Machinists (Hudson General Hospital)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 14, 1998

326 N.L.R.B. 62 (N.L.R.B. 1998)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 62
District No. 15, International Association of Machin-
ists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO and
Hudson General Corporation and Local 851, In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–
CIO. Case 29–CD–460
August 14, 1998
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND HURTGEN
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was filed
on September 1, 1995, by Hudson General Corporation
(Hudson or the Employer), alleging that the Respondent,
District No. 15, International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO (District 15), vio-
lated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations
Act by engaging in proscribed activity with an object of
forcing the Employer to assign certain work to employ-
ees it represents rather than to employees represented by
Local 851, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
AFL–CIO (Local 851). The hearing was held on De-
cember 18, 1995, and February 13, 1996, before Hearing
Officer Kevin R. Kitchen.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board affirms the hearing officer’s rulings, find-
ing them free from prejudicial error. On the entire re-
cord, the Board makes the following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
Hudson General Corporation is a Delaware corpora-
tion with its principal place of business at 111 Great
Neck Road, Great Neck, New York. Hudson provides
services to airlines, airports, Governments, and govern-
mental authorities, both in the State of New York and
outside of New York State. Hudson annually furnishes
services valued in excess of $50,000 directly to business
firms located outside the State of New York, and it re-
ceives goods in excess of $50,000 shipped directly from
points located outside the State of New York. We ac-
cordingly find that Hudson is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
We further find, based on the stipulation of the parties,
that District 15 and Local 851 are labor organizations
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts of Dispute
1. The employer performs ground handling and cargo
functions at LaGuardia Airport
The Employer provides various services for airlines at
LaGuardia Airport in New York City, including snow
removal, employee busing, passenger busing, cargo
warehousing, aircraft ground handling, aircraft cleaning,
aircraft refueling, and staffing of ground transportation
information counters. The Employer’s operations fall
into two general categories: ground handling operations
and cargo operations.
Since at least 1983, the Employer has performed
ground handling operations at LaGuardia Airport.
Ground handling work is performed by ramp employees.
The ramp employees employed by the Employer are rep-
resented by District 15. The most recent collective-
bargaining agreement between District 15 and the Em-
ployer is effective from March 1, 1995, to February 29,
2000.
Since about June 1987, the Employer has conducted
cargo operations at LaGuardia Airport. The work of the
cargo operations is performed by cargo employees. The
cargo employees employed by the Employer are repre-
sented by Local 851. The most recent collective-
bargaining agreement between Local 851 and the Em-
ployer is effective from December 1, 1995 to November
30, 1999.
2. Mail handling at LaGuardia Airport
The United States Postal Service operates a post office
at LaGuardia Airport. From 1983 to 1985, employees of
the Postal Service sorted incoming mail from arriving
airplane flights, and sorted outgoing mail for transport on
departing airplane flights. In 1985, the Postal Service
notified airlines operating at LaGuardia Airport that the
Postal Service would no longer be responsible for the
sorting of mail, and that the individual airlines would
have to assume the responsibility for the sorting of in-
bound or outbound mail at the airport. Thereafter, in
1985, several airlines requested that the Employer per-
form their mail handling operations. The Employer at
this time was awarded contracts from several airlines to
perform mail sorting, and the transportation of mail to
and from aircraft.1 The Employer assigned this mail
sorting and transportation work to its ramp employees
who are represented by District 15.
3. The Employer secures a contract with Air Canada
In 1988, Air Canada contracted with the Employer to
perform cargo work and, in addition, to perform the sort-
ing and transportation of mail. The Employer assigned
the Air Canada cargo work to its cargo employees repre-
sented by Local 851. The Employer assigned the Air
Canada mail sorting and transportation work to its ramp
employees represented by District 15. The Employer
additionally assigned on an “as needed basis” the Air
Canada mail sorting and transportation work to its cargo
employees represented by Local 851. Accordingly, em-
ployees represented by District 15 and employees repre-
sented by Local 851 on occasion worked together in per-

