Air California

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 1, 1968

170 N.L.R.B. 18 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Air California and Miscellaneous Warehousemen,
Drivers & Helpers , Local 986, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America ,' Peti-
tioner and, Air Line Dispatchers Association,
AFL-CIO,2 Petitioner. Cases 21-RC-10597,
21-RC-10600, 21-RC-10603, and
21-RC-10601
March 1, 1968
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section
9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, a consolidated hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Barton W. Robertson of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer and Teamsters filed briefs.'
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
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 af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer, Air California, is a scheduled
passenger air carrier operating a shuttle service
between Santa Ana; San Francisco, Oakland, and
San Jose, in California.4 It has no current plan to
extend its service to any point outside the State. It
has performed only one charter flight to a point
outside the State of California, and anticipates that
any further charter flights would not exceed one-
tenth of one percent of its business. The Employer
is subject to regulation by the California Public
Utilities Commission and has a certificate of public
convenience and necessity therefrom. It does not
possess a Civil Aeronautics Board certificate, but
its flight crews and mechanics are required by law
to be licensed by the Federal Aviation Agency. Air
California does not train pilots or other personnel
for other airlines and does not transport any mail
for the U.S. Government. It has no -arrangement
with other airlines for interchanging tickets, nor do
other airlines sell Air California tickets. While the
Company honors numerous credit cards, it does not
honor any universal air travel cards. The Employer
is listed,-in the "Official Airline Guide," as an "In-
tra-State Carrier."
The parties do not contest the Board's jurisdic-
tion, and the Teamsters in its brief asserts that the
Board should inquire of the National Mediation
Board concerning its statutory jurisdiction, citing
Pacific Southwest Airlines, Inc.,5 a case before the
National Mediation Board in which it declined to
assert jurisdiction. On the basis of the facts set forth
above, we conclude that the Employer is not sub-
ject to the Railway Labor Act and adopt the stipu-
lation of the parties that it is an "employer" within
,the meaning of Section 2(2) of the National Labor
.Relations Act, as amended.
It is apparent from a reading of the decision in
Pacific Southwest Airlines that the facts there were
substantially similar to those in the instant case .6
Based thereon, the National Mediation Board con-
cluded that Pacific Southwest Airlines was not a car-
rier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,
as amended, and dismissed the petition before it.
Petitioner in 21-RC-10597, 21-RC-10600, and 21-RC-10603 also
referred to herein as Teamsters.
Petitioner in 21-RC-10601 also referred to herein as Dispatchers.
The Employer also filed a motion to reopen the record to adduce
evidence of a change in its operations , which is ruled on hereinafter.
4 At the time of the hearing , the flights were only between Santa Ana and
San Francisco , but a request was pending to add two locations The Em-
ployer asserts that since that time. its certificate has been amended by the
California Utilities Commission to include San Jose and Oakland. Califor-
nia, and the Employer states in its brief that scheduled service to San Jose
would commence October 23, 1967, with a complement of maintenance
mechanics to be assigned there as of October 20, 1967 These facts were
not disputed by any party, and were in fact tacitly admitted See fn 9. infra
Accordingly, we assume for purposes of this Decision that these changes
have been accomplished
In the matter of Representation of Eniploiees of the Friedbin Aeronau-
tics, Inc., doing business as Pacific Soudntest Airlines - Airlines Pilots, File
No C-2200-decided March 18, 1954, "Determination of Craft or Class of
the National Mediation Board," Volume 3, p 13
6 The decision in Pacific Soudan est Airlines reveals the following The
operation was that of a scheduled passenger carrier between several loca-
tions in California, and the rates were on file with and regulated by the
Public Utilities Commission of that State The Civil Aeronautics Adminis-
tration had issued a commercial operator's certificate to the carrier
authorizing it to operate carrying passengers intrastate, the Civil Aeronau-
tics Board had never issued a Certificate of Public Convenience and Neces-
sity required of a carrier engaged in interstate commerce, and it was not
shown that the carrier had ever applied for such a certificate There was no
contention or evidence that the carrier transported mail for or under con-
tract with the United States Government Evidence was presented to in-
dicate that a traveller purchasing a ticket to travel from a point in Califor-
nia to a point outside that State. or vice versa might be carried within
California on equipment of Pacific Southwest A ticket for such a trip could
be purchased from a bureau or agency engaged only in selling tickets for
