Teamsters Local 2000

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1996

321 N.L.R.B. 1383 (N.L.R.B. 1996)

1383
321 NLRB No. 173
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 2000
1 For example, base representatives continue to accrue seniority
and longevity for pay purposes. They retain their airline pass privi-
leges and can be disciplined for misuse. They possess NWA identi-
fication cards that permit access to airport high-security areas and
personal identification numbers that permit access to NWA’s com-
puterized records. When exercising their pass privileges, base rep-
resentatives must observe NWA dress codes. They must maintain
federally required training for flight attendants. As explained infra,
they participate in collectively bargained benefits including pension
and health plans.
2 The only exception is Seattle Base Representative Bill Rainey.
Before 1992, the NWA flight attendants had been represented by six
local unions of the IBT. In 1992 the locals merged and formed Local
2000 as the nationwide representative of the flight attendants.
Rainey, who has never been a flight attendant, had been employed
as the IBT business representative for the Seattle-based flight attend-
ants. Incident to the merger, a one-time exception was made so that
Rainey could continue to represent the Seattle flight attendants for
as long as they continued to reelect him. Privileges and duties inci-
dent to flight attendant status do not apply directly to Base Rep-
resentative Rainey. However, his pay and benefits are comparable to
those of the other base representatives, and he is subject to the same
terms and conditions of employment. The Employer concedes that
Rainey is a statutory employee.
3 Although Local 2000 is the funding source for all salary paid to
the base representatives, by agreement between Local 2000 and
NWA, the base representative salaries are issued through the NWA
payroll system. This procedure allows the base representatives to
maintain their eligibility for certain benefits, including pension and
health plans. NWA is reimbursed by Local 2000 for the flight-pay
portion of the salaries, including payroll taxes.
4 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., as amended.
5 Sec. 2(2) of the Act defines an ‘‘employer’’ as
‘‘[A]ny person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or in-
directly, but shall not include the United States or any wholly
Continued
Northwest Airlines Flight Attendant Union Local
2000 of the Teamsters Airline Division, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO
and National Association of Base Representa-
tives, Petitioner. Case 7–RC–20519
August 27, 1996
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS BROWNING
AND COHEN
On June 14, 1995, the Acting Regional Director for
Region 7 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in which he found appropriate the following unit:
All full-time and regular part-time Base Rep-
resentatives employed by the Employer at its
bases throughout the United States but excluding
all Executive Committee members, clerical em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
The Employer filed a request for review on June 22,
1995. On August 14, 1995, the Board granted the Em-
ployer’s request for review of the Acting Regional Di-
rector’s Decision. A mail ballot election was conducted
and the ballots were impounded pending the Board’s
Decision on Review.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
We have reviewed the entire record in this case, in-
cluding Local 2000’s brief in support of its request for
review. For the reasons set forth herein, we agree with
the Acting Regional Director that the petitioned-for
unit of base representatives is an appropriate unit. We
also agree that Local 2000 is an employer subject to
the NLRA, that the base representatives are employees
of Local 2000, and that the Petitioner can represent
them vis-a-vis Local 2000. Accordingly, we shall af-
firm the direction of an election and order that the bal-
lots be opened and counted and the appropriate certifi-
cation issued.
Base representatives are the elected full-time, local
representatives of the Northwest Airlines (NWA) flight
attendants who constitute the membership of the Em-
ployer (Local 2000). Pursuant to the collective-bargain-
ing agreement between Local 2000 and NWA, they
maintain their status as NWA employees while on
union leave serving in elective union office and are
subject to certain duties and privileges which attend
that status.1 Base representatives represent Local 2000
members vis-a-vis Local 2000, and they represent
those members vis-a-vis NWA. Their duties include,
inter alia, representing Local 2000’s members before
the Local 2000’s executive board, supervising Local
2000’s base activities, processing grievances vis-a-vis
NWA, serving as the focal point for communications
between Local 2000 and its membership, and promot-
ing good relationships with locals of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters. To be eligible to serve as
base representative, individuals must be members of
Local 2000. Only NWA flight attendants may be mem-
bers of Local 2000.2
Local 2000 pays the base representatives a salary
equivalent to the flight pay provision of the collective-
bargaining agreement between Local 2000 and NWA,
plus differentials and an additional amount set unilater-
ally by Local 2000 based on seniority and experience.3
They also receive from Local 2000 a travel allowance,
the amount of which is set by Local 2000’s executive
board. Local 2000 determines the office locations
where base representatives work, sets their work hours,
and establishes their leave and vacation benefits.
