Mercury Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1980

253 N.L.R.B. 466 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mercury Service, Inc.; Mercury Refueling, Inc.; and
Crew Transit, Inc., Employer' and Internation-
al Association of Machinists & Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 31-RC-
4679
November 24, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENEI.I.O, ANI)
TRUISI)AI.E
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Susan D.
Kunk. Following the hearing, and pursuant to Sec-
tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the
case was transferred to the National Labor Rela-
tions Board for decision.
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 au-
thority 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 af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board
finds:
Mercury Service, Inc., a California corporation,
Mercury Refueling, Inc., a Nevada corporation,
and Crew Transit, Inc., a California corporation,
are all engaged in the business of furnishing ground
support services to various interstate and/or inter-
national air carriers. Each has its principal place of
business located in Los Angeles, California, and
each has received, during the 12 months preceding
the filing of the instant petition, gross revenues in
excess of $50,000 from providing these services to
such air carriers as Lufthansa Airlines, Japan Air
Lines, and Air France, each of which in turn re-
' At the hearing lhe parties stipulatcd that the petition should he
amended Io reflectI he name f Ihc se three Employers, l 'ic wcre tIl he
corIsiderel d it Silgle integrate]d Cnerpr i
ceives annual gross revenues in excess of $1 million
from the interstate and/or international transporta-
tion of mail, passengers, and/or cargo. The record
supports the stipulation of the parties that Mercury
Service, Inc., Mercury Refueling, Inc., and Crew
Transit, Inc. (hereafter collectively Mercury),
should be considered as a single integrated enter-
prise.
Mercury contends that the petition should be dis-
missed because jurisdiction is properly with the
National Mediation Board under the Railway
Labor Act and that the National Labor Relations
Board therefore should not exercise jurisdiction.
The Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that
jurisdiction is properly with the National Labor
Relations Board.
Section 2(2) of the Act provides in pertinent part
that the term "employer" as used in the National
Labor Relations Act should not include any person
subject to the Railway Labor Act.
Accordingly, because of the nature of the juris-
dictional question presented here, we requested the
National Mediation Board to study the record in
this case and to determine the applicability of the
Railway Labor Act to Mercury. In reply, we were
advised by the National Mediation Board that, fol-
lowing its reading of the record and of subsequent
statements filed with them, the board had conclud-
ed that:
Based upon the nature of the activities per-
formed by Mercury and the degree of control
exercised by the carriers, the (National Media-
tion) Board is of the opinion that the activities
and employees performing such activities are
subject to the Railway Labor Act.2
In view of the foregoing, we shall dismiss the in-
stant petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition in Case 31-
RC-4679 be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
f Merurv Srvu., Inc., 8 NM B Nio 13 (Iq1KO)
253 NLRB No. 57
466