Vecellio & Grogan, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 4, 1977

231 N.L.R.B. 136 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Vecellio & Grogan, Incorporated (Aviation Division)
and Local Lodge 598 of the International Associa-
tion of Machinist and Aerospace Workers, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case 9-RC-11823
August 4, 1977
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND MURPHY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer James E.
Horner. Following the hearing and pursuant to
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedure, Series 8, as amended, by direction of the
Regional Director for Region 9, this case was
transferred to the 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
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding 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, Vecellio & Grogan, Incorporat-
ed, is a West Virginia corporation engaged in the
business of highway and heavy construction. The
Aviation Division, the only division of the Employer
involved herein, operates an air taxi service and
maintains and repairs helicopters owned by other
companies from a fixed base at South Charleston,
West Virginia.
The parties stipulated at the hearing that the
Employer annually receives gross revenues in excess
of $500,000 and that it makes purchases outside the
State of West Virginia in excess of $50,000. The
Employer's air taxi service is licensed by the Federal
Aviation Administration, the Civil Aeronautics
Board, and the West Virginia Public Service Com-
mission. Its air taxi service provides flights for coal
company executives within West Virginia and to the
States of Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland,
and Kentucky. Of the total flights made by the air
taxi service less than 37 per cent are made within
West Virginia. These record facts establish that the
Employer is engaged in interstate commerce within
the meaning of the Act. The Employer contends,
however, that its operation is not subject to the
231 NLRB No. 27
National Labor Relations Act, but rather to the
Railway Labor Act.
Having therefore requested the National Media-
tion Board to examine the record in this case and
determine the applicability of the Railway Labor Act
to the Emloyer, we have been administratively
advised by the National Mediation Board that "the
National Mediation Board is of the opinion that
Vecellio & Grogan, Inc. (Aviation Division) is not a
carrier within the meaning of Section 201 of the
Railway Labor Act." Accordingly, on the basis of the
foregoing, we find the Employer is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act. Therefore, we shall assert
jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of the employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit
composed of:
All maintenance and parts department employ-
ees, excluding all office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards and supervisors,
as defined in the Act.
Of the approximately five employees in the unit
requested by Petitioner, four are maintenance em-
ployees (mechanics), and one works almost full time
in the parts department. The Employer seeks to
exclude this parts department employee from the
unit on grounds that he does not share a sufficient
community of interest with the mechanics. In this
regard, the record indicates that the parts department
employee, Joe Keene, was originally hired in 1974 as
a mechanics' helper, but that in early 1975 he started
working almost full time in the parts department.
Keene's duties include maintaining the parts invento-
ry, preparing and calling in purchase orders, and
making minor repairs on helicopters. Keene does not
have a mechanic's license nor does he have a regular
mechanic's toolbox for use in his repair work.
Further, it is undisputed that Keene spends the
majority of his working time in the parts department.
However, the record also establishes that all employ-
ees share the same working hours and fringe benefits,
that they utilize the same lunchroom and restroom
facilities, and that Keene is paid approximately the
same hourly wage as the lowest paid mechanic.
It is evident that the mechanics and the parts
department employee share a strong community of
interest. Thus, they receive the same benefits, have
frequent contact on the job, and on occasion perform
136
VECELLIO & GROGAN
the same work. Additionally, if Keene were excluded
from the bargaining unit he "might become the only
unrepresented employee in the plant and thus
effectively be denied the opportunity to be represent-
ed in collective bargaining." We shall therefore
include him in the unit.
Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, we find
that the following employees at the Employer's
facility at South Charleston, West Virginia, consti-
tute an appropriate unit for purposes of collective
I Victor Industries Corporation of California, 215 NLRB 48, 49 (1974);
Safair Flying Service Inc., 207 NLRB 119 (1973).
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All maintenance and parts department employ-
ees, excluding all office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors,
as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
137