1 The record does not establish which airlines awarded contracts to
the Employer during this time period.
326 NLRB No. 15
MACHINISTS (HUDSON GENERAL HOSPITAL) 63
forming the Air Canada mail sorting and transportation
function.
4. Events of 1991
In June 1991, the Employer lost most of its contracts to
perform ground handling work at LaGuardia Airport.
The Employer did retain its contract with Air Canada to
perform cargo and mail sorting and transportation func-
tions. The Employer at this time reassigned the Air Can-
ada mail work to the cargo employees represented by
Local 851. This was a change in the Employer’s previ-
ous practice from 1988 to June 1991 of assigning the Air
Canada mail work to employees represented by District
15, and of only assigning Air Canada mail work on an as
needed basis to employees represented by Local 851.
5. Events of 1993
In November 1993, the Employer obtained a contract
with the US Air Shuttle at LaGuardia Airport to perform
ground handling duties, cargo work, and to handle mail
sorting and transportation. The Employer assigned the
US Air Shuttle cargo work to its cargo employees repre-
sented by Local 851. The Employer assigned the US Air
Shuttle ground handling and mail work to employees
represented by District 15.
6. Events of 1994
About August 1994, the Employer was awarded a con-
tract to sort and transport mail for Delta Airlines. The
Employer assigned the Delta Airlines mail work to em-
ployees represented by Local 851. The Employer’s vice
president, Altizio, testified that the decision to assign the
Delta mail work to employees represented by Local 851
was based, in part, on two considerations. First, the Em-
ployer had ceased performing cargo operations for the
US Air Shuttle, and the Employer thus took those avail-
able cargo employees represented by Local 851 and as-
signed them to perform the Delta Airlines mail work,
thereby avoiding the necessity of layoffs for those em-
ployees. Second, the employees represented by Local
851 were located in the Employer’s cargo operations at
hangar 7, which is in close proximity to the post office.
In addition, the Employer assigned the Delta Airlines
mail sorting and transportation work on an as needed
basis to its employees represented by District 15. Em-
ployees represented by District 15 and employees repre-
sented by Local 851 thus would have occasion to work
together in performing the Delta Airlines mail sorting
and transportation function.
In November 1994, the Employer was awarded a con-
tract to provide ground handling services to the Delta
Shuttle, as well as the sorting and transportation of mail.
The Employer assigned the Delta Shuttle ground han-
dling and mail work to employees represented by District
15. The record establishes that the work performed by
the Employer for Delta Airlines and the work performed
for the Delta Shuttle are distinct operations based on
separate contract awards. The Employer’s vice presi-
dent, Altizio, testified that “[t]he Delta Shuttle operation
is completely separate from the regular main Delta ter-
minal.”
7. Events in 1995
By about May 1995, the Employer had lost most of its
contracts to perform cargo work. The Employer’s cargo
operations had been based in space leased in hangar 7.
The Employer accordingly terminated its lease and
closed its cargo operations in hangar 7. In anticipation of
the closure of its cargo operations, the Employer reas-
signed the remaining employees located at hangar 7, who
were represented by Local 851, to perform either Delta
Airlines cargo work or mail work.
At the time the hearing was conducted in December
1995 and February 1996, the Delta Airlines mail work
was being performed by 12 employees. The Employer
states in its brief that of the 12 employees currently per-
forming Delta Airlines mail work, 4 employees are rep-
resented by Local 851, and 8 employees are represented
by District 15. The record establishes that until May
1995, all 12 employees performing Delta Airlines mail
work were represented by Local 851. Altizio testified
that since May 1995, if one of those 12 positions became
vacant for any reason, the Employer filled that position
with an employee represented by District 15. Further, at
the time of the hearing, employees represented by Dis-
trict 15 performed the remainder of the Employer’s mail
work other than that of Delta Airlines.2
8. Local 851 seeks arbitration and District 15 threatens
to picket the Employer
On May 24, 1995, Local 851 filed a demand for arbi-
tration with the American Arbitration Association, claim-
ing that Hudson had violated the collective-bargaining
agreement with Local 851 by the “assignment of bargain-
ing unit work to nonbargaining unit members.”3 There-
after, by letter dated August 24, 1995, to the Employer
from District 15 Business Representative Conigliaro,
District 15 noted the demand for arbitration filed by Lo-
cal 851, and advised the Employer:

We will not quietly stand by while Local 851 tries to
put our members out of work. Therefore, you should
be advised that if you process arbitration or take any
other action to assign the work that our members are
performing to Local 851 members, District 15 will
picket your facilities. If picketing is not successful, we

2 The record shows that at the time of the hearing, the Employer had
contracts to perform mail work at LaGuardia Airport for Delta Airlines,
Delta Shuttle, and US Air Shuttle. The record does not specifically
establish that the Employer had at that time other mail handling con-
tracts at LaGuardia Airport.
3 The record indicates that Local 851 filed a grievance before mak-
ing its demand for arbitration.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 64
intend to strike to protest your conduct which threatens
to eviscerate the District 15 contract.

