged in the following operations: maintaining and
monitoring all conveyors and associated components of the baggage
handling system, operating or assisting in operating all heating, venti-
lating, and air-conditioning equipment (HVAC), engines, turbines,
motors, combustion engines, pumps, air compressors, ice and refriger-
ating machines, fans, siphons, also automatic and power-oiling pumps
and engines, operating or assisting in operating, maintaining all in-
strumentation and appurtenances utilizing energy form nuclear fission
or fusion and its products; such as radioactive isotopes.
The agreement further defines the covered employees as encoders, lead
encoders, dispatchers, lead dispatchers, helpers, mechanics, senior
mechanics, lead mechanics, and working foreman. (GC Exh. 2, Sec. 2
and 6.) Throughout this decision, I refer only to the categories of dis-
patchers, helpers, mechanics and encoder as inclusive of all the job
positions. I have not addressed the working foreman position because
it has not been filled by Respondent Employers.
OXFORD ELECTRONICS, INC., D/B/A OXFORD AIRPORT TECHNICAL SERVICES 7
(IUOE contract). (Tr. 39–41; GC Exh. 2.) The employees re-
ceived the terms and conditions of this agreement until June 30,
2013. (Tr. 39.) In 2009, the City of Chicago required CICA
TEC to contract with an MBE for a certain percentage of the T-
5 workers. Therefore, ABM subcontracted the encoder work to
Total, a MBE. (Tr. 81–82, 191, 324.) Total recognized IUOE
Local 399 as the bargaining representative of the employees
and applied the terms and conditions of the IUOE contract to
the encoders working at T-5. (Tr. 180, 325.)
Many of the unit employees are long-term employees and the
work they have performed has remained virtually unchanged,
despite changes in their employers. The mechanics, who are
assisted by helpers, perform preventative maintenance and
repairs on the baggage conveyor and electronic sorting system,
which processes between 4 and 5 million bags per year. (R.
Exh. 9, p. 2.) The baggage conveyor system goes from the
airline check-in counters, where airline employees place the
baggage on the conveyor system, through the large bag room
located below the terminal. The electronic sorting system di-
rects the baggage down the proper conveyor line to arrive at the
appropriate pier for airline personnel to retrieve and load the
baggage on aircrafts. The system also processes luggage from
incoming and connecting flights. Along with servicing the
conveyor and sorting system, the mechanics clear baggage jams
that occur in the system.
The mechanics also perform preventative maintenance and
repairs on the jet ways including the hydraulic systems that
allow the jet ways to be positioned and the electric supply and
lighting within the jet ways. Attached to each jet way is an air-
handling system and an electrical power system that are at-
tached to aircraft while they are parked at the jet ways. Simi-
larly, associated with each jet way is a “water cabinet” that
provides fresh water to the aircraft through tubing attached to
the aircraft while it is parked at the jet way. The mechanics
perform maintenance and repair work on these systems when
they are not attached to the aircraft.
The mechanics provide their own hand tools and use other
tools, including power tools, which are provided by CICA
TEC. The various employers have been required to provide a
truck for the mechanics to use on the tarmac when servicing the
jet ways. (Tr. 274, 284.)
The helper’s clear baggage jams and assist mechanics in per-
forming their work described herein. (Tr. 511.)
The encoders type codes into the baggage sorting system to
direct baggage through the conveyor system, if the automatic
sorting system is not able to read the barcode tag that is placed
on the luggage at check-in. Encoders may fix tags that come
loose from bags and are also required to perform cleaning du-
ties within the bag room and at the piers. (Tr. 185–189, 212,
314–315.) Mechanics, helpers, and dispatchers are assigned to
perform encoder work when there is a high amount of baggage
being processed. (Tr. 206.)
Dispatchers work in the control room which is a separate
room within the bag room. Dispatchers monitor the electronic
baggage sorting system through surveillance systems. If a jam
or breakdown occurs in the conveyor/sorting system, the dis-
patcher dispatches a mechanic or helper to correct the situation.
The dispatcher also takes calls from airlines reporting malfunc-
tions with the jet ways or their associated air, water, and elec-
trical supply systems and dispatches a mechanic to address the
issue. (Tr. 512.) Once a mechanic or helper addresses the issue,
he or she reports back to the dispatcher who records the details
of each dispatch. (Tr. 531, 535.) Airlines establish to which
pier their luggage should be directed and enter this into the
automatic sorting system. The dispatcher prepares a form
showing the pier assignments for their supervisor, Oxfords’
operations manager Robert Jensen to use. The dispatchers
assist in preparing other reports required by the Maintenance
Agreement. (Tr. 532–533.)
2. Oxford is Awarded the Contract by CICA TEC
In 2012, Oxford was awarded the contract by CICA TEC
(Maintenance Agreement) to perform the unit work at T-5. (R.
Exhs. 10, 11, 12, 13; GC Exh. 12.) The pertinent portions of
the Maintenance Agreement between CICA TEC and Oxford,
in which – Oxford is referred to as the Contractor, are as fol-
lows:
3.02 Role of the CICA TEC Executive Director
….The Executive Director will be CICA TEC’s representa-
tive during the performance of these Services and will have
the authority to manage, monitor and coordinate the perfor-
mance of Contractor.
Neither CICA TEC nor the Executive Director is a general
contractor, and unless expressly provided for in this Agree-
ment, does not have the obligations of a general contractor….
3.03 Standard of Performance
Contractor will perform… this Agreement with that degree of
skill, care, and diligence normally exercised by contractors
performing similar types of services in projects of a compara-
ble scope and magnitude….
….Contractor will farther perform all Services according to
those rules and regulations for services at the Airport, as ap-
plicable, and as promulgated by CICA TEC, its Executive Di-
rector, DOA, FAA, and any other interested Federal, State, or
local governmental unit.
In the event the Contractor fails to comply with the above-
referenced standards, the Contractor will perform again, or
cause to be performed again, at its own expense, any and all
Services which are required to be re-performed as a direct or
indirect result of such failure.
Contractor will require its Subcontractors of any tier to per-
form all Services required of them in accordance with these
standards….
3.04 Scope of Services
Contractor will perform, or cause to be performed, the Ser-
vices identified in Exhibit A attached hereto.
Exhibit A
Scope of Services
The Contactor will be responsible for operating and maintain-
ing the “CICA TEC
Equipment”, including, but not limited to, the following: in-
bound baggage systems, outbound baggage sortation system,
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
passenger loading bridges, aircraft ground power system
(400Hz), potable water system, aircraft parking system, pre-
conditioned air system and the triturator facility. In perform-
ing these services:
(Many of the provisions in this section list the work per-
formed by the unit employees discussed above and have been
omitted here.)
4. Contractor will perform daily inspections on all equip-
ment…or at the direction of the Executive Director.
5. Contractor will perform its services on a 24 hours a day, 7
days a week schedule.
6. Contractor will, upon request of the Executive Director,
provide staffing plans for the review and approval of the Ex-
ecutive Director.
8. Contractor will provide to the Executive Director monthly
reports of services performed….
9. Contractor shall develop and implement a spare parts in-
ventory control program…..
10. Contractor shall develop and implement an operations a
maintenance safety plan. This plan shall be subject to review
and approval of the Executive Director.
14. Contractor will remove snow from inbound and outbound
roadways leading to and from the T-5 bag room as required.
15. Contractor will perform other tasks as directed by the Ex-
ecutive Director, or designee, during scheduled work hours as
long as these task do not interfere with scheduled services.
3.05 Key Personnel: Performance of Personnel
Contractor at all times will be an independent contractor with
full and complete responsibility for all of its employees and
representatives hereinafter collectively referred to the “Per-
sonnel”. All such Personnel providing services to CICA TEC
will at all times be employees of the Contractor and not of
CICA TEC. CICA TEC reserves the right to direct the Execu-
tive Director to remove any personnel from the performance
of Services from any position upon material reason therefore
given in writing.
Contractor will . . . assign and maintained during the time of
this Agreement an adequate staff of competent personnel who
are fully equipped and qualified to perform the Services. . . .
contractor will not replace “Key Personnel” as specified in
Exhibit B without the prior written consent of CICA TEC,
which consent will not be unreasonably withheld. (Note: Ex-
hibit B does not refer to key personnel, but Exhibit D does list
“Key Personnel” as Facility Manager, Assistant Facility Man-
ager, and Supervisors.)
3.07 Salaries and Payment
Salaries of all employees of the Contractor performing Ser-
vices will be paid unconditionally and not less often than once
a month ….
3.08 Non-Discrimination
(The provisions in this section require the contractor, and any
of its subcontractors and labor organizations that furnish labor
to perform this contracted work, to comply with federal, state,
and municipal anti-discrimination/human rights laws, regula-
tions, and ordinances.)
3.09 Records, Audits and Confidentiality
All documents, data, studies and reports and instruments of
service, prepared or used pursuant to this Agreement are the
properties of CICA TEC….
5.01 Time of Commencement
….It is the sole responsibility of the Contractor to attend job
meetings, keep itself aware of any revisions to flight sched-
ules, and conform to any such revisions….
6.02 Payment Applications for Basic Services and Reimburs-
able Costs
(Contractor is required to submit payment requests listing
work performed the prior month, but the Contractor is paid a
monthly lump sum based upon the yearly contracted amount
for the services regardless of the volume of work performed.)
8.03 Termination for Convenience
….CICA TEC may terminate this Agreement, or all or any
portion of the Services to be performed, upon sixty (60) days
prior notice….
(See, GC Exh. 12 for the full text of the Maintenance Agree-
ment.)
To meet the contractual requirements for a unionized work
force, Oxford informed CICA TEC that it planned to subcon-
tract the dispatcher and mechanic work to its parent company
Worldwide. (Tr. 291–292; RO Exh. 10; GC Exh. 12, Sec.
3.08(E), p. 9.) Worldwide maintains a collective-bargaining
agreement with TWU Local 504 (TWU contract) under the
RLA and has a history of performing work at other airports
with employees represented under the TWU contract.8 (Tr.
414–415; Jt. Exh. 1; R. Exh. 12, p. 11, 17.) Ox-
ford/Worldwide9 arranged with Total to continue employing a
portion of the encoder workers as a MBE and arranged with
Twin, a WBE, to employ the remainder of the encoders. (Tr.
328, 333, 349; R. Exh. 12.) It is undisputed that Respondent
Oxford required Respondents Total and Twin to apply the
TWU contract terms to the encoders they employed and that
they complied with this requirement. (Tr. 330–333, 357–358.)
Through the bidding process, CICA TEC representatives en-
couraged but did not require Oxford/Worldwide to retain
ABM’s employees as presumably they were considered to be
an experienced and dependable work force. (Tr. 460.) CICA
TEC’s executive manager Jack Ranttila (Ranttila) also highly
recommended but did not require Oxford/Worldwide to hire

8 Respondent Oxford/Worldwide submitted evidence that it per-
forms work at numerous airports throughout the United States subject
to the RLA. As discussed more fully below, the NMB’s standard for
determining if the RLA has jurisdiction over a disputed unit of employ-
ees, which the NLRB has adopted, does not take into consideration the
control exercised by carriers at other facilities pursuant to different
contract provisions. Thus, Oxford/Worldwide’s history of work at
other airports, although considered, is not relevant to the determination
of whether RLA jurisdiction is appropriate in this case.
9 Oxford and Worldwide stipulated that they are joint employers of
the unit employees, and are referred to herein as Oxford/Worldwide in
their joint employer status. (Jt. Exh. 4.)
OXFORD ELECTRONICS, INC., D/B/A OXFORD AIRPORT TECHNICAL SERVICES 9
ABM’s working foreman George Farmer, (Farmer). (Tr. 460.)
Farmer was hired by Oxford as a supervisor over the work at T-
5. (Jt. Exh 4.) CICA TEC also required Oxford/Worldwide to
submit the resume of Robert Jensen (Jensen), Oxford’s selec-
tion for the operations/facility manager position. Ox-
ford/Worldwide complied with this request and CICA TEC
raised no objection to Jensen assuming that position. (Tr. 458–
460; R. Exh. 14; GC Exh. 12, Sec. 3.05.)
In October 2010, Oxford’s vice president Jay Rossi (Rossi),
Worldwide’s vice president of labor relations Dave Cunning-
ham (Cunningham), and Jensen held a meeting with the me-
chanic employees. (Tr. 56, 122, 502–503.) The mechanics
were given prior notice of the meeting and informed IUOE
Local 399 Business Representative McGinty, who did not re-
ceive any notice from Oxford/Worldwide, of the meeting. (Tr.
83–84.) At the meeting, Rossi and Cunningham informed the
employees that Oxford had won the bid and had subcontracted
the work to Worldwide, and it expressed their interest in hiring
the mechanics. They also told them that Worldwide’s employ-
ees are represented by TWU Local 399. They explained that to
be hired, the employees were required to complete employment
applications, pass physicals and drug screenings, and complete
TWU Local 504’s membership and dues deduction authoriza-
tion form. (Tr. 502.) Oxford/Worldwide had available copies
of the TWU contract, an Assignment and Authorization for
Checkoff and Union Dues form for TWU Local 504, health
benefit premium information, and Worldwide applications. (Tr.
503–504.)
On October 15, 2012, McGinty called Cunningham and re-
quested to bargain with Oxford/Worldwide as the employees’
bargaining representative. Cunningham responded that Ox-
ford/Worldwide had a nationwide contract with TWU Local
504, and that they fell under the jurisdiction of the RLA. (Tr.
56–58.) Later that same day, Cunningham confirmed this posi-
tion in an email to McGinty. (GC Exh. 4.) McGinty did not
respond to this email but subsequently filed charges in this
case.
Initially, Oxford/Worldwide was scheduled to take over the
work on January 1, but due to influence of the City of Chicago
over the concerns that the employees were losing IUOE Local
399 as their bargaining representative, the takeover was delayed
until July 1. (Tr. 454.) Between October 2012, and the takeo-
ver in July, Oxford/Worldwide representatives met with the
unit employees to encourage the dispatchers, mechanics, and
helpers to apply for positions with Oxford/Worldwide. It is
undisputed that during these meetings, Oxford/Worldwide rep-
resentatives told the employees that their terms and conditions
of employment would be subject to the terms of the TWU con-
tract after the takeover. (Tr. 127–129; Jt. Exh. 4.)
Ultimately, of the former ABM employees, 5 dispatchers, 3
helpers, and 5 mechanics completed the application process.
All 13 of them were hired. (Jt. Exh. 2.) Of the former ABM
employees, 6 employees did not apply or withdrew from the
application process. (Jt. Exh. 3.) Oxford/Worldwide hired 1
additional dispatcher and 7 new mechanics. Based upon job
positions covered under the TWU contract, Oxford/Worldwide
referred to these job positions as baggage system operators,
field services technicians, and technical specialists. (Jt. Exh. 2.)
Oxford/Worldwide stipulated and the evidence reflects that
Oxford/Worldwide applied the terms of the TWU contract to
these employees, required the employees to sign TWU Local
504’s Assignment and Authorization for Checkoff of Union
Dues as a condition of employment, and deducted and remitted
dues from their paychecks to TWU Local 504. (Tr. 127–128,
269–270; Jt. Exhs. 1 and 4; RO Exh. 6; GC Exhs. 7 and 10.)
The encoders learned of the change from ABM to Oxford by
a notice posted in the control room. (Tr. 195.) Immediately
after Oxford/Worldwide took over, all 14 of the encoder’s re-
mained employed by Total, pursuant to its contract with Ox-
ford, without being subject to an application process. (Tr. 196.)
In about early August, Twin’s president Taunesha Carpenter
(Carpenter) and Total’s supervisor Ms. Coakley10 spoke to lead
encoder Dessie Martin at her workstation. (Tr. 196–197.) Car-
penter and Coakley explained that because the Maintenance
Agreement required that a certain percentage of the encoders be
employed by a WBE, half of the encoders needed to switch
their employment from Total to Twin. Martin suggested that
they divide the employees by which lead encoder they were
assigned. Martin was the lead for the eight encoders that
worked the first and second shifts and employee Christine
Sobiees was the lead for the six encoders that worked the third
and fourth shifts. (Tr. 197–198.) Shortly thereafter, Rossi
called Carpenter and assigned the six encoders working the
third and fourth shifts to Twin. (Tr. 360.)
Rossi informed Total’s president Daniels and Twin’s presi-
dent Carpenter that they must apply the TWU contract to the
encoder employees, and Total and Twin entered into agree-
ments binding themselves to the terms of the TWU contract
without negotiating with TWU Local 504. (Tr. 329, 355; GC
Exhs. 15 and 16.) Total and Twin applied the terms of the
TWU contract to the encoders, required the encoders to sign
TWU Local 504’s Assignment and Authorization for Checkoff
of Union Dues form as a condition of employment, and deduct-
ed and remitted dues from their paychecks to TWU Local 504
from January 1, 2014, through November 15, 2015, when TWU
withdrew its recognition of the encoders without stating a rea-
son for the withdrawal. (Tr. 216–218, 331–333, 357–358; Jt.
Exh. 4.) Despite TWU withdrawing recognition of the encod-
ers, Total and Twin continued to apply the wages, benefits, and
other terms and conditions of the TWU contract to the encod-
ers. (Tr. 335, 358.)
3. Changes in the unit employees terms and conditions of work
after July 1
The parties stipulated, and I find, that prior to July 1, ABM
and its subcontractor Total had applied the terms and conditions
of employment in the IOUE contract to the unit employees. (Tr.
41–43; 180–181.) The parties also stipulated, and I find, that
since July 1, Respondent Employers have applied the terms and
conditions of employment in the TWU contract to the unit em-
ployees. (Tr. 180–181; Jt. Exh. 4.) These stipulations are re-
peatedly supported by testimony of the employees and Re-