I. EXCEPTIONS REGARDING JURISDICTION
In its request for review, Local 2000 raises several
issues regarding the Board’s jurisdiction over this mat-
ter. It contends that Local 2000 is a union in the air-
line industry and thus is within the jurisdiction of the
Railway Labor Act.4 Local 2000 argues as follows: (1)
It is not a statutory employer pursuant to Section 2(2)
of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA);5 (2) the
1384 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
owned Government corporation, or any Federal Reserve Bank,
or any State or political subdivision thereof, or any person sub-
ject to the Railway Labor Act , as amended from time to time,
or any labor organization (other than when acting as an em-
ployer), or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of
such labor organization.
6Sec. 2(3) of the Act, in pertinent part, defines ‘‘employee’’ as
[A]ny employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of
a particular employer, unless the Act explicitly states otherwise
. . . but shall not include any individual employed by an em-
ployer subject to the Railway Labor Act . . . or by any other
person who is not an employer as herein defined.
7 No party contends that NWA and Local 2000 are joint employers
of the base representatives.
8 For example, Local 2000’s executive board cannot select base
representatives for employment and lacks the authority to lay them
off or discipline or remove them from office except through proce-
dures established by its constitution and bylaws. There is no conten-
tion that the base representatives are managerial employees or inde-
pendent contractors.
9 Member Cohen, in Management Training, supra, said that he
would assert jurisdiction over the contractor only if the contractor
controlled essential terms and conditions. He finds that Local 2000
meets that test. In this regard, he notes that Local 2000 has control
over, inter alia, a part of the salary of these employees, as well as
their travel allowances, leave, and vacation benefits.
base representatives are employees of NWA (an em-
ployer subject to the Railway Labor Act), and they are
subject to terms and conditions of employment that are
controlled by NWA; (3) hence the base representatives
are not statutory ‘‘employees’’ pursuant to Section
2(3) of the NLRA,6 which excludes from coverage the
employees of an employer subject to the Railway
Labor Act.7 It asserts, as well, that the status of base
representatives as elected officials of Local 2000 is in-
compatible with a finding that they are its statutory
employees. Further, Local 2000 cites Section 2(5) of
the NLRA, which in pertinent part defines a ‘‘labor or-
ganization’’ as ‘‘any organization of any kind, or any
agency or employee representation committee or plan,
in which employees participate . . . .’’ (Emphasis
added.) In the view of Local 2000, therefore, the Peti-
tioner cannot qualify as a statutory labor organization
because it has no statutory employee-members.
We find no merit in these jurisdictional arguments.
Local 2000 controls the wages, at least in part, and
other substantial terms and conditions of the base rep-
resentatives’ employment, including their travel allow-
ance, office location, work hours, and leave and vaca-
tion benefits. We recognize, as pointed out by Local
2000 in its brief, that some of the base representatives’
terms and conditions of employment may be controlled
by the contract between NWA and Local 2000, and
that NWA is an entity exempted from NLRA cov-
erage. However, this does not negate the finding,
which we make, that Local 2000 sets other substantial
terms and conditions of employment of the base rep-
resentatives. Because no party contends that NWA and
Local 2000 are joint employers, we conclude, on this
record, that Local 2000 is the Employer of the base
representatives.
We also recognize that the base representatives are
ultimately responsible to the electorate, i.e., the mem-
bership of Local 2000, rather than to the Local 2000’s
executive board.8 However, this is simply a reflection
of the fact that Local 2000 is composed of its member-
ship. Thus, responsibility to the membership is, in ef-
fect, responsibility to the Employer, Local 2000.
In sum, we find that Local 2000 is a statutory em-
ployer, and the business representatives are statutory
employees of Local 2000.
