Trans-East Air, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1971

189 N.L.R.B. 185 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

TRANS-EAST AIR, INC.
Trans-East Air, Inc. and Truck Drivers, Warehouse-
men and Helpers Union , Local 340, a/w Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petition-
er. Case 1-RC-11250
March 22, 1971
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Reginald J. Gagnon.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer, Trans-East Air, Inc., is a New
York corporation with its principal place of business
in Bangor, Maine. It is engaged in a "fixed base
operation" under an agreement with the Airport
Department of the city of Bangor whereby it leases
and operates Bangor International Airport. It appears
that the intent of the agreement is to secure a "full
service" fixed base operation which would include
"primary line services such as the sale of aviation fuel
and oil, facilities for tie-downs, inside storage of
aircraft, ramp services and flight line repairs," and
other services as the sale of new and used aircraft,
engine and radio maintenance, flight training, aircraft
rentals, etc. While the Employer has full use of the
land, buildings, and facilities at the airport, which are
owned by the city, there is nothing in the agreement
which bestows on the Employer any of the govern-
mental powers of the city. The Employer was not
created by the State of Maine or the city as a political
subdivision thereof, nor is it administered by individ-
uals who are either elected or appointed by a
governmental body. Insofar as the record shows, the
relationship between the city and the Employer, as
expressly provided in the agreement, is strictly that of
"Lessor" and "Lessee" As long as the Employer
complies with the terms and conditions of the lease,
there is no evidence that the city or the Airport
Department will or has the power to interfere with the
Employer's operation of the airport. It appears further
I 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 carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract
with the United States Government, and every air pilot or other person
185
that the Employer hires, fires, and pays its own
employees who are under its direction, control, and
supervision.
The Employer provides certain services to interna-
tional flag carriers at the airport. It refuels, supplies
water to, and parks the aircraft, handles baggage, and
provides certain cleaning services with respect to the
aircraft. The employer also operates an air charter
service, a flight school, and a fixed base repair station
for small aircraft maintenance and repair. The
Employer has certificates issued by the Federal
Aviation Agency to conduct its fixed base operation,
to operate a charter service within the continential
United States and Canada, and to operate a repair
station, flight school, and an air taxi service.
The parties stipulated that the Employer does in
excess of $500,000 gross business annually and that it
derives more than $50,000 from services performed
for Humble Oil and Refining Company in putting
into the aircraft oil which has been shipped by
Humble Oil into the State of Maine from points
outside the State. The Employer also grosses more
than $50,000 annually for its services to international
airlines.
The Employer urges dismissal of the petition on the
ground that it is a common carrier by air engaged in
interstate commerce within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act,i that its operations and employ-
ees are covered by the provisions of that act, and that
this Board is therefore without jurisdiction. The
Employer also urges dismissal of the petition on the
further ground that it is acting as an agent of a
municipality, the city of Bangor, Maine, which has
delegated to the Employer its responsibility in
operating Bangor International Airport. Accordingly,
the Employer contends that it is excluded from the
Act's coverage by Section 2(2).
Because of the nature of the first question presented
above, we have in this case, as has been our practice in
the past,2 requested the National Mediation Board as
the agency primarily vested with jurisdiction, under
the Railway Labor Act, over air carriers and having
primary authority to determine its own jurisdiction, to
study the record in this case and determine the
applicability of the Railway Labor Act to the
Employer. We are administratively advised by the
National Mediation Board, under date of February 2,
1971, that: "Based on this record the National
Mediation Board is of the opinion that the Trans-East
Air, Inc. does not meet the definition of common
carrier by air as set forth in Section 201, Title II of the
Railway Labor Act; consequently there is not
who performs any work as an employee or subordinate official of such
carrier or carriers
2 See, e g, Lynch Flying Service, Inc. 166 NLRB 961
189 NLRB No. 33
186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sufficient basis for this Board to exercise jurisdiction
over the employer and its employees."
As to the Employer's contention that it is exempted
by virtue of being an agent of a municipality, we
conclude from the facts set forth above that the
Employer is not a political subdivision of a municipal-
ity nor a governmental instrumentality which is
entitled to the exemption set forth in Section 2(2) of
the Act.3
In light of the foregoing considerations, we find that
the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
3 Howard Johnson, Inc, of New Jersey, et al., 135 NLRB 1260, Culinary
Alliance and Hotel Service Employees Union Local 402 (The San Diego Civic
Facilities Corporation), 175 NLRB No. 26; Local Joint Executive (Little
Luigi's Italian Foods), 153 NLRB 392.
4 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior
Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N L.R B v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent 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. The parties stipulated, and we 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 aircraft dispatchers, excluding chief dispatch-
er, sales employeees, office clerical employees,
guards, all other professional employees, foremen
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election omitted from publication]4
759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list,
containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters must be filed
by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region I within 7 days of
the date of this Decision and Direction of Election The regional Director
shall make the list available to all parties to the election . No extension of
time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in
extraordinary circumstances . Failure to comply with this requirement shall
be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are
filed