10 The record refers to a Tracy Ann Coakley, a Faye Ann Coakley,
and a Charlene Coakley. Although the record is unclear as to whether
these references are to more than one person, each reference refers to a
Ms. Coakley who has supervisory authority for Total. (Tr. 298.)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
spondent Employers’ representatives. Based on the terms of
the IUOE contract and the TWU contract, I find that there were
changes to the unit employees’ wages, overtime wages, me-
chanics’ job classifications, seniority, 401(k) benefits, health
insurance benefits, pension benefits, vacation and sick leave,
holidays and personal days, payments to IUOE Local 399 em-
ployee training fund, and the weekly pay schedule. (GC Exh. 2;
Jt. Exh. 1.)
Employees also testified that Respondent Employers
changed the shift structures. (Tr. 133–134, 192–193.) Although
the shift schedule implemented by Respondent Employers was
different than many of the employees enjoyed prior to July 1,
the new shift schedule complies with Section 8 of the IOUE
contract that addresses shift schedules. (GC Exh. 2.) Therefore,
I find insufficient evidence of a change in the employees’ terms
and conditions of work with regards to the shift times that they
were scheduled to work.
General Counsel also asserts that Respondent Employers im-
plemented a policy of patching and not replacing worn or torn
uniforms. Employee Pernell Miller testified that ABM’s policy
had been to replace worn or torn uniforms, but Respondent
Employers’ policy is to patch and not replace the uniforms. (Tr.
148.) Employee Sheraney Ford testified that in her experience
it has always been the policy to repair uniforms if possible and
replace if necessary. (Tr. 277–278.) Their testimony on this
issue was very brief and neither of them testified that any man-
agement official made a statement or issued a notice about the
policy. I have no reason to doubt their credibility as to what
has occurred when they separately raised uniform repair con-
cerns. Based upon these different experiences, I am unable to
definitively discern what the policy has been before or after the
takeover. Therefore, I do not find sufficient evidence of a
change in the policy concerning patching or replacing uniforms
after Respondent Employers took over.
4. Control Over the Unit Employees’ Terms and Conditions of
Employment
After Oxford/Worldwide implemented the Maintenance
Agreement on July 1, the unit employees’ day-to-day work
duties discussed above did not change in any significant way.
They continued to perform the same work in the same location
with the same equipment which is provided by CICA TEC,
with the exception of the employees’ personal tools and the
work truck provided by Oxford. (Tr. 133, 547.)
The Maintenance Agreement does not provide for direct su-
pervision of the unit employees but requires all employees to
comply with the T-5 rules and allows CICA TEC to remove an
employee from the performance of the work covered by the
contract. (GC Exh. 12.) The T-5 rules derive from the safety
and other legal concerns raised by operating an international
airport terminal much of which does not apply to the duties of
the unit employees. (R. Exh. 15.) Ranttila was CICA TEC’s
executive director until January 2016 and was charged with
overseeing the various other functions necessary to operate T-5
in addition to the work performed by Respondent Employers.
(Tr. 513.) Since January 2016, CICA TEC has contracted with
a group called AvirPro to perform the executive director’s du-
ties, including Director Chris DiFario, Operations Manager Joe
Shirley (Shirley), a finance manager and two duty managers.
(Tr. 523–515.) Shirley has taken over Ranttila’s functions with
regard to overseeing the work performed by Respondent Em-
ployers. (Tr. 168–169; 517.) Ranttila and now Shirley have
frequented the bag room and have raised maintenance or other
issues that they have notice with Jensen as frequently as every
2–3 days. (Tr. 168–169.) Jensen investigates the situation and
decides if, how, and when to address the issue. Then Jensen
assigns the work and oversees its performance. (Tr. 554–555.)
Employee Pernell Miller testified that Ranttila raised
maintenance issues directly to him about once per month. Mil-
ler’s practice was to seek direction from Farmer or Jensen when
this occurred which is consistent with Jensen’s testimony that
he investigates complaints and determines how to handle them.
(Tr. 168, 554–555.) Employee Dessie Martin testified that
Ranttila spoke to her directly about baggage pile-ups a couple
of times in the 20 years she worked there. When this occurred
she tried to correct the issue without seeking direction from her
supervisor. (Tr. 71.) Shirley seldom speaks directly to the unit
employees but does raise issues about Respondent Employers’
performance with Jensen. (Tr. 517.) Shirley raised the issue of
Respondent Employers’ lack of supervisor presence on the
weekend causing Jensen to adjust the employees’ schedules to
have a lead employee present on the weekends. Shirley also
requested that Jensen schedule the mechanics to work on the
new jet way system that was installed so they can become more
familiar with it. (Tr. 517–518.) From the change in tone of
Jensen’s voice when he testified about these two requests from
Shirley, it was clear that Jensen was not used to such interfer-
ence with his autonomy but had complied to please his custom-
er. Id.
The Maintenance Agreement allows Ranttila or Shirley to
request that Respondent Employers do additional tasks when
time allows. Jensen testified that he would determine when
those tasks could be performed. Occasionally that did not oc-
cur until weeks later. (Tr. 557–558.) The AvirPro’s two duty
managers apparently monitor the flow of luggage through the
bag room and report to the carriers any concerns, but have little
or no direct communication with Respondent Employers’ em-
ployees. (Tr. 515–516.)
Respondent Employers have discharged only one employee.
The employee lost badge privileges at the terminal due to enter-
ing a restricted area for which he did not have access privileges,
and therefore, was no longer eligible to work at the airport. (Tr.
303.) Twin hired the replacement encoder and referred the
individual to T-5 to work without input from the other Re-
spondent Employers or CICA TEC. (Tr. 363.)
On one occasion, Ranttila brought to Jensen’s attention a
surveillance tape showing an encoder that appeared to be fail-
ing to adequately perform her job. (Tr. 296.) The record does
not reflect that Ranttila required that the encoder be disciplined
or recommended any particular discipline. Jensen independent-
ly reviewed the tape and then reviewed the tape with Total and
Twin management officials before making his recommendation
as to the appropriate discipline, to which Total and Twin
agreed. (Tr. 295–298.) Although very little discipline has been
issued since July 1, Jensen has the authority to give encoders
verbal warnings and to effectively recommend discipline for
OXFORD ELECTRONICS, INC., D/B/A OXFORD AIRPORT TECHNICAL SERVICES 11
encoders. (Tr. 299–301.) I find no evidence that any CICA
TEC representative has ever hired, fired, disciplined, recom-
mended discipline, evaluated or promoted of any employee of
Respondent Employers.
Worldwide, Total, and Twin do not have onsite supervisors;
therefore, Jensen and Farmer provide supervision for all of the
unit employees. At most, Total and Twin supervisors may
speak to the encoders who are working when they deliver their
paychecks biweekly, but they often drop off the paychecks
without interacting with the encoders. (Tr. 214.) Farmer
schedules the employees including the encoders. The lead
encoders make out daily work station assignments and break
schedules. If an encoder is absent for all or a portion of a shift,
the absence is reported to Jensen and/or Farmer. The lead en-
coder attempts to get another employee to cover the shift. If no
one volunteers, Jensen has the authority to assign an employee
to cover the shift and authorize overtime if necessary. (Tr. 147.)
Encoders who are employed by Total cover shifts for encoders
employed by Twin, and vice versa. (Tr. 202.) During peak
operation periods, Jensen regularly assigns helpers, mechanics,
and/or dispatchers to assist in performing the encoder work.
(Tr. 294.)
The record contains no evidence that CICA TEC plays any
role in establishing work shifts for unit employees other than
the Maintenance Agreement requires Oxford to provide ser-
vices 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Oxford established
for all the unit employees four staggered shifts to provide 24-
hour coverage. (Tr. 126, 134–135, 136.)
As discussed above, Respondent Employers set the pay rates
for the unit employees based upon the pay scales set forth in the
TWU contract.11 The employees are paid biweekly. (Tr. 143.)
Although the TWU contract information was provided to CICA
TEC during the bidding process and was the basis for Oxford’s
labor cost calculations, the Maintenance Agreement does not
set employee wages and does not give any direction as to how
Oxford is to allocate the awarded lump sum contract amount.
(GC Exh. 12, Sec. 3.07.) The Maintenance Agreement only
requires Oxford pay the employees at least monthly and in
compliance with laws regulating employee payroll. (GC Exh.
12, Sec. 3.07.)
The other terms and conditions of employment, such as va-
cation pay, holidays, sick leave, military leave, overtime, meal
periods, seniority, life insurance, medical and dental insurance
etc., are established by Respondent Employers’ application of
the TWU contract to the unit employees. (Jt. Exh. 1.) The
Maintenance Agreement is silent as to any of these terms and
conditions of employment. Total and Twin provided the en-
coders employee handbooks that addressed many of these terms
and conditions of work. (GC Exhs. 8 and 9.) As discussed
above, the TWU contract provisions were applied to the encod-
ers regardless of any conflict with the employee handbooks’

