Tri-State Aero, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 12, 1969

180 N.L.R.B. 60 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Tri-State Aero , Inc. and Chauffeurs, Teamsters and
Helpers, Local Union 215, a/w International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Petitioner. Case 25-RC-4025
December 12, 1969
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND ZAGORIA
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Frederick G. Winkler,
Hearing Officer. The Employer alone has filed a
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated 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, Tri-State Aero, Inc., is an
Indiana corporation with its principal place of
business in Evansville , Indiana . The Employer is
engaged in maintaining , fueling and storing aircraft,
and in operating an air taxi and chartering service.
It repairs and overhauls aircraft , sells fuel to
scheduled airlines and privately owned aircraft, and
maintains hangar facilities for those who avail
themselves of this service. It holds an Air Carrier
Operating Certificate issued by the Federal Aviation
Agency. The Employer also possesses repair service
and flight instruction school permits issued under
Federal auspices.
The Employer does in excess of $500,000 business
annually, about 90 percent of which represents
revenue from the sale of goods and services other
than air-taxi service. The Employer admits, and the
facts in the record indicate , that it is engaged in
interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act.
Nevertheless, it moves for dismissal of the petition
herein on the grounds that it is a "common carrier
by air engaged in interstate commerce " within the
meaning of the Railway Labor Act,' that its
operations and employees are covered by the
provisions of that Act, and that matters, such as are
here involved, would be more suitably handled by
the National Mediation Board, the agency primarily
vested with jurisdiction over air carriers under the
Railway Labor Act.
'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
Because of the nature of the question presented
here, we have, as in other cases in the past,'
requested the National Mediation Board to study
the record in this case and determine the
applicability of the Railway Labor Act to the
Employer. In the present case, we are
administratively advised by the National Mediation
Board that:
Based on the entire record it is the opinion of the
National Mediation Board, that Tri-State Aero,
Inc., does not meet the definition of a common
carrier by air as set forth in Section 201, Title II
of the Railway Labor Act; consequently, there is
no basis for this Board to exercise jurisdiction
over the employer or its employees.
On the basis of the facts set forth above, we find
the Employer' s contentions to be without merit.
Rather, we find that the Employer is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act. Accordingly, we shall deny its
motion to dismiss and we shall assert jurisdiction
herein.
2. The Petitioner requests a unit of all line service
employees, excluding professional employees, office
clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act. The Employer contends that only
a unit including line service men, mechanics, the
mechanic helper, and pilots would be appropriate.
The unit sought consists of those individuals who
are engaged in fueling , washing, and rolling aircraft
from place to place in the area between hangars and
taxiing ramps. They work in distinctive orange
overalls under separate supervision, are hourly paid,
and are employed in three separate shifts. They
require no special skills in the performance of their
work and are neither examined nor certified as to
work qualifications by regulatory agencies.
The mechanics, on the other hand, are responsible
for the airworthiness of the airplanes upon which
they work, are certified, use tools appropriate to
their craft, work in one regular 8-hour shift, wear
blue and white uniforms, are paid a substantially
higher hourly wage rate than the line service
employees, and work almost exclusively in the
hangars. Pilots, by the same token, are salaried,
certified, and work primarily in the air, flying
passengers for hire , or, as flight instructors , training
others in the skills of aerial navigation, maneuver,
aerodynamics, weather, and related subjects.
From the foregoing, it is apparent that line service
employees, as distinguished from mechanics,
mechanic helpers,3 and pilots, do not use any
as an employee . . of such carrier..
'See, e .g., Lynch Flying Service, Inc, 166 NLRB No. 118
'The one individual employed as a mechanic helper is paid substantially
more than the line service employees . His hourly rate more closely
approximates the starting rate paid to mechanics , whom he assists As a
helper, this individual receives on-the-job training leading to certification as
an aircraft mechanic upon passing the requisite Federal Aviation
Administration examinations . In these circumstances , we shall exclude the
mechanic helper from the unit herein found appropriate
180 NLRB No. 9
TRI-STATE AERO, INC.
particular skill or academic discipline in the
performance of their work, nor can they, by reason
of their work experience, qualify for employment in
the other classifications which the Employer would
include in the bargaining unit. The separate
community of interest thus manifest among the
Employer' s line service employees warrants our
finding that they constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
We find that the following employees at the
Employer's Evansville , Indiana, installation
constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All line service employees, but excluding all
mechanics, mechanic helpers, pilots, professional
61
employees, office clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election4 omitted from publication.]
'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 Company.
394 U.S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility
list, containing the names and addresses of all eligible voters, must be filed
by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 25 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.