Thereafter, District 15 advised the Employer by letter dated
October 31, 1995, that it “withdraws any threat of economic
action regarding work historically performed by [District
15] . . . [h]owever, please rest assured that District 15 [of the
IAM] will take all legal actions available to us to protect
work that we believe is historically ours.”
At the hearing on February 13, 1996, counsel for Dis-
trict 15 reiterated the withdrawal of the threat to picket or
strike the Employer over the disputed work. Counsel for
District 15 stated that despite the withdrawal of its threat,
however, District 15 still maintained its claim to the dis-
puted work and wanted to perform the disputed work.
B. The Work in Dispute
The Board’s notice of hearing in this proceeding stated
that the dispute concerns the assignment of the following
work:

The sorting of outbound bags and containers of U.S.
mail and the transporting of that mail to and from the
aircraft ramp areas and the U.S. Postal facility at La-
Guardia Airport, New York, New York.

At the hearing, the hearing officer asked each of the
parties to state their position as to whether the notice of
hearing accurately described the work in dispute. Coun-
sel for the Employer stated that the description of the
work in dispute set forth in the notice of hearing was
acceptable to the Employer.
Both counsel for Local 851 and counsel for District 15
disagreed, however, with the statement of the work in
dispute as described in the notice of hearing. Counsel for
Local 851 sought to amend the description of the work in
dispute set forth in the notice of hearing. Counsel for
Local 851 stated that the work sought by Local 851 was
the sorting and transportation of mail for Delta Airlines
only, and not mail work performed by the Employer for
the Delta Shuttle or any other airline.
Counsel for District 15 likewise stated that he would
add the following phrase, set forth in italics, to the lan-
guage in the notice of hearing:

The sorting of outbound bags and containers of U.S.
mail and the transporting of that mail to and from the
aircraft ramp areas and the U.S. Postal facility per-
formed for Delta Airlines Flight Center Operations at
LaGuardia Airport, New York, New York.

The record establishes that the “Delta Airlines Flight Center
Operations” encompasses Delta Airlines only, and not the
Delta Shuttle. The positions of both Unions at the hearing
accordingly establish agreement by them that the only work
in dispute in this proceeding is the sorting and transportation
of mail performed by the Employer for Delta Airlines. Fur-
ther, although at the hearing the Employer agreed with the
description of the disputed work set forth in the notice of
hearing, it stated in its brief to the Board that “the work in
dispute involves the sorting and transportation of mail for
Delta Airlines at LaGuardia Airport’s U.S. Postal Facility.”
Accordingly, we find that the description of the work in
dispute set forth in the notice of hearing is too broad, and we
narrow it to encompass only the sorting and transportation
of mail for Delta Airlines.4
C. Contentions of the Parties5
1. The Employer
The Employer contends that the threat by District 15 to
picket or strike the Employer over the disputed work is
sufficient basis for the Board to have reasonable cause to
believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been vio-
lated. The Employer argues that District 15 has consis-
tently maintained its desire to perform the work in dis-
pute, and that the withdrawal of the threat of unlawful
activity by District 15 does not negate the jurisdictional
dispute because District 15 has never disclaimed its in-
terest in the disputed work. The Employer further main-
tains that the demand for arbitration filed by Local 851
constitutes a claim for the work in dispute. Accordingly,
it asserts there are competing claims for the work at is-
sue, and the work dispute is properly before the Board
for determination pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act.
The Employer asserts that the work in dispute should
be awarded to employees represented by District 15
based on the Employer’s past practice of assigning mail
work to ramp employees represented by District 15, the
industry practice of assigning the sorting of mail work to
ramp employees, the superior skills of the employees
represented by District 15, employer preference, and
efficiency of operations.
2. Local 851
Local 851 asserts that the Board should decline juris-
diction in this proceeding because the threat of unlawful
activity has been withdrawn by District 15. Local 851
argues that there is no reasonable cause to find that Sec-
tion 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated where the union pre-
ferred by the Employer threatens unlawful activity
merely to invoke the Board’s jurisdiction under Section