11 The record reflects that the mechanics were initially told their
starting rate would be $21 per hour and that was later increased to $23
per hour. The record is unclear about how this was accomplished based
upon the rates listed in the TWU contract, but it was possibly accom-
plished by categorizing them as field service technicians instead of
technical specialist like the new hire mechanics were classified. (Tr.
140–141; Jt. Exh. 2.)
provisions.
Oxford’s safety trainer provides yearly safety training for all
the unit employees in the control room’s conference room. (Tr.
212–213, 308.) The Maintenance Agreement requires Re-
spondent Employers to provide safety training that is subject to
CICA TEC review and approval. (GC Exh. 12, Sec. 3.02, Ex-
hibit A (10).) The record is silent as to whether the safety train-
ing provided by Oxford was approved by CICA TEC. The
training of new encoders is provided by lead encoder Dessie
Martin with no input by CICA TEC. (Tr. 212.) Similarly, new
mechanics are trained by lead mechanics with no input by
CICA TEC. (Tr. 138.) The record is silent as to how new dis-
patchers and helpers are trained.
ANALYSIS
1. Respondent Employers’ Operations at T-5 Falls Within the
Jurisdiction of the NLRB
I find it is appropriate for the NLRB to decide the jurisdic-
tion dispute in this case without an opinion from the NMB. I
further find that the record does not support Respondent Em-
ployers’ contention that its employment relationship with the
unit employees is indirectly controlled or under the common
control of a carrier or carriers to an extent that it is within the
jurisdiction of the RLA.
A. Applicable Law
The NLRA protects the rights of employees to organize and
bargain collectively, but expressly exempts employers “subject
to the Railway Labor Act” and “any individual employed by an
employer subject to the Railway Labor Act” from its reach, see
29 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152(2)-(3), 157. The RLA covers employers
who are rail carriers, common air carriers, and “any company
which is directly or indirectly owned or controlled by or under
common control with any carrier.” 45 U.S.C. §§ 151 First, 181.
The NLRB has a long-term general policy of referring ques-
tions concerning RLA jurisdiction to the NMB to get the bene-
fit of the NMB’s expertise on these matters and to avoid con-
flicting agency determinations. The NLRB’s stated practice is
to refer the parties to the NMB and dismiss the charge or peti-
tion in cases in which RLA jurisdiction is clear; to retain cases
in which RLA jurisdiction is clearly lacking; and to refer close
cases of arguable RLA jurisdiction to the NMB for its advisory
opinion before the NLRB decides the issue. Federal Express
Corp., 317 NLRB 1155, 1156 & fn. 6 (1995). Despite this
general policy, the NLRB recognizes that “there is no statutory
requirement that this question of jurisdiction be submitted for
answer first to the NMB.” Spartan Aviation Indus., Inc., 337
NLRB 708, 708 (2002); See also United Parcel Service, Inc.,
318 NLRB 778, 780 (1995),enfd. by United Parcel Serv., Inc.
v. NLRB, 92 F.3d 1221, 1224–1226 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Dobbs
Houses, Inc. v. NLRB, 443 F.2d 1066, 1072 (6th Cir. 1971).
In practice, the NLRB has not referred to the NMB cases
presenting jurisdictional claims in factual situations similar to
those where the NMB has previously declined jurisdiction. E.
W. Wiggins Airways, 210 NLRB 996 (1974); Air California,
170 NLRB 18 (1968). The NLRB has also declined to refer
RLA claims to the NMB for an initial opinion in cases where
the NLRB has previously exercised uncontested jurisdiction
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
over the employer. Hot Shoppes, Inc., 143 NLRB 578 (1963)
(NLRB rejected employer’s claim that its employees were sub-
ject to the jurisdiction of the RLA when the employer had a
long history of recognizing the NLRB’s jurisdiction with regard
to those employees without objection). See United Parcel Ser-
vice, Inc., 318 NLRB at 780.
In cases where the NLRB declines to refer an RLA jurisdic-
tional issue to the NMB, the NLRB follows NMB precedent in
deciding the jurisdictional issue. Id.at 779. The NMB employs
a two-part test to determine whether an employer that is not
itself a carrier is sufficiently controlled by a carrier to be sub-
ject to RLA jurisdiction. See Signature Flight Support of Ne-
vada, 30 NMB 392, 399 (2003). The two-part test requires an
affirmative finding that (1) “the nature of the work is that tradi-
tionally performed by employees of rail or air carriers,” and (2)
“the employer is directly or indirectly owned or controlled by,
or under common control with a carrier or carriers.” Id. To
determine whether an employer is under the control of a rail or
air carrier, the NMB traditionally considers the following six
factors:
(1) the extent of the carrier’s control over the manner in which
the company conducts its business; (2) the carrier’s access to
the company’s operations and records; (3) the carrier’s role in
the company’s personnel decisions; (4) the degree of carrier
supervision of the company’s employees; (5) whether compa-
ny employees are held out to the public as carrier employees;
and (6) the extent of the carrier’s control over employee train-
ing.
Air Serv Corp., 33 NMB 272, 285 (2006).
In Swissport USA, Inc., 35 NMB 190 (2008), NMB found
that the facts it considered in that case to determine if the carri-
ers exerted substantial control over Swissport, to be similar to
those it found in Air Serv Corp.:
The service agreements between Swissport and the Carriers
dictate nearly all aspects of Swissport’s operations. The Carri-
ers specify the services provided, the penalties for improper
service, staffing and supervisory levels required to provide the
specified services, timelines for providing the specific ser-
vices, manuals and standards that Swissport’s employees
must meet, and required training for Swissport’s employees.
Most of the agreements provide that the Carrier provides ini-
tial training to Swissport employees. Under its contract with
one of the Carriers, Asiana Airlines, Swissport employees
wear Asiana uniforms and hold themselves out to the public
as Asiana employees. The Carriers have the right to audit, in-
spect, or observe Swissport’s operations in carrying out the
services specified in the agreements. Each Carrier requires a
daily briefing from Swissport on the day’s activities. This
case is also similar to International Total Servs., 26 NMB 72
(1998). In that case, as here, the carriers did not control hiring
or firing employees. Nevertheless, the [NMB] found the com-
pany subject to RLA jurisdiction based, in part, on the fact
that carriers could request employee re-assignment and played
a significant role in staffing and other working conditions.
Swissport USA, Inc., 35 NMB 190, 195–196 (July 2, 2008).
The NMB utilizes the two-part test and considers the six fac-
tors for each employment situation. Thus, a contractor who
performs work for a common carrier at one location that has
been determined to be within the jurisdiction of the RLA is not
automatically covered by the RLA in its performance of anoth-
er contract at another location. See Menzies Aviation, Inc., 42
NMB 1, 6 (2014) (where NMB declined to find RLA jurisdic-
tion due to lack of carrier control over the employer despite its
earlier ruling in John Menzies, 30 NMB 463, 469 (2003) find-
ing RLA jurisdiction involving a different contract where the
carrier exerted more control over the employer). The NMB
specifically found that its prior determinations in Air Serv
Corp., 33 NMB 272 (2006), and Air Serv Corp., 38 NMB 113
(2011) did not control the jurisdictional issue in Air Serv Corp.,
39 NMB 450, 455 (2012). “Because contracts and local prac-
tices might vary in a determinative manner for different em-
ployee groups, different operations, and in different locations,
the NMB’s opinion is based on the record before it in each
case.” Air Serv Corp., 39 NMB 450, 455–456 (2012).
The NLRB has noted that in more recent decisions the NMB
has continued to consider the six factors set forth in Air Serv
Corp.
but has placed more emphasis on [the third factor of] whether
the carrier or carriers exercise “meaningful control over per-
sonnel decisions.” See, e.g., Airway Cleaners, LLC, 41 NMB
262, 268 (2014) (control exercised is “not the meaningful
control over personnel decision[s] required to establish RLA
jurisdiction”); see also Menzies Aviation, Inc., 42 NMB 1, 7
(2014)(no jurisdiction where carrier “does not exercise
‘meaningful control over personnel decisions’” (quoting Air-
way Cleaners)); Bags, Inc., 40 NMB 165, 170 (2013) (carrier
control “is not the type of meaningful control over personnel
decisions [sufficient] to warrant RLA jurisdiction”). Where it
has not found such “meaningful control,” the NMB has em-
phasized in particular the absence of control over hiring, fir-
ing, and/or discipline. See Menzies Aviation, 42 NMB at 7
(noting, in finding that airline does not exercise meaningful
control over personnel decisions, that it “does not hire, fire, or
routinely discipline” service provider’s employees);Airway
Cleaners, 41 NMB at 269 (airline “does not have sufficient
control over the hiring, firing and discipline of [service pro-
vider’s] employees to establish RLA jurisdiction”); Bags,
Inc., 40 NMB at 170 (service provider not subject to RLA
where airlines “do not have significant control over the hiring,
firing and discipline of [provider’s] employees”).
Allied Aviation Serv. Co. of New Jersey, 362 NLRB No. 173
(2015), enfd. by Allied Aviation Serv. Co. of New Jersey v.
Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., No. 15-1321, 2017 WL 1379517, at
*4 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 18, 2017). The NLRB went on to note that
the NMB clarified in Menzies Aviation and Airway Cleaners
that RLA jurisdiction will not be found when the elements of
control are “no greater than that found in a typical subcontrac-
tor relationship.” Id.
As a consequence to the shift in NMB precedent, the NLRB
has asserted jurisdiction and rejected claims of RLA jurisdic-
tion in cases that are factually similar to Menzies Aviation, Air-
way Cleaners, and Bags, Inc. where a review of the six factors,
with an emphasis on the carriers’ exercise of meaningful con-
trol over personnel decisions, evidences a lack of carrier control
that is no greater than that found in a typical subcontractor rela-
OXFORD ELECTRONICS, INC., D/B/A OXFORD AIRPORT TECHNICAL SERVICES 13
tionship. Allied Aviation Service Co. of New Jersey, 362 NLRB
1392, 1392. Failure of the NLRB to continue to follow its
precedent of finding jurisdiction where the NMB’s precedent is
clear that it would decline to assert jurisdiction under the RLA
would leave employees and parties in a “no-man’s land” with-
out a forum to address labor disputes.
B. Contentions of the Parties
Respondent Employers contend the NLRB should not decide
the jurisdictional issue in this matter without an advisory opin-
ion from the NMB. Neither General Counsel nor Charging
Party directly addressed this issue at hearing or in their briefs. I
am not persuaded by Respondent Employers’ argument that it
is inappropriate for the NLRB to assert jurisdiction in this mat-
ter without first receiving an advisory opinion from the NMB
for three reasons.
First, Respondent Employers12 contend that because the
NMB certified the TWU as the bargaining representative of
Worldwide’s employees in crafts covering the work of the unit
employees, and that only the NMB can alter that certification, it
is inappropriate for the NLRB to decide the jurisdictional dis-
pute in this matter. (R. Exhs. 25 and 26.) To support this argu-
ment, Respondent Employers cite cases holding that the NMB
has the exclusive authority to grant, withhold, or revoke the
certification of a representative under the RLA. See Virginian
Ry. v. System Federation No. 40, 300 U.S. 515, 548 (1937);
United Airlines/ Continental Airlines, 41 NMB 251, 261
(2014); Russell v. National Mediation Board, 714 F.2d 1332
(5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1204 (1984); Missouri
Pacific Railroad (Union Pacific), 15 NMB 95 (1988); Trans
World Airlines/Ozark Airlines, 14 NMB 218 (1987); Switch-
men’s Union of North America v. National Mediation Board,
320 U.S. 297, 304 (1943); Delta Air Lines, Inc./Northwest Air-
lines, Inc., 36 NMB 36, 50 (2009). I agree that these cases hold
that the certification of a representative covers all of the em-
ployer’s employees in that craft who are within the jurisdiction
of the RLA, but I do not find the cases stand for the proposition
that such certifications extend to employment situations outside
the jurisdiction of the RLA. As discussed above, a finding of
RLA jurisdiction with regard to an employer’s performance of
one contract does not automatically extend RLA jurisdiction to
the performance of similar work under another contract at an-
other facility. Menzies Aviation supra at 6; Air Serv Corp., 39
NMB at 455–456. Thus, I find Worldwide’s bargaining obliga-
tion under the RLA in other employment relationships covering
similar work is not determinative of the jurisdictional issue in
this matter.
Second, Respondent Employers contend that the NLRB is
defying its precedent by retracting its request for an NMB opin-
ion on the jurisdictional question and asserting jurisdiction.
Respondent Employers cite the DC Circuit’s holding in ABM
Onsite Service-West, Inc. v. NLRB, 849 F.3d 1137, 1139 (D.C.
Cir. 2017) and incorrectly assert that the circuit court found the
NLRB’s decision to assert jurisdiction in that case without re-

12 As discussed more fully below, I find that Oxford, Worldwide,
Total and Twin are joint employers; and therefore, any argument made
by one is attributed to the others. Additionally, Total and Twin incor-
porated Oxford/Worldwide’s brief by reference.
ferring it for an NMB opinion was arbitrary and capricious.
What the court in ABM Onsite found to be arbitrary and capri-
cious was the NLRB’s application of the more recent NMB
precedent requiring a carrier to have more “meaningful control
over personnel decisions” in order for RLA jurisdiction to be
established without either the NLRB or the NMB having ex-
pressed a reason for their departure from prior precedent of
applying the six factor test without this emphasis. The court
held that the NLRB needed to explain the departure from the
six-factor test or alternatively defer the matter to NMB for an
explanation of its departure from its precedent. Respondent
Employers’ interpretation of the holding in ABM Onsite is di-
rectly contradicted by the DC Circuits’ subsequent holding in
Allied Aviation Service Co. of New Jersey v. NLRB, 854 F.3d
55 (D.C. Cir. 2017), that the NLRB’s assertion of jurisdiction
in that matter was appropriate without review by the NMB in
light of the application of the six factors set forth by the NMB
in Air Service Corp. to the facts of that case. Thus, I find no
merit in Respondent Employers’ assertion that the holding in
ABM Onsite requires the NLRB to defer a case to the NMB for
an opinion before asserting jurisdiction.
To the contrary, the NLRB’s underlying decisions in ABM
Onsite and Allied Aviation underscore that the NLRB finds
exceptions to its general policy of deferring certain RLA juris-
dictional issues to the NMB. See Allied Aviation Serv. Co. of
New Jersey & Local 553, Int’l Board. of Teamsters, AFL–CIO,
362 NLRB No. 173 (2015); ABM Onsite Services—W., Inc. &
Int’l Assn. of Machinist & Aerospace Workers, Dist. Lodge
W24, Local Lodge 1005, 362 NLRB No. 179 (2015) (not re-
ported in Board volume). The Board has declined to defer
cases presenting jurisdictional claims in factual situations simi-
lar to those where the NMB has previously declined jurisdic-
tion. Id.
Third, Respondent Employers contends that it is similarly
situated, although in the inverse, to the employer in United
Parcel Service, (UPS) which had a long history of operating
under the jurisdiction of the NLRB, because Respondent
Worldwide has a long history of operating under the jurisdic-
tion of the RLA. Citing, United Parcel Service, Inc., 318
NLRB 778, 780 (1995). In United Parcel Service, the NLRB
held that absent substantial changes to the employer’s opera-
tions it would not defer the jurisdictional question to the NMB.
The NLRB found that retaining and resolving the jurisdictional
dispute in that case was the most effective way to promote la-
bor stability. Id.
In the instant case, Worldwide has a long history of bargain-
ing with TWU Local 504 under the jurisdiction of the RLA as
the representative of its employees who perform work under
various contracts for carriers and consortiums of carriers at
other airports. Respondent Employers contend the NLRB
should recognize that history and apply its rationale in United
Parcel Service, in reverse, and defer the jurisdictional dispute
in this case to the NMB in order to promote labor stability.
Respondent Employers fail to recognize that the unit employees
in the instant case had a 20-year collective-bargaining history
with IUOE Local 399 as their representative under the NLRA
while performing the same work, in the same location, in the
same manner, pursuant to a series of contracts between CICA
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
TEC and predecessor contractors. In considering all the factors
in this case, the stronger argument for promoting labor stability
supports the NLRB declining to refer this jurisdictional dispute
to the NMB for an opinion. This approach will not invite labor
unrest in other locations where Respondent Worldwide already
performs work governed by the RLA as Respondent Employers
contend. If there is an established bargaining history at those
locations under the RLA, the NLRB is likely, pursuant to its
reasoning in United Parcel Service, to defer to the NMB to
promote labor stability. To the extent that the two-part test,
with or without the emphasis on control over personnel matters,
invites uncertainty in new contractual situations, that uncertain-
ty exists regardless of whether the NMB or the NLRB decides
the jurisdictional issue. Accordingly, I reject Respondent Em-
ployer’s contention and find that the NLRB’s holding in United
Parcel Service supports the NLRB deciding the jurisdictional
dispute in this matter without first acquiring an NMB opinion.
Furthermore, I find, as is discussed below, that this case is fac-
tually similar to other cases where the NMB has declined to
assert jurisdiction under the RLA and is appropriate for the
NLRB to make the jurisdictional determination.
C. Application of the Two-Part Test with Emphasis on Control
over Personnel
I find and the parties do not dispute that work performed by
the unit employees is work traditionally performed by airline
employees and meets the first prong of the Air Serv test. See
Global Aviation Services, LLC, 35 NMB 2, 2008. The parties
do not dispute, and I find, that Respondent Employers perform
this work pursuant to a contract with CICA TEC, a consortium
of carriers. For the reasons discussed below, I do not find that
Respondent Employers’ operations at T-5 are indirectly con-
trolled or under common control with a carrier or carriers to an
extent sufficient to meet the second prong of the Air Serv two-
part test to invoke the jurisdiction of the NMB under the Rail-
way Labor Act.
Respondent Employers contend that they are under control
of CICA TEC, a consortium of carriers, based upon the six
factors considered in examining the second part of the two-part
test. Respondent Employers note that absent minor exceptions
all of the equipment that the employees operate and maintain
and most of the tools they use to perform their work are owned
by CICA TEC. Respondent Employers also point to contractu-
al provisions that give CICA TEC the right to: set standards for
the performance of the contract and penalties for failure to per-
form; access to Respondent Employers operations and records;
review and reject Respondent Employers managers and super-
visors; remove any employee from working under the contract;
and require Respondent Employers to comply with anti-
discrimination laws. Respondent Employers also rely upon
other provisions of the Maintenance Agreement that require
Respondent Employers to provide services 24 hours per day, 7
days per week, pay employees at least monthly, require Re-
spondent Employers to correct substandard service at their own
expense, and give CICA TEC the unilateral right to withdraw
from the contract on short notice.
General Counsel and Charging Party IOUE Local 399 con-
tend that Respondent Employers are not under the common
control of CICA TEC based upon an evaluation of the six fac-
tors with an emphasis on control of personnel matters. General
Counsel and Charging Party point to provisions of the Mainte-
nance Agreement that clarify CICA TEC is not the employer of
the unit employees and limit CICA TEC’s role in personnel
decisions and supervision of the unit employees. CICA TEC
does not set their hours of work, wages, or direct their work,
nor is CICA TEC involved in their hiring, discipline, or dis-
charge. General Counsel and Charging Party also note that the
employees are not trained by CICA TEC and are not held out to
the public as carrier employees.
I find that a review of the six factors with an emphasis on
meaningful control over personnel decisions does not warrant a
finding that Respondent Employers operations in this case are
within the jurisdiction of the RLA.13 CICA TEC does exercise
some control over the manner in which Respondent Employers
conduct business. CICA TEC owns all the equipment, parts,
and tools used by the unit employees, other than a truck provid-
ed by Respondent Oxford and hand tools provided by the me-
chanics. By providing the systems, equipment, tools, and parts,
CICA TEC necessarily controls to some extent how the work is
performed. Although T-5 is owned by the City of Chicago, the
airlines’ fees as members in CICA TEC pay for their use of the
facility. All of the work performed by the unit employees is
performed in and around the facility. Respondent Employers
do not pay separately for office space for Farmer or Jensen, nor
do they pay for use of the conference area in the control room.
The executive director and his staff have access to the work
areas of the unit employees and regularly communicate infor-
mation between the bag room and the carriers that affects work
flow such as the changes in flight schedules and backups or
breakdown of the baggage sorting system. Most of this com-
munication occurs between Jensen and the executive director as
the employees’ testimony that they rarely communicated direct-
ly with Ranttila when he was the executive director and less
with his replacement. On the rare occasions that Ranttila di-
rectly requested employees perform work and the work was
within their normal duties, they would perform the work. If it

