Mark Aero, Inc.

304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mark Aero, Incorporated ' and International Associa- tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 14-RC-7084 November 14, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY AND PENELLO Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Roy V. Hayden. Following the hearing the case was trans- ferred to the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and State- ments of Procedure, Series 8, as amended. 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: The Employer has its principal facility at Lambert Field, St. Louis International Airport, Missouri, and a small facility at Greenville, Illinois. It is engaged in servicing and storing aircraft, selling fuel, providing pilots and service to an air travel club, and running an air taxi. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of mechanics and related employees, including leads, ramp agents, line servicemen, stockroom paint shop and upholstery shop employees. The Employer contends that it is a common carrier by air engaged in interstate and foreign commerce within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act,2 that its operations and employees are covered by the provisions of that act, and that this Board is therefore without jurisdiction. The Employer has about 80 employees, of which 10-12 are pilots, and during the 14-month period through May 1972 it received gross revenues of $1,709,238. The Employer's air taxi service provides 1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. 2 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 200 NLRB No. 7 ... and every air pilot or other person who nonscheduled chartered air transportation through- out the United States and into foreign countries pursuant to a Part 135 Air Carrier Operating Certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Adminis- tration, but has no interticketing or interlining arrangement at the present time. The air taxi service uses about 10 aircraft of varying sizes which the Employer either owns or leases. During April 1972 the Employer flew 378 passengers in 112 trips; during May it flew 385 passengers in 115 trips; and during the first part of June it flew 187 passengers in 59 trips. A witness for the Employer testified, without contradiction, that these are typical figures. In the 14 months through May 1972 the air taxi operation received revenues of $462,943, or 27 percent of the Employer's total gross revenues. Out of $443,640 total air taxi revenue received from actual flying, $331,037, or about 75 percent, was derived from interstate flights. The Employer also stores, services, and operates one airplane for an air travel club from which it received revenues of $94,509 in the 14-month period. The rest of the Employer's revenue comes from providing services and fuel to aircraft not associated with the air taxi or the air travel club. Because of the nature of the jurisdictional question presented here, we have, as in other cases in the past,3 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 administrative- ly advised by the National Mediation Board that: Mark Aero engages in interstate air common carriage to a degree sufficient to bring it within the jurisdictional definition of Section 201 of Title II of the Railway Labor Act. In view of the foregoing, we shall dismiss the petition in its entirety. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition in Case 14-RC-7084 be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. performs any work as an employee . . . of such carrier ... . 3 Lynch Flying Service, Inc., 166 NLRB 961; International Aviation Services ofNew York, Inc., 189 NLRB No. 15. 200 NLRB No. 47