4 We thus note that the circumstances of this case illustrate that the
notice of hearing is not a dispositive statement of the work in dispute in
a 10(k) proceeding. Rather, Sec. 101.33 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations provides that the Regional Director shall “issue a notice of
hearing which includes a simple statement of issues involved in the
jurisdictional dispute.” (Emphasis added.) The notice of hearing thus
constitutes an initial, rather than a final, statement of the issues in-
volved in the jurisdictional dispute. Accordingly, the precise nature of
the work in dispute may itself as here be an issue at the 10(k) hearing.
See, e.g., Plasterers Local 80 (Jack Ebert & Co.), 226 NLRB 242
(1976). Indeed, the description of the work in dispute was at issue in
the earliest stages of this proceeding; Local 851 advised the Regional
Director by letter dated October 3, 1995, that it opposed the description
of the work in dispute set forth in the notice of hearing dated September
26, 1995.
5 District 15 did not file a brief with the Board.
MACHINISTS (HUDSON GENERAL HOSPITAL) 65
10(k) of the Act, and thereafter withdraws its threat.
Local 851 maintains that “the circumstances of this case
clearly suggest that both District 15 and Hudson General
have attempted to manipulate the Board’s jurisdiction in
order to get a Section 10(k) hearing, which the Board
should not encourage by accepting jurisdiction in this
matter.”
Local 851 further contends that in the event the Board
accepts jurisdiction, the disputed Delta mail work should
be assigned to employees represented by Local 851 be-
cause its collective-bargaining agreement mandates the
assignment of the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by Local 851, because of the superior skills and
qualifications of employees represented by Local 851,
and based on considerations of safety. Local 851 further
argues that the Employer’s past practice was to assign
the Delta Airlines mail work exclusively to employees
represented by Local 851, and that past practice remained
until the Employer began improperly assigning that work
in May 1995 to employees represented by District 15.
3. The Employer’s motion to strike
The Employer has filed a motion to strike those por-
tions of the brief of Local 851 asserting that the Em-
ployer and District 15 have acted to manipulate the
Board’s jurisdiction. The Employer asserts that these
assertions should be stricken because there is no evi-
dence in the record supporting the allegations of Local
851 that the threat of unlawful activity was a sham, or
that the Employer and District 15 conspired in order to
obtain a threat from District 15 violative of Section
8(b)(4)(D).
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with determining a dis-
pute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, two jurisdic-
tional prerequisites must be met. First, the Board must
find reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D)
of the Act has been violated. Second, the Board must
find that the parties have failed to agree on a method for
voluntary adjustment of the dispute.
These jurisdictional prerequisites have been met in this
case. First, both Local 851 and District 15 claim the
work in dispute, and reiterated their claims at the hear-
ing. Further, the invocation of arbitration procedures by
Local 851 against Hudson constitutes a demand for the
disputed work. See, e.g., Iron Workers Local 8 (Selmer
Co.), 291 NLRB 222 (1990).6 District 15 thereafter

6 Compare Laborers Capitol Drilling Supplies, 318 NLRB 809, 810
(1995) (in the construction industry, a union’s action through a griev-
ance procedure or arbitration to enforce an arguably meritorious claim
against a general contractor that work has been subcontracted in breach
of a lawful union signatory clause does not constitute a claim to the
subcontractor for work if the union does not seek to enforce its position
by threatening or engaging in strikes, picketing, or boycotts).
Member Hurtgen does not pass on the validity of Capital Drilling.
threatened the Employer with picketing, or a strike, if the
disputed work was assigned to employees represented by
Local 851. Although District 15 subsequently withdrew
this threat, that withdrawal does not negate the existence
of a jurisdictional dispute when District 15 merely stated
that it will not engage in unlawful conduct in regard to.
the assignment of the disputed work. Operating Engi-
neers Local 825 (GPU Nuclear), 282 NLRB 267, 269
(1986). Rather, the party asserting that a disclaimer has
occurred which negates the existence of a jurisdictional
dispute has the burden to prove “a clear, unequivocal,
and unqualified disclaimer of all interest in the work in
dispute.” Teamsters Local 600 (Central Hardware), 290
NLRB 612, 613 (1988), quoting Operating Engineers
Local 77 (C. J. Coakley Co.), 257 NLRB 436, 438–439
(1981). As District 15 has consistently reaffirmed its
claim to the disputed Delta Airlines mail work, the dis
claimer of intention to engage in unlawful activity does
not negate the instant jurisdictional dispute. This is not a
case in which a party to a jurisdictional dispute effec-
tively renounces its claim to the work in question, and
the Board accordingly considers the dispute to be at an
end and quashes the notice of hearing. Operating Engi-
neers Local 369 (Austin Co.), 255 NLRB 476, 478 fn. 1
(1981). We accordingly find reasonable cause to believe
that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act has been violated.
Second, the parties stipulated that they have not agreed
on a method to adjust this dispute voluntarily. We thus
find that the Board has jurisdiction to resolve this dis-
pute.7
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an affirma-
tive award of disputed work after considering various
factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1212
(Columbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573 (1961). The
Board has held that its determination in a jurisdictional
dispute is an act of judgment based on common sense
and experience, reached by balancing the factors in-
volved in a particular case. Machinists Lodge 1743 (J. A.
Jones Construction), 135 NLRB 1402, 1410–1411
(1962); Asplundh Construction Corp., 318 NLRB 633
(1995).
The following factors are relevant in making the de-
termination of this dispute.
1. Certification and collective-bargaining agreements
The recognition clause in the collective-bargaining
agreement between the Employer and Local 851 pro-
vides:

7 There is no record evidence to support Local 851’s contention that
the threat of unlawful activity by District 15 was a sham, or that the
Employer and District 15 conspired to manipulate the Board’s jurisdic-
tion in this proceeding. As these assertions thus do no affect our adju-
dication of this case, we find it unnecessary to strike those portions of
Local 851’s brief setting forth these assertions.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 66
The Company recognizes the Union as the Collective
Bargaining Agent . . . of Cargo Agents and Customer
Service Agents which the Company employs in con-
nection with its Cargo Operations at LaGuardia Air-
port. Cargo operations is defined as those operations
which include: receipt from shippers or their agents,
breakdown, sorting, storage, and release to consignees
or their agents of inbound freight; the receipt, weigh-
ing, sorting, storage, buildup and release to Air Carriers
of outbound freight

Local 851 reasons that the mail at issue in this case consti-
tutes “freight” within the meaning of the recognition clause,
and that it accordingly has a contractual right pursuant to the
recognition clause to perform the disputed Delta Airlines
mail work.
We find that the record evidence does not support the
contention of Local 851. Neither the recognition clause
nor any other provision of the collective-bargaining
agreement make any reference to mail handling. The
collective-bargaining agreement does not define the
terms “freight” or “cargo operations” as including mail
handling work; indeed, the collective-bargaining agree-
ment contains no definition of these terms. Local 851
accordingly has not established that these terms set forth
in the recognition clause encompass the performance of
mail handling work and that it is contractually entitled to
perform the work in dispute.
District 15 does not contend that it is contractually en-
titled to perform the work in dispute based on the provi-
sions of its collective-bargaining agreement with the
Employer. Accordingly, the factor of collective-
bargaining agreements does not favor an award of the
disputed work to either group of employees.
Further, there was no evidence presented that either
union has been certified by the Board as the collective-
bargaining representative of any of the employees in-
volved. This factor is likewise not helpful in determining
the dispute.
2. Area practice
The Employer’s vice president, Altizio, testified that
the practice in the New York City area at LaGuardia and
John F. Kennedy (JFK) Airports is for ramp employees
to perform the transport and sorting of mail. Altizio tes-
tified that the Employer’s competitors use ramp employ-
ees to perform mail handling duties.
The business agent for Local 851, Marcelles Jones,
testified, in contrast, that both cargo and ramp employees
at JFK Airport perform the transportation and sorting of
mail. Indeed, Jones testified that only cargo employees
perform the mail handling function for Pakistan Interna-
tional Airlines at JFK Airport.
In light of this conflicting testimony, we conclude that
this factor—the general practice of airlines situated in the
New York City area—does not favor an award of the
disputed work to either group of employees.8
3. Employer’s past practice
The Employer contends that its past general practice
has been to assign mail handling work to ramp employ-
ees represented by District 15, and that this past practice
favors an award of the disputed Delta Airlines mail work
to employees represented by District 15. We find that
the record evidence supports the Employer’s contention.
As set forth above, the historical background of this
proceeding shows the following chronology: from 1985
to 1988 mail work for unspecified airlines was assigned
to employees represented by District 15; from 1988
to1991 Air Canada mail work was assigned to employees
represented by District 15; in 1991 the Air Canada mail
work was reassigned to employees represented by Local
851; in 1993 the US Air Shuttle mail work was assigned
to employees represented by District 15; in 1994 the
Delta Airlines mail work was assigned to employees rep-
resented by Local 851; in 1994 the Delta Shuttle mail
work was assigned to employees represented by District
15; and since 1988 employees represented by each Union
were assigned mail work on an as-needed basis.
In sum, the record shows that all mail handling work
for the entire period from 1985 to 1991 was assigned to
employees represented by District 15. Thereafter, from
1991 to 1994, the Employer’s four mail handling con-
tracts referenced in the record were assigned evenly—
two each—to employees represented by each union. The
Employer’s past practice of assigning mail handling
work thus establishes that more individual contracts to
service individual airlines have been assigned to employ-
ees represented by District 15. Further, these assign-
ments to employees represented by District 15 cover the
majority of the time period at issue in this proceeding.
Significantly, employees represented by District 15 ex-
clusively performed mail handling work for an entire 6-
year period, while employees represented by Local 851
have never exclusively performed mail handling work.
The record evidence accordingly confirms that the Em-
ployer’s past general practice has been to award mail
handling work in the first instance exclusively to em-
ployees represented by District 15, and only in certain
limited instances thereafter to employees represented by
Local 851. We thus find that this factor favors an award
of the disputed work to employees represented by Dis-
trict 15. The dissent focuses on the work performed for
Delta Airlines. Although the description of the work in
dispute has now been altered to cover only the work for
Delta Airlines (see fn. 4, above), we believe that this
simply confines the scope of the ultimate award. It does