numerous airlines. among them Pacific Southwest, and the latter's tickets
were clearly marked to indicate that travel was via that airline and such ser-
vices were confined to California This was limited to part of Pacific
Southwest 's route , and there was no evidence showing any exchange of' in-
terstate" passengers with other airlines at the other locations of this line,
there was no evidence to indicate there was any interchange agreement or
understanding with any other carrier or agency, and there was no
evidence as to the volume or extent of such traffic Between 1949 and 1954
the carrier had only one flight outside of California, a charter trip, which
NMB stated was "an isolated occasion [which] cannot reasonably be con-
strued as affecting the normal commercial operations as a common carrier
by air engaged in intrastate business "
170 NLRB No. 1
AIR CALIFORNIA
Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Employer
herein is not, and would not be found by the Na-
tional Mediation Board,to be, a carrier within the
meaning of the Railway Labor Act but is an em-
ployer over whom we will assert jurisdiction if its
operations satisfy the standards for legal and discre-
tionary jurisdiction. -
The Employer's gross revenue during the past
year was more than $500,000 and its out-of-State
purchases were in excess of $50,000. It is apparent
that the value of the purchases across State lines
establishes our legal jurisdiction, and the volume of
gross revenue exceeds that necessary for the asser-
tion of jurisdiction over local passenger transit
systems.' We therefore 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 organizations involved -8 claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1)
and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer has facilities at San Francisco,
Santa Ana, Oakland, and San Jose all in California.9
At the Orange County Airport in Santa Ana (herein
called Santa Ana airport ) it has a maintenance
facility, terminal facility, dispatch office, and
warehouse facility, and its general offices are con-
tiguous to that airport. It has terminal and cargo
facilities and ticket counters at the San Francisco
International Airport, with a district sales office in
downtown San Francisco. According to Employer's
motion, it now has mechanics located at the San
Jose facility. At the time of the hearing, the Em-
ployer had a total of about 260 employees, includ-
ing 17 pilots, 17 copilots, 18 flight engineers, 16
mechanics (including 2 maintenance supervisors),
2 maintenance representatives , and 12 ramp agents.
Only the latter 80 employees are involved herein.
The pilots, copilots, and flight engineers all work
out of Santa Ana, and at that location there were
also 12 ramp agents , 6 maintenance mechanics, and
1 maintenance -mechanic foreman. The Employer's
San Francisco operations were manned by eight
' The Board has decided that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction over all transit systems which do a gross volume of busi-
ness of at least $250,000 per annum Charleston Transit Co., 123 NLRB
1296.
'The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, referred to herein as IAM, intervened on the basis of a showing
of interest in 21-RC-10597 and 21-RC-10600
' See fn 4, supra The Employer filed a motion to reopen the record
because of these new circumstances to take evidence on the status of main-
tenance mechanics to be stationed at San Jose , contending they should be
included in the same unit as its other mechanics The Teamsters, while op-
posing the motion to reopen, agreed that if San Francisco mechanics are in-
19
maintenance mechanics and one maintenance
mechanic foreman, and the Employer indicated at
the hearing that when it began operations at San
Jose two of the San Francisco maintenance
mechanics would be transferred to that' new loca-
tion. Its two maintenance representatives are as-
signed to Lockheed Aircraft Service, Ontario,
California, but they also spend 1 day each week at
the Santa Ana airport.
Air Line Dispatchers Association, AFL-CIO, in
Case 21-RC-10601, seeks a separate unit of air-
craft dispatchers, excluding all other employees.
Neither the Teamsters nor IAM intervened in that
proceeding, and they do not seek to represent these
dispatchers The Employer and Association stipu-
lated that the unit sought is appropriate and that
the chief dispatcher is a supervisor who should be
excluded from the unit. Therefore we find, in ac-
cordance with the agreement of the parties, that the
dispatchers constitute a unit appropriate'for collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
The Teamsters seeks three separate units10 of:
(A) all flight crews, i.e., pilots, copilots, and
flight engineers (21-RC-10597);
(B) all maintenance mechanics and main-
tenance representatives at Employer's Santa
Ana and Ontario, California, facilities
(21-RC-10600);
(C) all ramp agents (21-RC-10603).
The Employer contends that only a single unit of
these three groups, but including the mechanics at
its other locations, and excluding the maintenance
representatives at Ontario, is appropriate. The IAM
agrees with the Teamsters that three separate units
are appropriate and seeks to represent two such
separate units-one of flightcrews and one of the
maintenance mechanics and maintenance represen-
tatives. Unlike the Teamsters, however, IAM would
include mechanics at all other locations.