In addition, the Board’s jurisdiction over labor orga-
nizations acting as employers is well settled, even if
those labor organizations represent employees of car-
riers subject to the Railway Labor Act. See, e.g.,
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen,
145 NLRB 1521 (1964); Air Line Pilots Assn., 97
NLRB 929 (1951). At issue in this case is Local
2000’s function as the employer of the base representa-
tives, not its performance as the representative of indi-
viduals employed by a carrier regulated by the Railway
Labor Act. The NLRA statutory definition of employer
is broad, covering ‘‘any person acting as an agent of
an employer, directly or indirectly.’’ We agree with the
Acting Regional Director that the NLRA statutory def-
inition of employer encompasses Local 2000.
As noted above, some of the terms and conditions
of employment of the base representatives are deter-
mined by the contract between NWA and Local 2000.
That contract is outside the realm of the NLRA. In
Management Training Corp., 317 NLRB 1355 (1995),
the Board was presented with a case where some terms
and conditions were set outside the realm of the
NLRA, i.e., in that case by a governmental entity. The
Board nonetheless asserted jurisdiction over the con-
tractor doing business with the governmental entity.
The Board said that it would assert jurisdiction over
the contractor as long as the contractor was an em-
ployer within the meaning of the NLRA, i.e., as long
as the contractor controlled at least a term or condition
of employment. It does not matter whether the contrac-
tor-controlled terms are essential. In the instant case,
Local 2000 controls some terms and conditions of em-
ployment of base representatives. Thus, we assert juris-
diction over Local 2000.9
II. EXCEPTIONS ALLEGING CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST
Local 2000 also contends that the base representa-
tives are fiduciaries of Local 2000 and thus barred by
conflict of interest from bargaining with Local 2000.
The contention is based largely on the purported con-
flict that would be presented if the Petitioner seeks
higher wages for the base representatives, at the ex-
pense of Local 2000’s treasury. The base representa-
tives currently are paid from Local 2000’s treasury
1385TEAMSTERS LOCAL 2000
funds. We see no disabling conflict of interest. In
many bargaining relationships, the union’s success at
the bargaining table will be at the expense of the em-
ployer’s ‘‘treasury.’’ The only difference here is that
the base representatives are members of the Employer.
To the extent that the Employer’s ‘‘treasury’’ is ad-
versely affected, the member is protanto adversely af-
fected. However, the employee interest in improving
employment terms is far greater than the protanto
member interest in the treasury, so that any conflict of
interest is de minimus.
In that respect, this case is distinguishable from
Pony Express Courier Corp., 297 NLRB 171 (1989),
and Harlem River Consumers Cooperative, 191 NLRB
314 (1971), relied on by Local 2000. In those cases a
key official of the labor organization that sought to
represent unit employees had a conflicting personal
business relationship with the employer of the unit em-
ployees. Thus, there existed an inherent danger, not
present here, that the union official would make bar-
gaining demands or grant concessions that would sub-
ordinate the unit employees’ interests to those of his
own personal business interests. Medical Foundation of
Bellaire, 193 NLRB 62 (1971), is similarly distin-
guishable. There, the labor organization that attempted
to represent the unit employees had a direct and imme-
diate allegiance with the employees’ employer by vir-
tue of the labor organization’s representation on the
employer’s governing board of trustees. There is no
evidence here that the base representatives, alone or in
concert, have comparable control over Local 2000’s
executive board.
Local 2000 also contends that the Petitioner’s pur-
pose is not to engage in collective bargaining, but rath-
er, to set itself up as a rival labor organization to Local
2000. This contention is speculative, at best. We have
found that Local 2000 controls at least some matters
relating to its employment relationship with the base
representatives and that collective bargaining is fea-
sible if the Petitioner is elected as the base representa-
tives’ exclusive representative. It would be inappropri-
ate to base our decision on speculation that the Peti-
tioner was formed with any other purpose than to en-
gage in legitimate collective bargaining and employee
representation.
ORDER
The Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Direc-
tion of Election is affirmed to the extent consistent
with this Decision on Review. This proceeding is re-
manded to the Regional Director for further appro-
priate action, including the opening and counting of
the ballots cast in the election and the issuance of the
appropriate certification.