8 We note that no evidence was adduced as to the industry practice
and that the evidence was limited to the area practice at New York City
airports.
MACHINISTS (HUDSON GENERAL HOSPITAL) 67
not preclude us from focusing on the past practice con-
cerning comparable work performed for airlines at the
same site.9
4. Economy and efficiency of operations
The Employer contends that the efficiency of opera-
tions of the Delta Airlines mail work supports an award
of that work to employees represented by District 15.
The Employer asserts that it is administratively difficult
to manage the disputed Delta Airlines mail work when
employees represented by two unions perform the work.
For example, questions of employee seniority, overtime,
vacation time, and similar issues are difficult to resolve
because reference must be made to the distinct rules set
forth in each of two collective-bargaining agreements.
Similarly, the Employer argues that efficiency of opera-
tions is better achieved by having one set of employees
subject to the same supervision.
The record evidence supports the Employer’s argu-
ment that it is administratively efficient for the Delta
Airlines mail work to be assigned solely to employees
represented by District 15. Its other contracts to perform
mail handling work at LaGuardia Airport—Delta Shuttle
and US Air Shuttle (work which is not in dispute in this
proceeding)—are assigned to employees represented by
District 15. It can achieve the administrative efficiencies
of operating under a single labor contract by assigning
the disputed work to employees represented by District
15.10 We thus find that economy and efficiency of opera-
tions is better achieved by returning to the Employer’s
practice of assigning mail handling work exclusively to

9 Contrary to the suggestion of the dissent, it is not improper to focus
“on the factor of past practice.” Past practice is one of the factors tradi-
tionally focused on in 10(k) cases. As discussed here, we focus on all
such factors.
The dissent does not assign sufficient probative weight to the Em-
ployer’s past practice of exclusively assigning mail work from 1985 to
1991 to employees represented by District 15. We further note that the
Employer’s initial assignment of the work in dispute to employees
represented by Local 851 was motivated by two factors: (1) employees
represented by Local 851 were located at the Employer’s hangar 7
cargo operations which was close to the airport post office; and (2) a
desire to avoid laying off those employees when the Employer lost
cargo handling contracts. The Employer’s reasons underlying its initial
assignment of the disputed work are no longer operative, however. The
Employer has since permanently closed its cargo operation at hangar 7,
has lost most of its cargo handling contracts, and wishes to return to its
past practice of assigning mail handling work to employees represented
by District 15. In light of these circumstances, we cannot agree with
our dissenting colleague that the factor of initial assignment of the
disputed work favors an award of that work to Local 851-represented
employees.
10 We accordingly cannot agree with the dissent that an award of the
disputed work to either group of employees would accomplish the
efficiencies sought by the Employer.
The dissent suggests that the Employer should assign the Delta Shut-
tle work and the U.S. Air Shuttle work to Local 851-represented em-
ployees, rather than simply assigning the Delta Airlines work to District
15-represented employees. We do not agree that making two changes
is more efficient than making one change.
employees represented by District 15, and that this factor
favors such an award.
5. Employer preference
The Employer’s current assignment and preference is
that the work in dispute be performed by employees rep-
resented by District 15. This factor accordingly favors
assignment of the disputed work to employees repre-
sented by District 15.
6. Relative skills and training
The Employer’s vice president, Altizio, testified that
employees represented by both Local 851 and District 15
possess the skills to perform sorting and transportation of
mail. Altizio further testified, however, that Delta Air-
lines requires that all employees assigned to its mail op-
erations be certified to handle dangerous goods. The
record evidence establishes that all cargo employees em-
ployed by Hudson and represented by Local 851 possess
such certification and, indeed, are required to possess
such certification.11 In contrast, there is no requirement
that ramp employees represented by District 15 have that
certification. Indeed, Altizio testified that some—but not
all—ramp employees represented by District 15 “have
some dangerous goods training.”12 Because all the em-
ployees represented by Local 851 possess the dangerous
goods certification required by Delta Airlines to perform
mail work, while all the employees represented by Dis-
trict 15 do not, we conclude that the factor of relative
skills and training favors an award of the disputed work
to employees represented by Local 851.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we conclude
that Hudson’s employees represented by District 15 are
entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach this
conclusion relying on the Employer’s past general prac-
tice of assigning mail handling work to employees repre-
sented by District 15, achievement of efficiency and
economy in the Employer’s operation, and the Em-
ployer’s preference that the work in dispute be assigned
to employees represented by District 15.
The Board has consistently placed great weight on the
factor of employer preference in making work assign-
ment awards. Longshoremen’s Local 50 (Brady-
Hamilton Stevedore Co.), 244 NLRB 275, 276 (1979).
When unsupported by other factors, however, employer
preference will not be controlling. Iron Workers Local
380 (Stobeck Masonry), 267 NLRB 284, 287 fn. 8
(1983).13 The Employer’s preference in this case is sup-
11 Altizio testified that “all cargo employees who work for Hudson
have to be dangerous goods certified.” (Emphasis added.)