13 Respondent Employers cite the DC Circuit’s holding in ABM On-
site Services-West, Inc. v. NLRB., 849 F.3d 1137, 1139 (D.C. Cir.
2017), that the NLRB’s application of the more recent NMB precedent
requiring a carrier to have more “meaningful control over personnel
decisions” in order for RLA jurisdiction to be established is arbitrary
and capricious without either the NLRB or the NMB having expressed
a reason for their departure from prior precedent of applying the six
factor test without this emphasis. Board reiterated its precedent of
giving deference to the NMB and applying the NMB’s new standard in
Allied Aviation Serv. Co. of New Jersey, 362 NLRB 1392 (2015), enfd.
by Allied Aviation Service Co. of New Jersey v. NLRB, 854 F.3d 55
(D.C. Cir. 2017). Thus, I am bound by NLRB precedent to apply the
six-factor test with the emphasis on “meaningful control over personnel
decisions” that evidences elements of control that are “greater than that
found in a typical subcontractor relationship.” Allied Aviation Service
Co. of New Jersey, supra at 1392, 1392. Therefore, I give less weight
to the NMB decisions cited by Respondent Employers all of which
predate the NMB’s decision in Air Serv Corp., 33 NMB 272 (2006),
that sets forth the six factors control test and the NMB’s more recent
decisions in Menzies Aviation, Bags, Inc., and Airway Cleaners that are
relied upon in NLRB decisions. Id.
OXFORD ELECTRONICS, INC., D/B/A OXFORD AIRPORT TECHNICAL SERVICES 15
was outside their normal duties, they would ask Jensen if they
should perform the work. Mostly, the executive director moni-
tors the operation of the baggage sorting system in order to
communicate any delays directly to the carriers.
Section 3.01 of the Maintenance Agreement sets out the ser-
vices Respondent Employers14 must provide under the agree-
ment. In addition to the operation and maintenance of the
equipment, it requires daily equipment inspections and addi-
tional inspections when directed, staffing plans upon request,
monthly reports of services performed including staffing levels,
and monthly spare parts inventory reports. The Maintenance
Agreement also requires Respondent Employers to submit vari-
ous other reports such as daily dispatch reports that shows
when a maintenance issue was reported, who was assigned to
address it, and when the issue was resolved; daily baggage
handling reports; daily baggage handling alarm response logs;
reports of breakdowns of the conveyor system. These reports
are collected and conveyed to the executive director every cou-
ple of days. The Maintenance Agreement states that all of
these reports are the property of CICA TEC and must be kept
confidential unless CICA TEC approves their disclosure.
Maintenance Agreement section 3.03 sets forth penalties for
failure to perform the contract to stated standards, and section
8.02 allows CICA TEC to terminate the contract with 60-day
notice but is silent to Respondent Employers ability to termi-
nate the contract. Maintenance Agreement section 3.03 re-
quires Respondent Employers to perform the services “with
that degree of skill, care, and diligence normally exercised by
contractors performing similar types of services in projects of a
comparable scope and magnitude.”
Although the Maintenance Agreement affords CICA TEC
the control over Respondent Employers as discussed above, I
find that the record evidence does not support a finding that
CICA TEC exercises meaningful control over personnel deci-
sions and has no greater control over Respondent Employers
than is found in a typical subcontracting relationship. Specific
language in the contract clearly evidences CICA TEC’s inten-
tion to divest itself of control of Respondent Employers per-
sonnel matters. Section 3.02 states that “[n]either CICA TEC
nor the Executive Director is a general contractor, and unless
expressly provided for in this Agreement, does not have the
obligations of a general contractor.” Section 3.05 clarifies that
Respondent Employers “at all times will be an independent
contractor with full and complete responsibility for all of its
employees and representatives hereinafter collectively referred
to the ‘Personnel.’ All such Personnel providing services to
CICA TEC will at all times be employees of [Respondent Em-
ployers] and not of CICA TEC.”
CICA TEC does reserve the right to “remove any personnel
from the performance of Services from any position upon mate-
rial reason therefore given in writing.” The term “material
reason” is not defined. The Maintenance Agreement provides

14 Although the Maintenance Agreement defines Contractor as Re-
spondent Oxford, it requires that all of its terms be applied to any sub-
contractors of Respondent Oxford. Therefore, I have replaced the term
Contractor in the Maintenance Agreement language to Respondent
Employers.
that Respondent Employers’ hire competent employees and that
the facility manager, assistant facility manager (a position that
has not been filled), and supervisors must be approved by
CICA TEC and such approval “will not be unreasonably with-
held.” Again, the term “unreasonably” is not defined.
Prior to Respondent Employers takeover, Ranttila recom-
mended but did not require Respondent Employers to hire
Farmer and the rest of the existing staff. Oxford already em-
ployed Jensen and submitted his resume to CICA TEC for ap-
proval with no response. Farmers’ resume was not requested
presumably since Ranttila had recommended him for the posi-
tion. Despite Ranttila’s recommendation, Farmer was required
to submit an application and pass physical and drug screenings
before Oxford hired him. As for the unit employees, CICA
TEC retains no control over their hiring process. Except for the
encoders who were already employed and remained employed
by Total after the takeover, all the other unit employees were
required to meet the hiring criteria of their respective employ-
ers.
In the 3-1/2 years between when Respondent Employers
took over and the date of the hearing, CICA TEC has never
utilized its authority to remove any personnel.15 On one occa-
sion, Ranttila provided surveillance video to Jensen that appar-
ently showed an encoder failing to perform her job as expected.
I find no evidence of record that Ranttila/CICA TEC demanded
the encoder be discipline or recommended any discipline. The
determination to discipline and the manner of discipline was
decided solely by Respondent Employers officials.
The level of control over personnel decisions retained by
CICA TEC is less than that retained by the carrier in Airway
Cleaners, LLC, 41 NMB 262 (2014), where the NMB declined
to assert jurisdiction under the RLA. The contract in Airway
Cleaners contained the following language:
Supplier [Airway Cleaners] shall provide notice to
American at least thirty days prior to any staffing changes
and shall not materially change the composition of its staff
without the written consent of the American general man-
ager. All Supplier personnel shall record the start and end
times of shifts actually worked by such employees in ac-
cordance with any procedures specified by American at
each Station. All Supplier personnel must wear ID badges
supplied by American or the airport operator. American
shall have the right and option at any time and from time
to time to interview and approve Station management and
other employees of Supplier.
Id. at 265–266.
In Airway Cleaners, the carrier retained the right to interview
and to approve the contractors’ management and other employ-
ees “at any time.” In the instant case, CICA TEC authority to
withhold approval of Respondent Employers management se-
lections is limited by a reasonable standard and it can only re-
quire the removal of personnel for a material reason. In Airway

15 One employee is no longer employed, not as a function of either
the Respondent Employers or CICA TEC actions, but as the result of
no longer being eligible for the security clearance needed to work at an
international airport terminal because the employee entered a restricted
area of the airport without authority.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD16
Cleaners, as in the instant case, despite the language in the
contract giving the carrier the right to intervene in staffing deci-
sions, there was no evidence that the carrier had done so. In-
deed, the staffing plan submitted by Respondent Employers as
part of the bid process has not been followed. (R. Exh. 12, p.
13.) Thus, I find that the Maintenance Agreement provisions
granting CICA TEC some control over Respondent Employers
personnel does not give CICA TEC sufficient control over
staffing levels, or the hiring, firing and discipline of that per-
sonnel to establish jurisdiction under the RLA, especially when
the employees’ other terms and condition of employment are
controlled by Respondent Employers as discussed below.
Respondent Employers control the unit employees’ wage
rates, benefits, work shifts,16 work schedules, holidays, person-
al/sick days, overtime, and promotions. Respondent Employ-
ers’ employees train new unit employees without input from
CICA TEC. Oxford’s safety trainer provides their safety train-
ing. Although the Maintenance Agreement allows for CICA
TEC to approve Respondent Employers’ safety training, there
is no evidence in the record that CICA TEC has ever reviewed
or approved the training. Total and Twin have provided their
employees with employee handbooks. Respondent Employers
have all informed the employees that they are utilizing the
terms and conditions of employment set forth in the TWU con-
tract. Other than the terminal rules, which focus on safety and
security at the airport and are applicable to all individuals
working there, CICA TEC has not provided the unit employees
with any form of employee handbook or work rules. Further-
more, CICA TEC does not hold any of Respondent Employers’
employees out to the public as its employees. Each of the Re-
spondent Employers provides its employees with uniforms and
badges with its name listed.
Even without the emphasis on control over personnel mat-
ters, I find that an analysis of the six factors do not weigh in
favor of finding jurisdiction under the RLA. For example in
Swissport, the NMB noted in finding jurisdiction under the
RLA in the absence of control over hiring and firing, the carri-
ers in that case had a significantly higher amount of control of
other factors than in the instant case, including control over
staffing levels, manuals and standards for employee perfor-
mance, training, daily performance briefings to the carriers, and
at least one carrier held the employees that performed work for
it out to the public as its employees. Swissport USA, Inc., 35
NMB 190, 195–196 (2008).
I find insufficient evidence that Respondent Employers’ op-
erations at T-5 are indirectly controlled or under common con-
trol with a carrier or carriers to an extent sufficient to invoke
the jurisdiction under the RLA. Accordingly, I find, based
upon the commerce facts discussed above, that Respondent
Employers have been an employer engaged in commerce with-
in the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the NLRA.
2. Joint Employers
The NLRB clarified its standard for determining if two or

