Southwest Airlines Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 9, 1979

239 N.L.R.B. 1253 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.
Southwest Airlines Co.' and Transport Workers
Union of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 16-
RC-7786
January 9, 1978
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS PENELLO, MURPHY. AND TRUESDALE
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Edward B.
Valverde. Following the hearing, and pursuant to
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
the case was transferred to the National Labor Rela-
tions Board for decision. Thereafter, the Employer
filed a brief.
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 the case, the Board
finds:
1. Southwest Airlines Co. (herein the Employer), a
Texas corporation, is engaged in the intrastate trans-
portation of passengers within the State of Texas. It
operates no interstate flights nor does it interline with
interstate carriers or carry U.S. mail. The parties sti-
pulated that the Employer has annual gross revenues
in excess of $500,000 and during the past year pur-
chased and received goods and materials in excess of
$50,000 from outside the State of Texas.
The parties do not contest the Board's jurisdiction
and, on the basis of the facts set forth above, we
conclude that the Employer is not subject to the
Railway Labor Act and that it is an "employer"
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended. We further find
that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to rep-
resent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Petitioner seeks to represent a unit composed
of:
The name of the Employer appears as stated at the hearing.
Included, dispatchers and assistants. Excluded,
office clerical employees, professional and tech-
nical employees, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
The Employer contends that dispatchers and assis-
tants are either supervisors or managerial personnel,
and therefore not "employees" as defined in the Act.
The flight dispatch office, which employs 11 indi-
viduals in the unit sought here, is located in Dallas,
Texas. Harold Reilly, assistant vice president of
flight operations, is responsible for the operations of
the flight dispatch office. Depending on the schedul-
ing of aircraft, the flight dispatch office is staffed by
one, two, or three people. When the office is staffed
by only one person, that person must be a licensed
flight dispatcher. A two-person crew consists of a dis-
patcher and an assistant. An assistant may be an ap-
prentice who is learning the trade of flight dispatch-
ing; however, licensed flight dispatchers sometimes
serve as assistants on two- or three-person crews. A
three-person crew includes a "superintendent," a
"dispatcher," and an "assistant." When a three-per-
son crew is working, the superintendent is ultimately
responsible for the operations of the office; however,
all three members of the crew share the work of the
office. The Employer employs four individuals who
may serve either as superintendents or as flight dis-
patchers: three individuals of the hearing herein,
were assistants and therefore only when a licensed
flight dispatcher was present; and four licensed dis-
patchers who served either as dispatchers or assis-
tants.
The record shows that dispatchers and assistants
are responsible for planning, dispatching, and moni-
toring both scheduled and unscheduled flights. They
may delay, reroute, or cancel a flight. They are also
authorized to dispatch additional unscheduled flights
when passenger traffic warrants it. Together with the
pilot, the dispatcher on duty is responsible for insur-
ing that any jet sent out on a flight is in safe operat-
ing condition. If either the pilot or the dispatcher
believes that the aircraft is unsafe, he or she is ex-
pected to refuse to execute a flight release for that
flight. In that case, the dispatcher must either locate
another aircraft or cancel the flight. The dispatcher is
also responsible for informing pilots of the weather
they are likely to encounter during the flight.
The duties of dispatchers and assistants are regu-
lated by two documents. The first is a set of regula-
tions issued by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA). The second, which closely tracks the first, is
the Employer's Flight Operations Manual.
The parties stipulated that no one other than a li-
censed flight dispatcher or an assistant works in the
flight dispatch office, and dispatchers and assistants
1253
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have no authority to hire or fire employees or to ef-
fectively recommend the same. The parties also sti-
pulated that the work performed by dispatchers and
assistants employed by the Employer is identical to
that performed by dispatchers and assistants for in-
terstate airlines.2
In asserting that flight dispatchers are supervisors,
the Employer notes that flight dispatchers are re-
sponsible for assigning crews to extra flights which
may be scheduled and notifying personnel at other
airports to remain at work in order to service unsche-
duled flights when they arrive at the airport. The rec-
ord shows, however, that once a decision has been
made as to which aircraft will make a flight, the
choice of the crew for that aircraft is determined ac-
cording to which crew is normally scheduled to oper-
ate that aircraft, and the dispatcher has no input in
that assignment. Similarly, although the flight dis-
patcher is required to notify maintenance personnel
of the need for their presence beyond their scheduled
hours, the flight dispatcher is not authorized to take
any disciplinary measures toward a maintenance em-
ployee who refuses to work overtime; rather, this is
the responsibility of supervisors within the
Employer's maintenance operations. It therefore ap-
pears that flight dispatchers assign other employees
to work only to the extent that in assigning aircraft to
particular flights into particular airports dispatchers
cause employees assigned to that aircraft or airport
to perform duties in connection with the flight. In
these circumstances we are unable to agree with the
Employer's contention that flight dispatchers super-
vise any employees. Accordingly, we conclude that
they are not supervisors within the meaning of the
Act.
2 It appears from the record that the airline industry recognizes dispatch-
ers and assistants as an appropriate unit for bargaining, and that the Na-
tional Mediation Board has certified such units of employees working for
interstate carriers. We take administrative notice of the Railway Labor Act.
which governs labor relations between interstate carriers and their employ-
ees; it does not exclude supervisors from the definition of employee.
The Employer points to the authority of flight dis-
patchers to cancel, reroute, or add flights, as evi-
dence of their alleged managerial status. We note
that the flight dispatchers' authority in these areas is
circumscribed both by FAA regulations and by the
Employer's own regulations. For example, the record
shows that the Employer has issued guidelines cover-
ing the scheduling of extra sections of scheduled
flights. These guidelines require that enough addi-
tional passengers be available so that the flight will
be at least a break-even venture. Flight dispatchers
are aware of both the fare for particular flights and
the cost of making any particular flight, and the deci-
sion whether to schedule an extra section therefore
appears to be primarily a mathematical exercise rath-
er than the exercise of managerial discretion. There is
similar evidence in the record regarding the cancella-
tion of flights where not enough passengers have ap-
peared to justify the flight economically and the pas-
sengers can be accomodated on other flights. Other
authority to cancel or reroute flights is dependent on
safety considerations based on mechanical problems
or weather conditions. Based on these facts, we are
unable to conclude that the Employer's dispatchers
formulate, determine, or effectuate employer policies
and we therefore do not agree that they are manage-
rial employees.3
We therefore find that the following employees of
the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All dispatchers and assistants at the Employer's
Dallas, Texas, flight dispatch office, excluding
office clerical employees, professional and tech-
nical employees, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]
3General Dynarrucs Corporation, 213 NLRB 851. 857 (1974); Bell Aero-
space. A Division of Tertron. Inc, 219 NLRB 384 (1975).
1254