12 Neither the Employer nor District 15 presented evidence establish-
ing how many ramp employees actually possess the required certifica-
tion.
13 See Carpenters Local 1102 (Don Cartage Co.), 160 NLRB 1061,
1078 (1966).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 68
ported by the factors of efficiency of operations, and its
past general practice of assigning mail handling work to
employees represented by District 15.14 These factors are
not outweighed by the factor of skills and training, which
we have determined after careful review of the record is
the sole factor supporting an award of the disputed work
to employees represented by Local 851.
In making this determination, we are awarding the dis-
puted work to employees represented by District No. 15,
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL–CIO, not to that Union or to its members.
This determination is limited to the controversy that gave
rise to this proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the follow-
ing Determination of Dispute.
Employees of Hudson General Corporation repre-
sented by District No. 15, International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO, are enti-
tled to perform the sorting and transportation of mail
performed by the Employer for Delta Airlines at La-
Guardia Airport, New York, New York.

MEMBER LIEBMAN, dissenting.
My colleagues and I fully agree that employer prefer-
ence in a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act will
not be controlling when unsupported by other factors.
Contrary to the majority, I would find that the Em-
ployer’s preference, to assign the disputed work to em-
ployees represented by District No. 15, International As-
sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO
(District 15) is not supported by the factors of past prac-
tice or efficiency of operations.
The record establishes that the Employer assigned the
disputed Delta Airlines mail work exclusively to em-
ployees represented by International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, AFL–CIO (Local 851) when it first secured
the contract to sort and transport mail for Delta Airlines
in August 1994. Indeed, until May 1995, all 12 employ-
ees performing the Delta Airlines mail work were repre-
sented by Local 8511. The record thus confirms that the
Employer’s past assignment of the disputed work was to
employees represented by Local 851. This factor accord-
ingly favors an award of the disputed work to those em-
ployees. In fact, the instant controversy began when the
Employer assigned employees represented by District 15
to perform Delta Airlines mail work in May 1995, which