Flightcrews: The primary responsibility of the
pilots is to fly the aircraft, and obviously their prin-
cipal work is performed away from the work loca-
tions of other employees of the Employer. Copilots
are in charge of monitoring the flight, handling
radio transmission, writing position reports, and
eluded with the Santa Ana mechanics, that the San Jose mechanics should
also be in the same unit The IAM did not state a position on the Em-
ployer's posthearing motion , but as it had agreed with the Employer that
the San Francisco and Santa Ana mechanics belong in the same unit, it ap-
pears that LAM would agree that San Jose mechanics would also properly
be a part of the same unit Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to reopen
the record and hereby deny the Employer's motion We construe the posi-
tion of the Employer and IAM, as more fully detailed below, generally to be
that maintenance mechanics must be treated on an employerwide basis
10 Both the Teamsters and lAM expressed their desire to participate in an
election in any unit or units found appropriate
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
performing other general work during the flight.
Flight engineers make preflight aircraft inspections,
monitor the various systems of the aircraft, and
control the power in takeoff, flight and landing,
pursuant to instruction of the pilot. The entire crew
must be aboard at least 20 minutes before depar-
ture time, during which period they go through a
"before-start" and an "after-start" checklist (i.e.,
starting engines ). Each crewmember must have an
FAA license for his specialization. They are
separately supervised" and wear distinctive
uniforms. Pilots receive monthly salaries which are
twice as much as mechanics and, three times more
than ramp agents.
Although as alleged by the ' Employer, there is
some interchange of functions, in that flightcrews
may help ramp agents with some of the baggage
and housekeeping tasks, and its policy is to
promote from within, we do not find this signifi-
cant. The record shows and we find any main-
tenance mechanics' transfers into the flightcrewt2
occurred only after extensive training and qualifica-
tion by FAA certification. This is thus not an ordi-
nary instance of promotion based on experience or
length of service. Further, the instances in which
flightcrews perform other tasks are sporadic and
isolated and there is no showing of any employee
performing the essential functions of a flightcrew
member during the operation of the plane in flight
or in preparation therefor.
In view of the foregoing and the record as a
whole, it is apparent that the flight members are
hired for their, specialized skills and they have sig-
nificantly different interests from those of other
employees which justifies their representation in a
separate unit. As there is no bargaining history for
any of the Employer's employees and no union
seeks to represent the flightcrews as part of a
broader unit, we find that the flightcrews constitute
a separate unit appropriate for collective bargain-
ing.
Maintenance mechanics: As noted herein
above, maintenance mechanics are stationed at
Santa Ana, San Francisco, and San Jose. They
check the aircraft at certain specified intervals for
necessary maintenance and do various kinds of
repair work. Under FAA regulations, after every 95
hours of flight each aircraft must undergo an inter-
mediate check, which involves a thorough inspec-
tion of the plane and various repairs to equipment.
During the first 9 days of September 1967, just be-
fore the hearing herein, the Employer was
authorized to conduct such checks only at Santa
Ana, and it transported two groups of two to three
mechanics from San Francisco to Santa Ana to
work with Santa Ana mechanics in making the
checks. On September 9, 1967, FAA gave approval
for the Employer to conduct intermediate checks at
San Francisco as well, and the Employer asserts
that this will necessitate increased rotation in the
future with mechanics traveling in both directions,
depending on the location of the aircraft when the
check is required. Teamsters claims the making of
intermediate checks at San Francisco will obviate
the need to transport such teams. The Employer
testified that when the San Jose and Oakland routes
were approved there would also be interchange of
mechanics to these locations from the existing
facilities.
The mechanics are required to have FAA licen-
ses; those employed by the Employer either were
experienced or had completed an aircraft
mechanics course before their employment, and the
Employer provides them additional schooling. All
maintenance mechanics are under the assistant vice
president of maintenance , who has sole authority to
hire, fire, or discipline mechanics . All such em-
ployees are interviewed by him at Santa Ana before
being hired, and he alone authorizes their time off,
assigns their vacations, and prepares coverage
schedules as to the number of employees needed.
Since all maintenance mechanics, no matter
where located, have the same basic qualifications,
are hired by the same supervisor at the same loca-
tion, require an FAA license, perform the same
functions on the very same equipment under identi-
cal supervision, and are subject- to interchange
when and where there is a need of their skills, we
find that all maintenance mechanics at all facilities
of the Employer belong in the same unit.