16 The Maintenance Agreement requires that Respondent Employers
provide services 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, but Respondent
Employers are able to set shifts as they see appropriate (i.e. 12-hour
versus 8-hour shifts) as long as they meet the service requirements.
more entities are joint employers in Browning-Ferris Indus. of
California, Inc., 362 NLRB 1599 (2015). The NLRB stated
that employers may be found to be:
joint employers of a single work force if they are both em-
ployers within the meaning of the common law, and if they
share or codetermine those matters governing the essential
terms and conditions of employment. In evaluating the alloca-
tion and exercise of control in the workplace, we will consider
the various ways in which joint employers may “share” con-
trol over terms and conditions of employment or “codeter-
mine” them, as the Board and the courts have done in the past
. . . . The right to control, in the common-law sense, is proba-
tive of joint-employer status, as is the actual exercise of con-
trol, whether direct or indirect.
Id. at slip op. 19. Therefore, it is sufficient that the joint em-
ployer has the authority, exercised or not, to control essential
terms and conditions of employees. Id. The terms and condi-
tions considered by the NLRB to be mandatory subjects of
bargaining that include control over wages, hours, hiring, fir-
ing, discipline, supervision, direction, scheduling, number of
workers, seniority, overtime, assigning work, and manner and
method of work performance. Id.
For the reasons discussed below, I find that Oxford and
Worldwide are joint employers of the dispatchers, mechanics,
helpers, and foreman (if the position has been filled). I also
find that Oxford and Total are joint employers of the encoders
employed by Total, and that Oxford and Twin are joint em-
ployers of the encoders employed by Twin.
Oxford and Worldwide stipulated that they are joint employ-
ers, and the record confirms that they jointly possess control of
the essential terms and conditions of employment for the dis-
patchers, mechanics, and helpers. Jensen and Farmer exercise
independent authority to supervise, schedule hours, assign
work, and direct the manner and method of work performed by
these employees. In addition, Jensen has full authority to hire,
fire, discipline, determine the number of employees necessary
to perform the work, and grant overtime. The employees are
paid by and receive their benefits from Worldwide. Thus, I
find that Respondents Oxford and Worldwide are joint employ-
ers of the dispatchers, mechanics, helpers, and foreman (if the
foreman position has been filled).
Respondent Employers contend that neither Oxford nor
Worldwide are joint employers with Total or Twin. I disagree.
I find that the record establishes that Oxford exercises control
over almost every aspect of the essential terms and conditions
of employment of the encoders employed by Total and Twin.
Indeed, Total and Twin essentially provide only referral and
payroll services for the encoders for Oxford. Rossi informed
the presidents of Total and Twin that in order to be awarded the
subcontract to perform the encoder work, the encoders’ terms
and conditions of employment must conform to the TWU con-
tract. To meet this requirement, Total and Twin became signa-
tory to the TWU contract without attempting to bargain any
different terms or conditions of employment for the encoders,
then applied these terms to the encoders even after TWU Local
504 withdrew interest in representing them.
Although all the encoders were employed by Total before
OXFORD ELECTRONICS, INC., D/B/A OXFORD AIRPORT TECHNICAL SERVICES 17
Oxford was awarded the Maintenance Agreement, Rossi in-
formed Daniels and Carpenter the number of the employees
each would provide pursuant to their individual subcontracts
and initially told Carpenter which of the encoders she was to
employ. Neither Total nor Twin have a supervisor that works
at T-5. The only time Total and Twin supervisors interact with
the encoders is when they deliver biweekly paychecks. I find
no evidence of record that representatives for Twin or Total
have ever addressed or adjusted any employee grievances or
directed, evaluated, disciplined, or otherwise supervised the
encoders during these interactions.
Farmer sets the encoders’ work schedules. When necessary,
Jensen requires encoders to work additional hours and author-
izes overtime if required. Jensen directs encoders who are em-
ployed by Total to cover shifts or portions of shifts for encoders
who are employed by Twin. Jensen directs dispatchers, me-
chanics and helpers to perform encoder work during peaks in
work flow. When the encoders raised a grievance concerning
the cleaning work they must perform, Jensen independently
adjusted the time they were to perform that work resolving the
grievance. Jensen has the authority to independently counsel
the encoders for their conduct and has done so when he has
noticed an encoder using a cell phone during working time. On
the one occasion that an encoder was disciplined, Jensen pre-
sented the evidence of poor work performance to Total and
Twin and his recommended discipline was implemented.
Based upon Oxford’s extensive exercise of control over the
terms and conditions of employment of the encoders employed
by Total and Twin, I find Oxford and Total to be joint employ-
ers of the encoders employed by Total, and I find Oxford and
Twin to be joint employers of the encoders employed by Twin.
3. Unfair Labor Practices
A. Burns Successor Issue and Alleged 8(a)(5) Refusal to Rec-
ognize and Bargain
An employer, which purchases or otherwise takes control of
a unionized business of another employer, succeeds to the col-
lective-bargaining obligation of the seller if the employer is a
successor employer. To be a successor employer, the similari-
ties between the employer’s operations and its predecessor’s
operations must manifest a “substantial continuity between the
enterprises” and the majority of the employer’s employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit must be former bargaining unit
employees of the predecessor. The bargaining obligation of a
successor employer begins when it has hired a “substantial and
representative complement” of its work force. NLRB v. Burns
Security Services, 406 U.S. 272, 40 (1972); Fall River Dyeing
Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27 (1987). The rule of successorship
imposes an obligation on a new employer to bargain with the
union of its predecessor. Fall River Dyeing, 406 US at 36. “If
the new employer makes a conscious decision to maintain gen-
erally the same business and to hire a majority of its employees
from the predecessor, then the bargaining obligation of 8(a)(5)
is activated.” Id. at 41–42.
Under Burns and its progeny, an employer that acquires a
predecessor’s operations succeeds to the predecessor’s collec-
tive-bargaining obligations and is required to recognize and
bargain with a union representing the predecessor’s employees
when (1) there is a substantial continuity of operations after the
takeover; (2) a majority of the successor’s employees at the
facility it acquired from the predecessor were former predeces-
sor employees; and (3) a majority of the new employer’s work
force in an unit remains appropriate for collective bargaining
under the successor’s operations. See Fall River Dyeing &
Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27, 43 (1987).
In the instant case, where the record undisputedly establishes
that a majority of Respondent Employers’ substantial and rep-
resentative complement of employees were previously em-
ployed by the predecessor employer, the essential inquiry in
applying the Burns successor standard is whether the new em-
ployer conducts essentially the same business as the predeces-
sor. In other words, the issue is whether the similarities be-
tween the two operations manifest a substantial continuity be-
tween the enterprises. Hydrolines Inc., 305 NLRB 416, 421
(1991), citing Fall River Dyeing, 482 U.S. at 41–43 and Burns
Security Services, above 406 U.S. at 280, fn. 4. The factors
considered are whether the business is essentially the same,
whether the employees of the new company are doing the same
jobs under the same supervisors, and whether the new entity
has the same production process, produces the same products
and has the same body of customers. These factors are as-
sessed from the perspective of the employees to determine
whether the retained employees view their job situation was
essentially unaltered. Fall River, 482 U.S. at 43.
In the instant case, the record establishes, and I find, that a
majority of Respondent Employers employees were formerly
employees of ABM and that their jobs remained essentially
unaltered. The transition between the companies occurred
overnight. ABM ceased its operations, including its subcon-
tracting of the encoder work to Total, on June 30, and Ox-
ford/Worldwide commenced operations, including its subcon-
tracting of the encoder work to Total, on July 1. Ox-
ford/Worldwide admits that it assumed the contract that ABM
previously performed and started performing the dispatcher,
mechanic, and helper work without a hiatus in operations. (GC
Exh. 1(o), par. IX(a) and (b).) The dispatchers, mechanics, and
helpers performed the same work, in the same manner, on the
same equipment, using the same tools, except for a truck pro-
vided by Oxford, in the same location, and for the same cus-
tomers as they did under ABM. The employees testified that
the work they perform has remained virtually unchanged from
the work that they performed for ABM. Although Ox-
ford/Worldwide employed Jensen as a new manager over all of
its operations at T-5, it also employed Farmer, ABM’s working
foreman, as the employees’ direct supervisor. The record con-
tains no evidence that Jensen substantially changed any aspect
of the employees’ work other than an adjustment in shift
schedules. Oxford/Worldwide also admit that 13 out of its 21
dispatchers, mechanics, and helpers were ABM employees
prior to the transition and this complement of employees has
remained substantially unchanged in the 3-year interim.
Similarly, Oxford/Total initially continued to employee all of
the encoders employed by Total subject to a subcontract
agreement with ABM prior to the takeover and this comple-
ment of employees has also remained substantially unchanged
in the 3-year interim. About a month after the takeover, 6 of
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD18
the 14 encoders were transferred to the employment of Ox-
ford/Twin.17 Regardless whether the encoders were assigned to
work for Respondent Total or Respondent Twin, the record
establishes that the encoders performed the same work, in the
same manner, on the same equipment, using the same tools, in
the same location, and for the same customer(s) as they did
under the subcontract with ABM. Farmer prepares their sched-
ules and they report to Jensen, who counsels them, adjusts their
grievances, assigns them overtime, and effectively recommends
their discipline.
Once a substantial continuity of operations and majority sta-
tus is found, a successor’s bargaining obligation requires that
the unit remains appropriate for collective bargaining under the
successor’s operations. In the instant case, the dispatchers,
helpers, mechanics and encoders all perform work relating to
the baggage handling system. The work that the mechanics,
dispatchers, and helpers perform relating to the jet ways and
associated electrical, water, and air systems, does not necessi-
tate a separate unit from the encoders. This is especially true
here where the employees share common supervision and inter-
change among job classifications. In the absence of any con-
tention by the parties and based upon the record, I find that the
unit employees still enjoy a community-of-interest. I further
find that even though the employees are supplied by three sepa-
rate companies, Worldwide, Total, and Twin, for Oxford’s use
in fulfilling its contract with CICA TEC, the unit employees
still share a community-of-interest. See, Miller & Anderson,
Inc., 364 NLRB No. 39 (2016) (finding employees who all
working for one “user” employer and otherwise share a com-
munity-of-interest constitute an appropriate unit for collective
bargaining regardless of by which of the joint employers they
are employed.)
Respondent Employers and TWU Local 504 content that the
employees at T-5 are appropriately in the broader unit under the
certification pursuant to the RLA of all of Worldwide’s em-
ployees, who perform related work at various airports through-
out the United States. As discussed above, I am unconvinced
by Respondent’s argument that the NMB’s prior certification of
TWU Local 504 as the bargaining representative of Respondent
Worldwide’s employees performing the same or similar jobs at
other airports requires the employees in the instant case to be
part of that unit without first finding, which I do not find, that
RLA jurisdiction is appropriate in this case.
Furthermore, the NLRB has long found a single-facility unit
to be presumptively appropriate and the party opposing it has a
heavy burden to rebut such a presumption. See Trane, 339
NLRB 866 (2003); Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, 337 NLRB
884 (2002). The appropriateness of a single-facility unit is
different in the context of successorship than in an initial repre-
sentation hearing, especially in situations, like the instant case,
where employees had historically been represented in a single-

17 The short hiatus between the takeover and the actual transfer of
encoders from Total to Twin does not exempt Twin from being a Burns
successor. Twin signed the subcontract with Oxford in March and
became signatory to the TWU contract in June. Therefore, the structure
was in place before the takeover on July 1, but the transfer of employ-
ees did not occur until approximately 3 to 4 weeks later making Twin a
Burns successor once the transfer of employees had occurred.
location unit. Allways E. Transportation, Inc. & Int’l Bhd. of
Teamsters, Local 445, 365 NLRB No. 71, slip op. 5 (2017). To
determine whether the presumption has been rebutted, the
Board examines a number of community-of-interest factors: (1)
central control over daily operations and labor relations, includ-
ing the extent of local autonomy, (2) similarity of skills, func-
tions, and working conditions, (3) degree of employee inter-
change, (4) distance between locations, and (5) bargaining his-
tory, if any.” Id. at slip op. 4. See also, J&L Plate, 310 NLRB
429, 429 (1993). Other than evidence that the dispatchers,
mechanics, and helpers are provided payroll and human re-
source services by Worldwide, Respondent Employers and
TWU Local 504 presented no evidence to support factors 1
through 4. With regard to the fifth factor, for the reasons dis-
cussed above, I reject Respondent Employers’ contention that
Worldwide’s bargaining history under the RLA controls in this
situation. Conversely, I do give weight to the bargaining histo-
ry of the unit employees with IOUE Local 399 as a single-
facility unit. Thus, I find that Respondent Employers failed to
adduce sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the
single-facility unit of employees employed by Respondent Em-
ployers at T-5 is an appropriate unit for collective bargaining
under the NLRA in this case.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent Employers are Burns
successors.
B. Failure to Recognize and Bargain
On October 15, 2012, after learning that Oxford had been
awarded the Maintenance Agreement and had informed bar-
gaining unit employees of its interest in retaining them to per-
form the work, IOUE Local 399 representative McGinty con-
tacted Cunningham, who had attended the employee meeting,
and requested to bargain with Respondent Oxford/ Worldwide
on behalf of the employees. Cunningham rejected McGinty’s
assertion that IOUE Local 399 was the bargaining representa-
tive of the unit and verified that position in an email to
McGinty. IOUE Local 399 continued to assert its demand to
bargain by initially filing charges in March that were found
premature and then again in October in the instant cases. Thus,
IOUE Local 399’s initial demand for recognition and bargain-
ing was prematurely made on October 15, 2012. Yet, through
this demand and its subsequent filing of charges, IOUE Local
399 established a “continuing demand” which remained in
effect until Respondent Employers employed a substantial and
representative complement of its predecessor’s employees to
perform substantially the same work at T-5 starting July 1. See
Fall River Dyeing, 482 U.S. at 52–53; Williams Enterprises,
312 NLRB 937, 938–939 (1993), enfd. 50 F.3d 1280, 1286 (4th
Cir. 1995); Sterling Processing Corp., 291 NLRB 208, 217
(1988). Accordingly, I conclude that Worldwide, Total, and
Twin, as joint employers with Oxford in regards to their respec-
tive employees, had the obligation to honor the IOUE Local
399’s demands for recognition starting on July 1, 2013,18 be-

18 The record is unclear as to exactly when between July 1 and about
August 1, 2013, Respondent Twin started employing the six encoders
that it was assigned. Thus, more accurate payroll records may need to
be utilized to determine the exact date that the obligation as to these
OXFORD ELECTRONICS, INC., D/B/A OXFORD AIRPORT TECHNICAL SERVICES 19
cause from that date forward they employed a substantial and
representative complement of their work force in an appropriate
bargaining unit, and was aware of IOUE Local 399’s demand
for recognition.
Thus, I find that Respondent Employers are thereby obliged
to meet and bargain with the IOUE Local 399 as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of their employees.19
C. Unilateral Changes
In Burns, the Supreme Court enunciated the principle that, “a
successor employer is ordinarily free to set initial terms on
which it will hire employees of a predecessor” without first
bargaining with the employees’ bargaining representative, ex-
cept in “instances in which it is perfectly clear that the new
employer plans to retain all of the employees in the unit.”
Spruce Up Corp., 209 NLRB 194, 195 (1974). The NLRB
clarified in Spruce Up Corp. that if a successor employer who
offers all of its predecessor’s employees positions under sub-
stantially different terms and conditions of employment, espe-
cially if those terms and conditions of employment are signifi-
cantly less favorable to the employees, then the employer is not
making it “perfectly clear” that it plans to retain all of the em-
ployees by making them an offer they are unlikely to refuse. In
the instant case, I find that Respondent Employers are not “per-
fectly clear” successors because their offer of continued em-
ployment was with significantly less favorable terms and condi-
tions, and thus, Respondent Employers did not make it “per-
fectly clear” that they intended to retain all of the unit employ-
ees.
The NLRB has found other exceptions where a Burns suc-