14 Compare Iron Workers Local 229 (M. H. Golden Construction
Co.), 218 NLRB 1144 (1975) (employer preference not supported by
area practice and efficiency).
1 Employees represented by District 15 were assigned to assist in the
performance of the Delta Airlines mail work on an as needed basis.
Local 851 immediately protested through the grievance-
arbitration process.2
My colleagues acknowledge that the Employer’s past
general practice has included assignment of mail work to
employees represented by both Unions. But they ignore
critical record evidence. While more individual mail
handling contracts to service individual airlines have
been assigned to employees represented by District 15,
nonetheless the Employer’s largest contract and the bulk
of its current mail work has been assigned to employees
represented by Local 851.3 The record evidence accord-
ingly does not support the Employer’s contention that its
past practice has been to assign mail work uniformly to
employees represented by District 15. Indeed, the re-
verse may be true; the Employer’s past practice shows
that it assigned the largest volume of its mail work to
employees represented by Local 851. I accordingly con-
clude that the Employer’s past practice shows assign-
ment of mail work to employees represented by both
unions, and that this factor does not favor an award of the
disputed work to employees represented by District 15.4
Finally, I cannot agree that efficiency of operations
supports an award of the work in dispute to employees
represented by District 15. The Employer argues persua-
sively that it is administratively efficient for the Delta
Airlines mail work to be assigned to employees repre-
sented by a single union. But, it does not establish that
efficiency is achieved by assigning that mail work to
employees represented by one union rather than another.
There accordingly is no basis for concluding that the
factor of efficiency of operations favors an award of the
2 I accept my colleagues’ observation that my opinion “focuses” on
the disputed Delta Airlines mail work that lies at the very heart of this
jurisdictional controversy. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of
their opinion. They frankly admit that their “focus” lies elsewhere, i.e.,
on the factor of past practice, which, as discussed in the paragraph of
text that follows, does not support an award of the disputed work to
employees represented by District 15.
3 The Employer’s vice president, Altizio, testified that “Delta [Air-
lines] is a very large mail carrier. They’re one of the largest at La-
Guardia, if not the largest.” The record shows that the Employer per-
forms the Delta Airlines mail work with three shifts working continu-
ously 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, servicing approximately 80
flights a day at upwards of 2000 pounds of mail per flight. In contrast,
the record establishes that the mail work performed for the Delta Shut-
tle and US Air Shuttle—work assigned to employees represented by
District 15—is of significantly less volume than that of Delta Airlines,
and has a minimal sort function. Moreover, the Air Canada work that
was reassigned to Local 851-represented employees also involved a
large volume of mail.
4 I have carefully considered the argument by the Employer and my
colleagues that the assignment of mail work to employees represented
by Local 851 has in essence been an aberration from its normal prac-
tice, based only on its gain or loss of a particular contract and the corre-
sponding opening and then closing of its cargo operations at hangar 7.
The record shows, however, that the Employer’s operations are charac-
terized by the regular and frequent gain and loss of contracts. The
assignment of mail work in response to those occurrences accordingly
must be viewed as a normal—rather than an aberrant—aspect of the
Employer’s operations.
MACHINISTS (HUDSON GENERAL HOSPITAL) 69
disputed work to either group of employees; rather, an
award to either would accomplish the efficiencies sought
by the Employer. Indeed, the Employer originally as-
signed the Delta Airlines mail work solely to employees
represented by Local 851. Apparently that did not pre-
sent administrative difficulties. Those arose only when
in May 1995 the Employer began assigning employees
represented by District 15 to replace employees repre-
sented by Local 851 to perform the Delta Airlines mail
work—the genesis of the instant dispute.5

5 I have fully considered the Employer’s additional contention that
efficiency of operations requires that all its mail work for all airlines be
performed by employees represented by a single union so as to provide
uniform supervision and a single set of terms and conditions of em-
ployment. The majority finds merit in this argument, reasoning that
because the Employer’s other mail handling work is assigned to em-
ployees represented by District 15, the only way the Employer can
achieve its “one-union goal” is to assign the Delta Airlines mail work to
those employees as well. This argument does not withstand scrutiny,
however. The Employer has assigned mail work to employees repre-
sented by both Unions for some time. “Administrative inefficiencies”
only arose when it began reassigning the Delta Airlines work from
Local 851-represented employees to District 15-represented employees.
Furthermore, as discussed above, the mail work performed by Local
851-represented employees for Delta Airlines is of significantly greater
volume than the mail work performed by District 15-represented em-
ployees for the Delta Shuttle and the US Air Shuttle. Therefore, the
I would thus award the Delta Airlines mail work to
employees represented by Local 851. This is based on
the Employer’s assignment of the work in dispute to em-
ployees represented by Local 851, and the superior skills
and training of the Local 851-represented employees,
which my colleagues concede favors an award of the
disputed work to employees represented by Local 851.
These factors outweigh employer preference, the sole
factor favoring an award of the disputed work to em-
ployees represented by District 15.
Employer preference cannot be made the touchstone in
determining a jurisdictional dispute. To do so would
violate the Supreme Court’s directive in Columbia
Broadcasting6 that the Board make its award of disputed
work after giving due consideration to all the relevant
factors. Iron Workers Local 380 (Stobeck Masonry), 267
NLRB 284, 287 fn. 8 (1983).7

Employer could have achieved its “one-union” goal with even fewer
“administrative difficulties” had it reassigned the Delta Shuttle work
and the US Air Shuttle work to employees represented by Local 851—
the converse of what it did.
6 NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1212 (Columbia Broad-
casting), 364 U.S. 573 (1961).
7 See Carpenters Local 1102 (Don Cartage Co.), 160 NLRB 1061,
1078 (1966).