The Employer has one maintenance foreman at
Santa Ana and another at San Francisco. The
Teamsters contends these foremen are supervisors
and should be excluded, while the IAM and the
Employer would include them. They report directly
to the vice president of maintenance. Each is
generally responsible for maintenance work done at
his location, and each actually does some
mechanic's work, but they appear to spend the bulk
of their time doing paperwork. They monitor the
work to insure that the high standards are main-
tained, and they have authority to "sign-off" an
airplane as "air-worthy." However, neither has the
authority to effect any personnel changes, and any
" The parties stipulated that the chief pilot is a supervisor and that the
chief flight engineer is not a supervisor The chief pilot reports to the ex-
ecutive vice president through the assistant vice president of flight opera-
tions
i' One flight engineer formerly was a maintenance mechanic , and two
other maintenance mechanics have been accepted into flight engineer jobs
AIR CALIFORNIA 21
recommendations they may make are indepen-
dently evaluated. While they prepare work
schedules, the Employer asserts that they are based
on a predetermined automatic rotation system.
They act as liaison between the chief inspector and
the maintenance mechanics and also relay instruc-
tions to them from the vice president of main-
tenance, but there is no indication that they exer-
cise independent judgment in performing these
functions.
We conclude that as they do not possess any of
the indicia of supervisory authority but rather act as
inspector-leadmen and serve as a conduit to convey
Employer's responsible direction, we shall include
the maintenance foremen in the unit hereinafter
found appropriate.
Maintenance representatives: These two men
appear to monitor or inspect the heavy main-
tenance performed under contract on Employer's
aircraft by employees of Lockheed Aircraft Service
at Ontario, California. One of the maintenance
representatives must be on duty at Lockheed
between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. during a 4-
day workweek, and the two decide between them-
selves the schedule of the days on which each will
be present. In addition, each of them regularly
spends about 8 hours a week at Santa Ana engaged
in regular maintenance mechanic functions along
with the other mechanics. The Teamsters and IAM
would include them, while the Employer would ex-
clude them as supervisors.
These maintenance representatives determine the
amount of work, including overtime, to be per-
formed on an aircraft on any given day, and they
decide whether potential defects should be repaired
immediately or deferred, determine the sequence in
which work is to be performed, insure that work
meets the Employer's standards, and "sign-off" an
aircraft found "air-worthy." They do none of the
work, but confine their responsibility to overseeing
its performance. However, they do not direct
Lockheed employees; rather, their work instruc-
tions are given to the Lockheed supervisors, who
transmit them to the employees. While the
representatives are unlike the mechanics and main-
tenance 'foremen in that they are authorized to
purchase parts on an emergency basis up to $5,000,
it appears that before the decision is made, they
consult with the executive vice president, who in
turn looks to the Lockheed engineering staff for the
final word on the necessity of the parts.
As they exercise no supervisory authority over
any of the Employer's employees, have the same
skills and interests as the maintenance mechanics,
and regularly perform maintenance mechanic work
at Santa Ana, we find they are not supervisors and
shall include them with the maintenance mechanics
in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
Ramp agents: These are the only employees who
require no FAA licenses. They roll the stairs up to
the plane, load and unload baggage, clean the in-
side of the aircraft, restore the commissary, attach
the air start units to the plane, and plug the ground
power unit into the aircraft. At Santa Ana the
mechanics occasionally assist the ramp agents, but
at San Francisco, where no ramp agents are em-
ployed, the maintenance mechanics, perform all
ramp agent duties.
In view of the fact that maintenance mechanics
and ramp agents regularly perform the same func-
tions, we find that these categories share a commu-
nity of interest and that they belong in the same ap-
propriate unit.
In view of the foregoing, we shall direct elections
by secret ballot in the following units of employees,
which we find to be appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
(A) All aircraft dispatchers employed by the
Employer, excluding all other employees, guards,
the chief dispatcher, and all other supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(B) All flightcrews of the Employer including
pilots, copilots, chief flight engineer, and flight en-
gineers, but excluding all other employees, guards,
the chief pilot, and all other supervisors as defined
in the Act.
(C) All maintenance mechanics and ramp agents
of the Employer at its facilities located in Santa
Ana, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland,
California, including all maintenance representa-
tives at Ontario, California, and the maintenance
mechanic foremen at its Santa Ana and San Fran-
cisco facilities, but excluding all other employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election13 omitted from publica-
tion. ]
"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 21 within 7 days after 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. Ext elsior Undei wear
Inc, 156 NLRB 1236