Ports of Call Travel Club

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 22 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ports of Call Travel Club and Ports of Call Employee
Association , Petitioner. Cases 27-RC-4777,
27-RC-4818, and 27-RC-4819
November 21, 1974
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Jerry C. Legler. Fol-
lowing the hearing, this case was transferred to the
Board for Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b)' of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer, Ports of Call Travel Club, incor-
porated in Colorado with its only facility in Denver,
Colorado, is engaged in furnishing air travel service to
members of its organization. It has its own terminal
with offices, customs, immigration, arrival and depar-
ture lounge, a maintenance area, and adequate parking
for members on their trips. As an air travel club, the
Employer does not engage in mass media advertising
on radio, television, or newspapers.' Rather, the Club
issues a monthly newsletter which is mailed only to its
members. Ninety-nine percent of Ports of Call's mem-
bers are sponsored and recommended by other mem-
bers. Each member family pays an initiation fee of
$2502 which cannot be applied to defray the cost of
any trip. The Club makes additional annual assess-
ments of $25 per membership for dues, and $40 per
single membership or $100 per family, for a flight
deposit which is nonrefundable even if members do not
take a trip during the year.' The Employer has four
aircrafts4 of varying sizes . It has no interticketing or
interlining arrangement with other airlines . The Em-
ployer provides a variety of scheduled trips throughout
i At one time the Club did some advertising in only one newspaper, the
Denver Post, but this has been discontinued
2 Cf Voyager 1000, A Corporation, 202 NLRB 901 (1973), in which the
Employer's member families pa d a $10 initiation fee
3 The flight deposit, however, is applied to the cost of trips when taken
4 Employer ' s witness testified that the air hours the Club's planes get are
limited as compared to commercial aircraft While it is believed that com-
mercial airlines attempt to get up to 12 hours a day utilization out of their
planes which would be 360 hours a month, Ports of Call gets less than that
on their aircraft per year
the United States and into foreign countries.' All of
Employer's flights originate in Denver.
This case was transferred to the Board because of a
question as to whether or not the Employer is a com-
mon carrier by air engaged in interstate commerce
within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act6 and
thus not within this Board's jurisdiction.
Because of the nature of the question presented here,
we requested, as we have in other cases in the past,'
the National Mediation Board (as the agency primarily
vested with jurisdiction, under the Railway Labor Act,
over air carriers, and having primary authority to de-
termine its own jurisdiction) to study the record in this
case and determine the applicability of the Railway
Labor Act to the Employer. We were administratively
advised by the National Mediation Board, by letter
dated September 9, 1974, that:
The National Mediation Board has concluded that
Ports of Call Travel Club functions as a private
contract carrier and thus would not be a "common
carrier by air engaged in interstate or foreign com-
merce" as defined in Section 201 of Title II of the
Railway Labor Act. Under these circumstances,
jurisdiction would not be appropriate.
The Employer does in excess of $500,000 business an-
nually. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act
to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
thee representation of employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit.
Petitioner requests determination of the following
three units' as appropriate:
All flight crew personnel employees of the Em-
ployer, excluding all guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act and all other employees.
All maintenance employees employed by the Em-
ployer, excluding all guards and supervisors as
5 Eighty percent of the Club' s flights are foreign
6 Title II of the Railway Labor Act extends the coverage of that Act to
"every common carrier by air engaged in interstate or foreign commerce
. and every air pilot or other person who performs any work as an
employee of such carrier . "
r See, e g , (Voyager 1000, A Corporation , supra; Lynch Flying Service,
Inc, 166 NLRB 961 (1967), and cases cited therein
S The Petitioner filed three petitions seeking determination of three ap-
propriate units in Cases 27-RC-4777, 27-RC-4818, and 27-RC-4819 On
May 28, 1974, the Regional Director issued an order consolidating the
cases
215 NLRB No. 14
PORTS OF CALL TRAVEL CLUB
defined in the Act and all other employees of the
Employer.
All office clerical employees employed by the Em-
ployer, excluding all guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act and all other employees of the
Employer.
Neither the Petitioner nor the Employer expressed any
objections as to the definition or delineation of the units
as described.
5. Inclusions in the unit.
A question was raised, however, as to the supervisory
status of the chief mechanic. The Employer would ex-
clude the chief mechanic from the "maintenance em-
ployees" unit as a supervisor. Petitioner, on the other
hand, objected to the exclusion.'
Within the maintenance division, the chief mechanic
is second in the chain of command under the director
of maintenance. During the director's absence, the
chief mechanic is in charge of the maintenance depart-
9 At the hearing, Employer's Exh 1 contained a list of all the people
employed in the maintenance department by name and by classification
Petitioner did not object to the list of names on the exhibit, but did object
to the exclusion of Mr. Lundahl's name
23
ment . In the 3 months before the hearing, this con-
stituted approximately 90 percent of the time. He has
the authority to assign mechanics to various aircraft
based upon knowledge of their individual skills. He also
has authority to effectively recommend disciplinary ac-
tions, promotions, and wage increases, as well as the
authority to set shifts, grant time off, assign overtime
work, and to make purchases for the Club. In addition,
he attends meetings of supervisors whenever held. Un-
like other maintenance employees who are timeclock
hourly employees, the chief mechanic is paid on a sa-
lary scale.
Under these circumstances, we conclude that the
chief mechanic should be excluded as a supervisor.10
Accordingly, we find that the above aforementioned
units are appropriate for purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]
10 The record reveals that the chief mechanic, Jim Lundahl, spends 75
percent of his time supervising maintenance employees. He also spends 25
percent of his time as a flight crew engineer; a classification within the unit
of flight crew personnel We find that Mr. Lundahl's principal interests are
so allied with management as to warrant his exclusion from the flight crew
unit as well as the maintenance unit