employees switched from Oxford/Total, as joint employers, to Ox-
ford/Twin, as joint employers.
19 Having found Total and Twin to be joint-employers with Oxford, I
reject their argument that the allegations of the complaint pertaining to
them are barred by the statute of limitations set forth in Section 10(b) of
the NLRA because they were not named in the charges until the
amended charges filed on November 18, and December 7, 2015. As
the NLRB held in Mar Del Plata Condo, “the liability of [one joint-
employer] cannot be considered separate and apart from that of its
[joint-employer]. . . . ‘As joint employers, each is responsible for the
conduct of the other and whatever unlawful practices are engaged in by
the one must be deemed to have been committed by both.... [T]he na-
ture of the joint-employer relationship is such that the charge against
[one joint employer] also constitute[s] a charge against [the other].’”
Mar Del Plata Condo., 282 NLRB 1012, 1012, fn. 3 (1987)(quoting
Ref-Chem Co., 169 NLRB 376, 380 (1968), enf. denied on other
grounds 418 F.2d 127 (5th Cir. 1969). See also, Photo-Sonics, Inc., 254
NLRB 567, 570 fn. 2 (1981), enfd. 678 F.2d 121 (9th Cir. 1982). “Fur-
thermore, the failure to recognize and bargain is a continual violation.
It is settled law that a refusal to bargain, persisted in after having been
made, constitutes a continuing violation of a continuing obligation to
bargain. If, therefore, it should be found herein that prior to the period
of limitation an obligation to bargain existed and that a refusal to com-
ply had occurred, it follows by application of established principles that
the obligation continues into the six-month period preceding the filing
of the instant charge and that the refusal continues also.” Hartz-
Kirkpatrick Const. Co., Inc., 195 NLRB 863, 865 (1972). Therefore, I
conclude and find that Section 10(b) of the NLRA, upon the facts found
herein, does not preclude a finding of a violation of Section 8(a)(5) by
Total and Twin as discussed herein.
cessor is not privileged to set initial terms and conditions of
employment. In U.S. Marine Corp., 293 NLRB 669, 672
(1989), for example, the Board held that:
an employer—like the Respondents—that unlawfully dis-
criminates in its hiring in order to evade its obligations as a
successor does not have the Burns right to set initial terms of
employment without first consulting with the Union. The Re-
spondents forfeited any right they may have had as a succes-
sor to impose initial terms when they embarked on their de-
liberate scheme to avoid bargaining with the Union by their
discriminatory hiring practices.’ This equitable doctrine,
which arose in the context of defining an appropriate remedy
for an employer that sought to avoid the successor’s bargain-
ing obligation by refusing to hire applicants from the prede-
cessor’s unionized work force, is equally relevant to the alle-
gation here of unlawful unilateral changes. The fundamental
premise for the forfeiture doctrine is that it would be contrary
to statutory policy to “confer Burns rights on an employer that
has not conducted itself like a lawful Burns successor because
it has unlawfully blocked the process by which the obligations
and rights of such a successor are incurred.” State Distributing
Co., 282 NLRB 1048, 1049 (1987). In other words, the Burns
right to set initial terms and conditions of employment must
be understood in the context of a successor employer that will
recognize the affected unit employees’ collective-bargaining
representative and enter into good-faith negotiations with that
union about those terms and conditions.
Advanced Stretchforming International, Inc., 323 NLRB 529,
530 (1997). In the instant case, Respondent Employers refused
to recognize and enter into good-faith negotiations with the unit
employees’ long-term collective-bargaining representative,
IOUE Local 399. Instead, they required the unit employees to
sign, as a condition of employment, dues authorization forms
allowing Respondent Employers to deduct membership dues
from their pay and remitted those dues to TWU Local 504.20
Thus, Respondent Employers forfeited the right to set initial
terms and conditions of employment by not recognizing and
bargaining with IOUE Local 399.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent Employers unlawfully
unilaterally changed the unit employee’s terms and conditions
of employment by failing to continue the terms and conditions
of employment set forth in the IOUE contract and by changing
other terms and conditions of employment enjoyed by the em-
ployees but not specifically set forth in the IOUE contract.
These unilateral changes include:
 reducing wages;
 changing the mechanics’ and dispatchers’ pay sched-
ule from weekly to biweekly;
 changing shift schedules;
 changing employee seniority;
 eliminating 401(k) retirement plan and traditional

20 Respondents Total and Twin ceased deducting and remitting dues
to TWU Local 504 in November 2015 when TWU Local 504 for some
unexplained reason disclaimed interest in representing the encoders but
has continued to represent the dispatchers, mechanics, and helpers. Tr.
223, 246; GC Exh. 11.)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD20
pension benefits;
 changing health insurance benefits and premiums;
 reducing vacation leave, sick leave and holidays;
 changing overtime policies;
 and altering job classifications of the mechanics.21
D. Respondent Employers Violated Section 8(a)(2) and (3) and
TWU Local 504 Violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the
NLRA
The Board has consistently found that an employer violates
Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the NLRA by recognizing a
union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
its employees, and by entering into, maintaining, and enforcing
a collective-bargaining agreement containing union-security
and dues-checkoff provisions with the union, at a time when the
union did not represent a majority of the employees in the unit.
Equally, the union’s acceptance of the dues and acceptance of
collective-bargaining representative status violates Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the NLRA. Regency Grande Nursing &
Rehab. Ctr. & SEIU 1199 New Jersey Health Care Union &
Local 300s, Prod. Serv. & Sales Dist. Council, a/w United
Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union., 347 NLRB 1143
(2006); Polyclinic Medical Center of Harrisburg, 315 NLRB
1257 (1995); Ladies Garment Workers (Bernard-Altman Texas
Corp.) v. NLRB, 366 U.S. 731 (1961).
In the instant case, the unit employees were represented by
IUOE Local 399, which had a collective-bargaining agreement
with ABM effective from October 1, 2011, through September
30, 2014, at the time that Respondent Employers took over the
operations on July 1, 2013. I find no evidence that IUOE Local
399 had lost majority support of the unit employees or that
TWU Local 504 enjoyed any support by the unit employees.
Therefore, I find Respondent Employers violated Section
8(a)(2) and (3) of the NLRA by recognizing TWU Local 504 as
the collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees
and by entering into, maintaining, and enforcing a collective-
bargaining agreement containing union-security and dues-
checkoff provisions with TWU Local 504 with regard to the
unit employees, at a time when TWU Local 504 did not have
the support of a majority of the unit employees. Accordingly, I
also find that TWU Local 504 violated the Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and (2) of the NLRA by acting as the collective-bargaining
representative of the unit employees and by entering into, main-
taining, and enforcing a collective-bargaining agreement con-
taining union-security and dues-checkoff provisions with Re-
spondent Employers with regard to the unit employees, at a
time when TWU Local 504 did not have the support of a major-
ity of the unit employees.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents Oxford Electronics, Inc., d/b/a Oxford Air-
port Technical Services (Respondent Oxford) and Worldwide
Flight Services, Inc. (Respondent Worldwide), Total Facility
Maintenance, Inc. (Respondent Total), and Twin Staffing, Inc.

21 As discussed above, I do not find sufficient evidence of an unlaw-
ful unilateral change in the uniform replacement policy or shift sched-
ules.
(Respondent Twin), collectively referred to herein as Respond-
ent Employers, are employers engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and 2(7) of the NLRA.
2. International Union of Operating Engineers Local 399,
AFL–CIO (Charging Party or IUOE Local 399) and Transpor-
tation Workers Union of America—Local 504, AFL–CIO, (Re-
spondent Union or TWU Local 504) are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the NLRA.
3. IUOE Local 399 is, and at all material times has been, the
exclusive bargaining representative for the following appropri-
ate unit of employees employed by Respondent Oxford as a
joint employer with Respondents Worldwide, Total and Twin at
Terminal 5 of the Chicago O’Hare airport in Illinois:
all employees engaged in the following operations: maintain-
ing and monitoring all conveyors and associated components
of the baggage handling system, operating or assisting in op-
erating all heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning equip-
ment (HVAC), engines, turbines, motors, combustion en-
gines, pumps, air compressors, ice and refrigerating machines,
fans, siphons, also automatic and power-oiling pumps and
engines, operating or assisting in operating, maintaining all
instrumentation and appurtenances utilizing energy from nu-
clear fission or fusion and its products; such as radioactive
isotopes; also referred to as dispatchers, lead dispatchers, me-
chanics, senior mechanics, lead mechanics, helpers, encoders,
lead encoders, and working foremen.
4. Since July 1, 2013, Respondents Oxford and Worldwide
have been joint employers of the dispatcher, lead dispatcher,
mechanic, senior mechanic, lead mechanic, working foreman
(if the position is filled), and helper unit employees.
5. Since July 1, 2013, Respondents Oxford and Total have
been joint employers of the encoder unit employees that were
employed by Total for any time period that they were employed
by Respondent Total; and Respondents Oxford and Twin have
been joint employers of the encoder unit employees who were
employed by Respondent Twin for any time period that they
were employed by Respondent Twin.
6. Respondents Oxford, Worldwide, Total and Twin violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by conditioning the unit em-
ployees’ employment on signing membership cards and dues
check-off authorizations for TWU Local 504.
7. Respondents Oxford, Worldwide, Total and Twin, as
Burns successors, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the NLRA
by withdrawing recognition from IUOE Local 399 as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees
and thereafter continuously failing and refusing to bargain on
request with IOUE Local 399 as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of their unit employees concerning
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
8. Respondents Oxford and Worldwide jointly and severally
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the NLRA by altering the
dispatcher, lead dispatcher, mechanic, senior mechanic, lead
mechanic, working foreman (if the position is filled), and help-
er unit employees’ terms and conditions of employment, in-
cluding their wages and fringe-benefit provisions, pursuant to
an unlawful application of the TWU contract, without first
notifying IUOE Local 399 and bargaining to agreement or im-
OXFORD ELECTRONICS, INC., D/B/A OXFORD AIRPORT TECHNICAL SERVICES 21
passe regarding such changes in the wages, hours, and working
conditions of the unit employees.
9. Respondents Oxford and Total jointly and severally vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the NLRA by altering Respond-
ent Total’s encoder and lead encoder unit employees’ terms and
conditions of employment, including their wages and fringe-
benefit provisions, pursuant to an unlawful application of the
TWU contract, without first notifying IUOE Local 399 and
bargaining to agreement or impasse regarding such changes in
the wages, hours, and working conditions of the unit employ-
ees.
10. The Respondents Oxford and Twin jointly and severally
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the NLRA by altering Re-
spondent Twin’s encoder and lead encoder unit employees’,
employed by Respondent Twin’s, terms and conditions of em-
ployment, including their wages and fringe-benefit provisions,
pursuant to an unlawful application of the TWU contract, with-
out first notifying IUOE Local 399 and bargaining to agreement
or impasse regarding such changes in the wages, hours, and
working conditions of the unit employees.
11. Respondents Oxford, Worldwide, Total and Twin have
violated Section 8(a)(3), (2) and (1) of the NLRA by granting
assistance to the TWU Local 504 and recognizing it as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit employ-
ees, and by applying the terms and conditions of employment
of the TWU contract, including its union-security provisions, to
the unit employees, at a time when the TWU Local 504 did not
represent an unassisted and uncoerced majority of the employ-
ees in the unit, and when IUOE Local 399 was the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees.
12. TWU Local 504 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by
accepting recognition from Respondents Oxford, Worldwide,
Total and Twin as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the unit employees, and by agreeing to the applica-
tion of the TWU contract, including its union-security provi-
sions, to the unit employees, at a time when it did not represent
an uncoerced majority of the employees in the unit when IUOE
Local 399 was the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the unit.
13. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondents Oxford, Worldwide, Total,
Twin, and TWU Local 504 have engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, I shall order them to cease and desist and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Respondents Oxford, Worldwide, Total, and Twin shall be
ordered to withdraw recognition from TWU Local 504 as the
collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees and
cease and desist applying the TWU contract, including its un-
ion-security provisions, and any extension, renewal, or modifi-
cation thereof, to the unit employees. Likewise, TWU Local
504 shall be ordered to cease accepting Respondent Employers’
recognition.
Respondent Employers also will be ordered to recognize and,
on request, bargain with IOUE Local 399 as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the unit employees with respect to
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment
and, if an agreement is reached, embody it in a signed docu-
ment.
Additionally, Respondent Employers shall, on request of
IUOE Local 399, rescind any departure from terms and condi-
tions of employment that existed before Respondent Employ-
ers’ takeover of performance of the Maintenance Agreement
with CICA TEC at Terminal 5 of the O’Hare International Air-
port in Illinois and retroactively, jointly and severally, for their
respective employees, restore preexisting terms and conditions
of employment including wages, overtime wages, mechanics’
job classifications, seniority, 401(k) benefits, health insurance
benefits, employee pension benefits, vacation and sick leave,
holidays and personal days, payments to IUOE Local 399 em-
ployee training fund, and weekly pay schedule that the unit
employees enjoyed absent Respondent Employers’ unlawful
conduct, until Respondent Employers’ negotiate in good faith
with IUOE Local 399 to agreement or to impasse. Backpay
shall be computed as in Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB
682 (1970) enfd. 444 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), plus interest as
prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), com-
pounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center,
356 NLRB 6 (2010).
Respondent Employers additionally shall be ordered to joint-
ly and severally (1) compensate the unit employees for any
adverse income tax consequences of receiving their backpay in
one lump sum and (2) file a report with the Social Security
Administration allocating the backpay to the appropriate calen-
dar quarters, as set forth in Don Chavas, LLC d/b/a Tortillas
Don Chavas, 361 NLRB 101 (2014), for their respective em-
ployees. Consistent with the Board holding in AdvoServ of N.J.,
363 NLRB No. 143 (2016), Respondent Employers shall be
required within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is
fixed, either by agreement or NLRB order, to file its report
allocating backpay with the Regional Director and not with the
Social Security Administration. The Respondent will be re-
quired to allocate backpay to the appropriate calendar years
only.
Further, Respondent Employers, with respect to their respec-
tive employees as joint employers as found herein, and TWU
Local 504 shall be ordered as jointly and severally liable for
reimbursing all claims of present and former unit employees
who were coerced to join TWU Local 504 on or since July 1,
2013, for any initiation fees, periodic dues, assessments, or any
other monies they may have paid or that may have been with-
held from their pay pursuant to the TWU contract, together
with interest as prescribed in New Horizons, supra, compound-
ed daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, supra.
I also shall order Respondent Employers and TWU Local
504 to post the Board’s standard Notice to Employees and No-
tice to Employees and Members, respectively.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended.22

22 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD22
ORDER
A. Respondent Oxford and Respondent Worldwide, as joint
employers, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, as
successors to ABM Facility Services, Inc., shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with Inter-
national Union of Operating Engineers Local 399, AFL–CIO,
(IUOE Local 399) as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the dispatcher, lead dispatcher, mechanic, senior
mechanic, lead mechanic, helper, and working foreman em-
ployees in the following appropriate bargaining unit concerning
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment:
all employees engaged in the following operations: maintain-
ing and monitoring all conveyors and associated components
of the baggage handling system, operating or assisting in op-
erating all heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning equip-
ment (HVAC), engines, turbines, motors, combustion en-
gines, pumps, air compressors, ice and refrigerating machines,
fans, siphons, also automatic and power-oiling pumps and
engines, operating or assisting in operating, maintaining all
instrumentation and appurtenances utilizing energy from nu-
clear fission or fusion and its products; such as radioactive
isotopes; also referred to as dispatchers, lead dispatchers, me-
chanics, senior mechanics, lead mechanics, helpers, working
foremen, encoders, and lead encoders.
(b) Withdrawing recognition from IUOE Local 399 as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of unit employ-
ees.
(c) Granting assistance to Transportation Workers Union of
America—Local 504, AFL–CIO (TWU Local 504) and recog-
nizing it as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the unit employees at a time when TWU Local 504 did not
represent an unassisted and uncoerced majority of the employ-
ees in the unit.
(d) Applying the terms and conditions of employment of the
collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent World-
wide and TWU Local 504 (TWU contract), including its union-
security provisions, to the dispatcher, lead dispatcher, mechan-
ic, senior mechanic, lead mechanic, helper, and working fore-
man unit employees at a time when TWU Local 504 did not
represent an unassisted and uncoerced majority of the employ-
ees in the unit.
(e) Bypassing IOUE Local 399 and directly offering dis-
patcher, lead dispatcher, mechanic, senior mechanic, lead me-
chanic, helper, and working foreman unit employees continued
employment in the unit on the basis of terms and conditions of
employment different from those enjoyed under predecessor
ABM Facility Services, Inc. and on condition that they be rep-
resented by TWU Local 504.
(f) Changing the terms and conditions of employment of the
dispatcher, lead dispatcher, mechanic, senior mechanic, lead
mechanic, helper, and working foreman unit employees without
first notifying IUOE Local 399 and giving it an opportunity to
bargain.

ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
(g) Discriminating against dispatcher, lead dispatcher, me-
chanic, senior mechanic, lead mechanic, helper, and working
foreman unit employees in regard to their hire or tenure of em-
ployment in order to encourage membership in TWU Local
399.
(h) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the NLRA.
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from TWU Local
504 as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
dispatcher, lead dispatcher, mechanic, senior mechanic, lead
mechanic, helper, and working foreman unit employees.
(b) Refrain from applying the terms and conditions of em-
ployment of a collective-bargaining agreement with TWU Lo-
cal 504, including its union-security provisions, to the dispatch-
er, lead dispatcher, mechanic, senior mechanic, lead mechanic,
helper, and working foreman unit employees.
(c) Jointly and severally with TWU Local 504, reimburse all
dispatcher, lead dispatcher, mechanic, senior mechanic, lead
mechanic, helper, and working foreman unit employees for all
initiation fees, dues, and other moneys paid by them or with-
held from their wages pursuant to the TWU contract with inter-
est.
(d) Notify IUOE Local 399 in writing of all changes made
to the dispatcher, lead dispatcher, mechanic, senior mechanic,
lead mechanic, helper, and working foreman unit employees’
terms and conditions of employment on and after July 1, 2013,
and, on request of IUOE Local 399, rescind any or all unlawful-
ly imposed changes and restore terms and conditions of em-
ployment retroactively to July 1, 2013.
(e) Jointly and severally make the dispatcher, lead dispatch-
er, mechanic, senior mechanic, lead mechanic, helper, and
working foreman unit employees whole for any losses sus-
tained due to the unlawfully imposed changes in wages, hours,
benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment in the
manner set forth above in the remedy section.
(f) Jointly and severally compensate the dispatcher, lead
dispatcher, mechanic, senior mechanic, lead mechanic, helper,
and working foreman unit employees for any adverse income
tax consequences of receiving their backpay in one lump sum,
and file with the Regional Director for Region 13, within 21
days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by
agreement or Board order, a report allocating the backpay
award to the appropriate calendar year(s).
(g) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the NLRB
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment rec-
ords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(h) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at Ter-
minal 5 of the Chicago O’Hare International Airport in Illinois,
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix A”, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being
OXFORD ELECTRONICS, INC., D/B/A OXFORD AIRPORT TECHNICAL SERVICES 23
jointly signed by the authorized representatives of Respondents
Oxford and Worldwide, shall be posted by Respondents Oxford
and Worldwide and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of
paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as
by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, or other
electronic means, if Respondents Oxford and/or Worldwide
customarily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents Oxford and
Worldwide to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. If Respondents Oxford and
Worldwide have gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in this proceeding, Respondents Oxford and World-
wide shall jointly duplicate and mail, at their own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current and former dispatcher, lead
dispatcher, mechanic, senior mechanic, lead mechanic, helper,
and working foreman unit employees employed by Respond-
ents Oxford and Worldwide at Terminal 5 of the Chicago
O’Hare International Airport in Illinois at any time since July 1,
2013.
(i) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director for Region 13 a sworn certification of re-
sponsible officials on a form provided by the Region attesting
to the steps that Respondents Oxford and Worldwide have tak-
en to comply.
B. Respondent Oxford and Respondent Total, as joint em-
ployers, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, as suc-
cessors to ABM Facility Services, Inc., and its subcontract with
Respondent Total, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and Refusing to recognize and bargain with In-
ternational Union of Operating Engineers Local 399, AFL–CIO
(IUOE Local 399) as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the encoder and lead encoder unit employees, who
were employed by Respondents Oxford and Total, as joint em-
ployers, for any period of time since July 1, 2013, in the follow-
ing appropriate bargaining unit concerning wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment:
all employees engaged in the following operations: maintain-
ing and monitoring all conveyors and associated components
of the baggage handling system, operating or assisting in op-
erating all heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning equip-
ment (HVAC), engines, turbines, motors, combustion en-
gines, pumps, air compressors, ice and refrigerating machines,
fans, siphons, also automatic and power-oiling pumps and
engines, operating or assisting in operating, maintaining all
instrumentation and appurtenances utilizing energy from nu-
clear fission or fusion and its products; such as radioactive
isotopes; also referred to as dispatchers, lead dispatchers, me-
chanics, senior mechanics, lead mechanics, helpers, working
foremen, encoders, and lead encoders.
(b) Withdrawing recognition from IUOE Local 399 as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of encoder and
lead encoder unit employees, who were employed by Respond-
ents Oxford and Total, as joint employers, for any period of
time since July 1, 2013, granting assistance to Transportation
Workers Union of America—Local 504, AFL–CIO (TWU
Local 504) and recognizing it as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the encoder unit employees, who
were employed by Respondents Oxford and Total, as joint em-
ployers, for any period of time since July 1, 2013, at a time
when TWU Local 504 did not represent an unassisted and un-
coerced majority of the employees in the unit.
(c) Applying the terms and conditions of employment of the
collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent World-
wide and TWU Local 504 (TWU contract), including its union-
security provisions, to the encoder and lead encoder unit em-
ployees, who were employed by Respondents Oxford and To-
tal, as joint employers, for any period of time since July 1,
2013, at a time when TWU Local 504 did not represent an un-
assisted and uncoerced majority of the employees in the unit.
(d) Bypassing IOUE Local 399 and directly offering encod-
er and lead encoder unit employees, who were employed by
Respondents Oxford and Total, as joint employers, for any
period of time since July 1, 2013, continued employment in the
unit on the basis of terms and conditions of employment differ-
ent from those enjoyed under predecessor ABM Facility Ser-
vices, Inc. and/or its subcontract with Respondents Oxford and
Total, as joint employers, and on condition that they be repre-
sented by TWU Local 504.
(e) Changing the terms and conditions of employment of the
encoder and lead encoder unit employees, who were employed
by Respondents Oxford and Total, as joint employers, for any
period of time since July 1, 2013, without first notifying IUOE
Local 399 and giving it an opportunity to bargain.
(f) Discriminating against encoder and lead encoder unit
employees, who were employed by Respondents Oxford and
Total, as joint employers, for any period of time since July 1,
2013, in regard to their hire or tenure of employment in order to
encourage membership in TWU Local 504.
(g) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the NLRA.
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from TWU Local
504 as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
encoder and lead encoder unit employees, who were employed
by Respondents Oxford and Total, as joint employers, for any
period of time since July 1, 2013.
(b) Refrain from applying the terms and conditions of em-
ployment of a collective-bargaining agreement with TWU Lo-
cal 504, including its union-security provisions, to the encoder
and lead encoder unit employees, who were employed by Re-
spondents Oxford and Total, as joint employers, for any period
of time since July 1, 2013.
(c) Jointly and severally with TWU Local 504, reimburse all
encoder and lead encoder unit employees, who were employed
by Respondents Oxford and Total, as joint employers, for any
period of time during which they were employed by Respond-
ents Oxford and Total, as joint employers, since July 1, 2013,
for all initiation fees, dues, and other moneys paid by them or
withheld from their wages pursuant to the TWU contract with
interest.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD24
(d) Notify IUOE Local 399 in writing of all changes made
to the terms and conditions of employment on and after July 1,
2013, of the encoder and lead encoder unit employees, who
were employed by Respondents Oxford and Total, as joint em-
ployers, for any period of time since July 1, 2013, and, on re-
quest of IUOE Local 399, rescind any or all unlawfully im-
posed changes and restore terms and conditions of employment
retroactively to July 1, 2013.
(e) Jointly and severally make the encoder and lead encoder
unit employees, who were employed by Respondents Oxford
and Total, as joint employers, for any period of time during
which they were employed by Respondents Oxford and Total,
as joint employers, since July 1, 2013, whole for any losses
sustained due to the unlawfully imposed changes in wages,
hours, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment
in the manner set forth above in the remedy section.
(f) Jointly and severally compensate the encoder and lead
encoder unit employees, who were employed by Respondents
Oxford and Total, as joint employers, for any period of time
during which they were employed by Respondents Oxford and
Total, as joint employers, since July 1, 2013, for any adverse
income tax consequences of receiving their backpay in one
lump sum, and file with the Regional Director for Region 13,
within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, ei-
ther by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the back-
pay award to the appropriate calendar year(s).
(g) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the NLRB
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment rec-
ords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(h) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at Ter-
minal 5 of the Chicago O’Hare International Airport in Illinois,
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix B,” on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being
jointly signed by the authorized representatives of Respondents
Oxford and Total, shall be posted by Respondents Oxford and
Total and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by
email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, or other elec-
tronic means, if Respondents Oxford and/or Total customarily
communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondents Oxford and Total to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. If Respondents Oxford and Total have gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in this proceeding, Re-
spondents Oxford and Total shall jointly duplicate and mail, at
their own expense, a copy of the notice to all current and for-
mer encoder and lead encoder unit employees, who were em-
ployed by Respondent Total, for the period of time during
which they were employed by Respondent Total since July 1,
2013, at Terminal 5 of the Chicago O’Hare International Air-
port in Illinois at any time since July 1, 2013.
(i) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director for Region 13 a sworn certification of re-
sponsible officials on a form provided by the Region attesting
to the steps that Respondents Oxford and Total have taken to
comply.
C. Respondent Oxford and Respondent Twin, as joint em-
ployers, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, as suc-
cessors to ABM Facility Services, Inc., and its subcontract with
Respondent Total, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and Refusing to recognize and bargain with In-
ternational Union of Operating Engineers Local 399, AFL–CIO
(IUOE Local 399) as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the encoder and lead encoder unit employees, who
were employed by Respondents Oxford and Twin, as joint em-
ployers, for any period of time since July 1, 2013, in the follow-
ing appropriate bargaining unit concerning wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment:
all employees engaged in the following operations: maintain-
ing and monitoring all conveyors and associated components
of the baggage handling system, operating or assisting in op-
erating all heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning equip-
ment (HVAC), engines, turbines, motors, combustion en-
gines, pumps, air compressors, ice and refrigerating machines,
fans, siphons, also automatic and power-oiling pumps and en-
gines, operating or assisting in operating, maintaining all in-
strumentation and appurtenances utilizing energy from nucle-
ar fission or fusion and its products; such as radioactive iso-
topes; also referred to as dispatchers, lead dispatchers, me-
chanics, senior mechanics, lead mechanics, helpers, working
foremen, encoders, and lead encoders.
(b) Withdrawing recognition from IUOE Local 399 as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of encoder and
lead encoder unit employees, who were employed by Respond-
ents Oxford and Twin, as joint employers, for any period of
time since July 1, 2013, granting assistance to Transportation
Workers Union of America—Local 504, AFL–CIO, (TWU
Local 504) and recognizing it as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the encoder unit employees, who
were employed by Respondents Oxford and Twin, as joint em-
ployers, for any period of time since July 1, 2013, at a time
when TWU Local 504 did not represent an unassisted and un-
coerced majority of the employees in the unit.
(c) Applying the terms and conditions of employment of the
collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent World-
wide and TWU Local 504 (TWU contract), including its union-
security provisions, to the encoder and lead encoder unit em-
ployees, who were employed by Respondents Oxford and
Twin, as joint employers, for any period of time since July 1,
2013, at a time when TWU Local 504 did not represent an un-
assisted and uncoerced majority of the employees in the unit.
(d) Bypassing IOUE Local 399 and directly offering encod-
er and lead encoder unit employees, who were employed by
Respondents Oxford and Twin, as joint employers, for any
period of time since July 1, 2013, continued employment in the
unit on the basis of terms and conditions of employment differ-
ent from those enjoyed under predecessor ABM Facility Ser-
OXFORD ELECTRONICS, INC., D/B/A OXFORD AIRPORT TECHNICAL SERVICES 25
vices, Inc. and/or its subcontract with Respondents Oxford and
Twin, as joint employers, and on condition that they be repre-
sented by TWU Local 504.
(e) Changing the terms and conditions of employment of the
encoder and lead encoder unit employees, who were employed
by Respondents Oxford and Twin, as joint employers, for any
period of time since July 1, 2013, without first notifying IUOE
Local 399 and giving it an opportunity to bargain.
(f) Discriminating against encoder and lead encoder unit
employees, who were employed by Respondents Oxford and
Twin, as joint employers, for any period of time since July 1,
2013, in regard to their hire or tenure of employment in order to
encourage membership in TWU Local 504.
(g) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the NLRA.
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from TWU Local
504 as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
encoder and lead encoder unit employees, who were employed
by Respondents Oxford and Twin, as joint employers, for any
period of time since July 1, 2013.
(b) Refrain from applying the terms and conditions of em-
ployment of a collective-bargaining agreement with TWU Lo-
cal 504, including its union-security provisions, to the encoder
and lead encoder unit employees, who were employed by Re-
spondents Oxford and Twin, as joint employers, for any period
of time since July 1, 2013.
(c) Jointly and severally with TWU Local 504, reimburse all
encoder and lead encoder unit employees, who were employed
by Respondents Oxford and Twin, as joint employers, for any
period of time during which they were employed by Respond-
ents Oxford and Total, as joint employers, since July 1, 2013,
for all initiation fees, dues, and other moneys paid by them or
withheld from their wages pursuant to the TWU contract with
interest.
(d) Notify IUOE Local 399 in writing of all changes made
to the terms and conditions of employment on and after July 1,
2013, of the encoder and lead encoder unit employees, who
were employed by Respondents Oxford and Twin, as joint em-
ployers, for any period of time since July 1, 2013, and, on re-
quest of IUOE Local 399, rescind any or all unlawfully im-
posed changes and restore terms and conditions of employment
retroactively to July 1, 2013.
(e) Jointly and severally make the encoder and lead encoder
unit employees, who were employed by Respondents Oxford
and Twin, as joint employers, for any period of time during
which they were employed by Respondents Oxford and Twin,
as joint employers, since July 1, 2013, whole for any losses
sustained due to the unlawfully imposed changes in wages,
hours, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment
in the manner set forth above in the remedy section.
(f) Jointly and severally compensate the encoder and lead
encoder unit employees, who were employed by Respondents
Oxford and Twin, as joint employers, for any period of time
during which they were employed by Respondents Oxford and
Twin, as joint employers, since July 1, 2013, for any adverse
income tax consequences of receiving their backpay in one
lump sum, and file with the Regional Director for Region 13,
within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, ei-
ther by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the back-
pay award to the appropriate calendar year(s).
(g) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the NLRB
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment rec-
ords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(h) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at Ter-
minal 5 of the Chicago O’Hare International Airport in Illinois,
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix C,” on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being
jointly signed by the authorized representatives of Respondents
Oxford and Twin, shall be posted by Respondents Oxford and
Twin and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by
email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, or other elec-
tronic means, if Respondents Oxford and/or Twin customarily
communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondents Oxford and Twin to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. If Respondents Oxford and Twin have gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in this proceeding, Re-
spondents Oxford and Twin shall jointly duplicate and mail, at
their own expense, a copy of the notice to all current and for-
mer encoder and lead encoder unit employees, who were em-
ployed by Respondent Twin, for the period of time during
which they were employed by Respondent Twin since July 1,
2013, at Terminal 5 of the Chicago O’Hare International Air-
port in Illinois at any time since July 1, 2013.
(i) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director for Region 13 a sworn certification of re-
sponsible officials on a form provided by the Region attesting
to the steps that Respondents Oxford and Twin have taken to
comply.
D. Respondent TWU Local 504, its officers, agents and rep-
resentatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Accepting assistance and recognition from Respondents
Oxford, Worldwide, Total, and Twin as the collective-
bargaining representative of unit employees at a time when
TWU-Local 504 did not represent an uncoerced majority of the
employees in the unit.
(b) Maintaining and enforcing the TWU contract, or any ex-
tension, renewal, or modification thereof, including its union-
security provisions, so as to cover the unit employees.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD26
(a) Decline recognition as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of employees in the following unit,
all employees engaged in the following operations: maintain-
ing and monitoring all conveyors and associated components
of the baggage handling system, operating or assisting in op-
erating all heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning equip-
ment (HVAC), engines, turbines, motors, combustion en-
gines, pumps, air compressors, ice and refrigerating machines,
fans, siphons, also automatic and power-oiling pumps and
engines, operating or assisting in operating, maintaining all
instrumentation and appurtenances utilizing energy from nu-
clear fission or fusion and its products; such as radioactive
isotopes; also referred to as dispatchers, lead dispatchers, me-
chanics, senior mechanics, lead mechanics, helpers, working
foremen, encoders, and lead encoders.
(b) Jointly and severally with Respondents Oxford, World-
wide, Total and Twin reimburse all present and former unit
employees for all initiation fees, dues, and other moneys paid
by them or withheld from their wages pursuant to the TWU
contract, with interest.
(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents all records, including an electronic copy of such
records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the
amount due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
headquarters and at its offices and meeting halls in Chicago,
Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix D.”
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 13, after being signed by Respondent TWU Lo-
cal 504’s authorized representative, shall be posted by Re-
spondent TWU Local 504 and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees and members are customarily posted. In addition
to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an
internet site, or other electronic means, if Respondent TWU
Local 504 customarily communicates with its members by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent TWU
Local 504 to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Furnish the Regional Director with signed copies of Re-
spondent TWU Local 504’s notice to members and employees
marked “Appendix D” for posting by Respondents Oxford and
Worldwide at Terminal 5 of the Chicago O’Hare International
Airport in Illinois where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Copies of the notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director, shall be signed and returned to the Regional Director
promptly.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director for Region 13 a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to
the steps that Respondent TWU Local 504 has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. May 31, 2017
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain with the International
Union of Operating Engineers Local 399, AFL–CIO, (IUOE
Local 399) as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of our employees who hold the positions of dispatchers, lead
dispatchers, mechanics, senior mechanics, lead mechanics,
helpers, and working foremen in the following unit:
all employees engaged in the following operations: maintain-
ing and monitoring all conveyors and associated components
of the baggage handling system, operating or assisting in op-
erating all heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning equip-
ment (HVAC), engines, turbines, motors, combustion en-
gines, pumps, air compressors, ice and refrigerating machines,
fans, siphons, also automatic and power-oiling pumps and
engines, operating or assisting in operating, maintaining all
instrumentation and appurtenances utilizing energy from nu-
clear fission or fusion and its products; such as radioactive
isotopes; also referred to as dispatchers, lead dispatchers, me-
chanics, senior mechanics, lead mechanics, helpers, working
foremen, encoders, and lead encoders.
WE WILL NOT withdraw recognition from IUOE Local 399 as
your exclusive collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT grant assistance to Transportation Workers Un-
ion of America—Local 504, AFL–CIO, (TWU Local 504) or
recognize it as your exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive at a time when TWU Local 504 does not represent an unas-
sisted and uncoerced majority of the employees in the unit.
WE WILL NOT apply the terms and conditions of employment
of the collective-bargaining agreement with TWU Local 504
(TWU contract), or any extensions, renewals, or modifications
of that agreement, including its union-security provisions, to
you at a time when TWU Local 504 does not represent an unas-
sisted and uncoerced majority of employees in the unit.
WE WILL NOT change your terms and conditions of employ-
ment without first notifying IUOE Local 399 and giving it an
opportunity to bargain.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against you in regard to your hire
or tenure of employment in order to encourage membership in
TWU Local 504.
OXFORD ELECTRONICS, INC., D/B/A OXFORD AIRPORT TECHNICAL SERVICES 27
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from TWU
Local 504 as your exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive, unless and until TWU Local 504 has been certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as your exclusive collective-
bargaining representative.
WE WILL refrain from applying to you the terms and condi-
tions of employment of a collective-bargaining agreement with
TWU Local 504, including its union-security provisions.
WE WILL, jointly and severally, with TWU Local 504, reim-
burse you for all initiation fees, dues, and other moneys paid by
you or withheld from your wages pursuant to the TWU con-
tract, with interest.
WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain at reasonable
times and places and in good faith with IUOE Local 399 as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our employees
in the described appropriate unit concerning wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody the understanding in a signed col-
lective-bargaining agreement.
WE WILL notify IOUE Local 399 in writing of any changes
made to your terms and conditions of employment on or after
July 1, 2013, and WE WILL, on the request of IOUE Local 399,
rescind any or all changes and restore your terms and condi-
tions of employment retroactively to July 1, 2013.
WE WILL, jointly and severally, make you whole, with inter-
est, for any losses sustained due to our unlawfully imposed
changes in wages, hours, benefits, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment.
OXFORD ELECTRONICS, INC., D/B/A OXFORD AIRPORT
TECHNICAL SERVICES
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/13-CA-115933 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273-1940.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain with the International
Union of Operating Engineers Local 399, AFL–CIO (IUOE
Local 399) as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of our employees who hold the positions of encoders and lead
encoders in the following unit:
all employees engaged in the following operations: maintain-
ing and monitoring all conveyors and associated components
of the baggage handling system, operating or assisting in op-
erating all heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning equip-
ment (HVAC), engines, turbines, motors, combustion en-
gines, pumps, air compressors, ice and refrigerating machines,
fans, siphons, also automatic and power-oiling pumps and
engines, operating or assisting in operating, maintaining all
instrumentation and appurtenances utilizing energy from nu-
clear fission or fusion and its products; such as radioactive
isotopes; also referred to as dispatchers, lead dispatchers, me-
chanics, senior mechanics, lead mechanics, helpers, working
foremen, encoders, and lead encoders.
WE WILL NOT withdraw recognition from IUOE Local 399 as
your exclusive collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT grant assistance to Transportation Workers Un-
ion of America—Local 504, AFL–CIO (TWU Local 504) or
recognize it as your exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive at a time when TWU Local 504 does not represent an unas-
sisted and uncoerced majority of the employees in the unit.
WE WILL NOT apply the terms and conditions of employment
of the collective-bargaining agreement with TWU Local 504
(TWU contract), or any extensions, renewals, or modifications
of that agreement, including its union-security provisions, to
you at a time when TWU Local 504 does not represent an unas-
sisted and uncoerced majority of employees in the unit.
WE WILL NOT change your terms and conditions of employ-
ment without first notifying IUOE Local 399 and giving it an
opportunity to bargain.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against you in regard to your hire
or tenure of employment in order to encourage membership in
TWU Local 504.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from TWU
Local 504 as your exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive, unless and until TWU Local 504 has been certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as your exclusive collective-
bargaining representative.
WE WILL refrain from applying to you the terms and condi-
tions of employment of a collective-bargaining agreement with
TWU Local 504, including its union-security provisions.
WE WILL, jointly and severally, with TWU Local 504, reim-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD28
burse you for all initiation fees, dues, and other moneys paid by
you or withheld from your wages pursuant to the TWU con-
tract, with interest.
WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain at reasonable
times and places and in good faith with IUOE Local 399 as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our employees
in the described appropriate unit concerning wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody the understanding in a signed col-
lective-bargaining agreement.
WE WILL notify IOUE Local 399 in writing of any changes
made to your terms and conditions of employment on or after
July 1, 2013, and WE WILL, on the request of IOUE Local 399,
rescind any or all changes and restore your terms and condi-
tions of employment retroactively to July 1, 2013.
WE WILL, jointly and severally, make you whole, with inter-
est, for any losses sustained due to our unlawfully imposed
changes in wages, hours, benefits, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment.
OXFORD ELECTRONICS, INC., D/B/A OXFORD AIRPORT
TECHNICAL SERVICES
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/13-CA-115933 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273-1940.
APPENDIX C
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain with the International
Union of Operating Engineers Local 399, AFL–CIO (IUOE
Local 399) as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of our employees who hold the positions of encoders and lead
encoders in the following unit:
all employees engaged in the following operations: maintain-
ing and monitoring all conveyors and associated components
of the baggage handling system, operating or assisting in op-
erating all heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning equip-
ment (HVAC), engines, turbines, motors, combustion en-
gines, pumps, air compressors, ice and refrigerating machines,
fans, siphons, also automatic and power-oiling pumps and
engines, operating or assisting in operating, maintaining all
instrumentation and appurtenances utilizing energy from nu-
clear fission or fusion and its products; such as radioactive
isotopes; also referred to as dispatchers, lead dispatchers, me-
chanics, senior mechanics, lead mechanics, helpers, working
foremen, encoders, and lead encoders.
WE WILL NOT withdraw recognition from IUOE Local 399 as
your exclusive collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT grant assistance to Transportation Workers Un-
ion of America—Local 504, AFL–CIO (TWU Local 504) or
recognize it as your exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive at a time when TWU Local 504 does not represent an unas-
sisted and uncoerced majority of the employees in the unit.
WE WILL NOT apply the terms and conditions of employment
of the collective-bargaining agreement with TWU Local 504
(TWU contract), or any extensions, renewals, or modifications
of that agreement, including its union-security provisions, to
you at a time when TWU Local 504 does not represent an unas-
sisted and uncoerced majority of employees in the unit.
WE WILL NOT change your terms and conditions of employ-
ment without first notifying IUOE Local 399 and giving it an
opportunity to bargain.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against you in regard to your hire
or tenure of employment in order to encourage membership in
TWU Local 504.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from TWU
Local 504 as your exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive, unless and until TWU Local 504 has been certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as your exclusive collective-
bargaining representative.
WE WILL refrain from applying to you the terms and condi-
tions of employment of a collective-bargaining agreement with
TWU Local 504, including its union-security provisions.
WE WILL, jointly and severally, with TWU Local 504, reim-
burse you for all initiation fees, dues, and other moneys paid by
you or withheld from your wages pursuant to the TWU con-
tract, with interest.
WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain at reasonable
times and places and in good faith with IUOE Local 399 as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our employees
in the described appropriate unit concerning wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody the understanding in a signed col-
lective-bargaining agreement.
WE WILL notify IOUE Local 399 in writing of any changes
ip L
OXFORD ELECTRONICS, INC., D/B/A OXFORD AIRPORT TECHNICAL SERVICES 29
made to your terms and conditions of employment on or after
July 1, 2013, and WE WILL, on the request of IOUE Local 399,
rescind any or all changes and restore your terms and condi-
tions of employment retroactively to July 1, 2013.
WE WILL, jointly and severally, make you whole, with inter-
est, for any losses sustained due to our unlawfully imposed
changes in wages, hours, benefits, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment.
OXFORD ELECTRONICS, INC., D/B/A OXFORD AIRPORT
TECHNICAL SERVICES
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/13-CA-115933 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273-1940.
APPENDIX D
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT accept assistance or recognition from Oxford
Electronics, Inc., d/b/a Oxford Airport Technical Services,
Worldwide Flight Services, Inc., Total Facility Maintenance,
Inc., or Twin Staffing Inc. as your exclusive collective-
bargaining representative at a time when we do not represent an
uncoerced majority of the employees of Respondents Oxford,
Worldwide, Total, or Twin in the following unit:
all employees engaged in the following operations: maintain-
ing and monitoring all conveyors and associated components
of the baggage handling system, operating or assisting in op-
erating all heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning equip-
ment (HVAC), engines, turbines, motors, combustion en-
gines, pumps, air compressors, ice and refrigerating machines,
fans, siphons, also automatic and power-oiling pumps and
engines, operating or assisting in operating, maintaining all
instrumentation and appurtenances utilizing energy from nu-
clear fission or fusion and its products; such as radioactive
isotopes; also referred to as dispatchers, lead dispatchers, me-
chanics, senior mechanics, lead mechanics, helpers, working
foremen, encoders, and lead encoders.
WE WILL NOT maintain or enforce our collective-bargaining
agreement with Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. (TWU con-
tract), or any extensions, renewals, or modifications of that
contract, including its union-security provisions, so as to cover
you.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce
you in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL decline recognition as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees of Respondents
Oxford, Worldwide, Total, and Twin in the unit.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with Respondents Oxford,
Worldwide, Total and Twin, reimburse all present and former
employees in the unit described above for all initiation fees,
dues, and other moneys paid by them or withheld from their
wages pursuant to the TWU contract, with interest.
TRANSPORTATION WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA—
LOCAL 504, AFL-CIO
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/13-CA-115933 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273-1940.
El P.:: .';1 .17." El