Safair Flying Service, Inc.

SAFAIR FLYING SERVICE, INC. 119 Safair Flying Service, Inc. and Local No. 1834, International Association of Machinists and Aeros- pace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 22-RC-5436 November 8, 1973 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND KENNEDY Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held on September 29, 1972, before Hearing Officer Joseph V. McMahon. On March 1, 1973, the Board ordered the record reopened and remanded the proceeding to the Regional Director for Region 22 for the purpose of conducting a further hearing. The Board ordered that additional evidence be adduced with respect to whether the Board should exercise jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, (a) the gross amount of Employer's yearly business; (b) percentage of gross amount from charter flights and other flying services; (c) percentage of gross amount derived from the sale of aircraft, equipment, and services performed on noncompany-owned aircraft; and (d) the percentage of Employer's annual busi- ness derived from the ,sale of goods and services other than airtaxi service. The hearing was held on March 21, 1973, before Hearing Officer Joseph V. McMahon. No briefs were filed by any party. 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, Safair Flying Service, Inc., is a New Jersey corporation with its only facility located at Teterboro, New Jersey. The Employer is engaged in the business of selling and servicing aircraft, operating an airtaxi and an aircargo service, storing aircraft, and selling aircraft parts. At the hearing held on September 29, 1972, the Employer stipulated that it yearly purchased goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from concerns located outside the State of New Jersey and it received revenue in excess of $50,000 from outside the State of New Jersey from the sale of service to customers. Nevertheless, the Employer contended that it was not under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board but rather was under the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act because its 207 NLRB No. 27 aircargo and airtaxi service is regulated by the Federal Aviation Authority. Oscar P. Herbert, Safair's president, testified at the March 21 hearing that during fiscal year 1972, which was stipulated as representative of the Employer's current business, Safair Flying Service, Inc., received $3,079,000 in gross annual income. Of this amount, approximately 65 percent was received from the sale of new and used aircraft of which in excess of 90 percent of sales were made to customers located outside New Jersey. Approximately 10 percent of yearly gross was received from the sale of parts. Another 10 percent of yearly gross was received from Eastman Kodak Company which contracts with the Employer for five aircraft which are owned, operat- ed, and serviced by the Employer and used to deliver film to processing labs throughout the Northeast. Another 2 percent of the gross amount is derived from the lease of two aircraft to Brookhaven National Laboratories which furnishes its own aircrew. Approximately 4 percent of the Employer's gross income comes from its training operations and another 5 or 6 percent is derived from charges for servicing aircraft, storing aircraft, and the sale of fuel to customers. Finally, $65,000 or about 2 percent of Safair's total gross income is derived from its airtaxi and aircargo business. Because of the nature of the question presented, we have requested the National Mediation Board to examine the record in this case and determine the applicability of the Railway Labor Act to the Employer. We have been administratively advised by the National Mediation Board that: The National Mediation Board has concluded that Safair Flying Services, Inc. does not engage in interstate air common carriage to a sufficient degree to bring it within the jurisdictional definition of Section 201 of Title II of the Railway Labor Act. On the basis of all the facts set forth above, we find that the Employer, Safair Flying Service, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Accordingly, we shall assert jurisdiction herein. 2. At the hearing conducted on March 21, 1973, the Petitioner amended its petition to include: All maintenance employees including mechanics and linemen but excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, pilots, salesmen and supervisors. The Employer contended at the hearing that me- chanics should not be included in the unit. From the record it appears that Safair has approximately 34 employees, of whom approximate- ly 7 are mechanics and b are linemen. Although mechanics are licensed, furnish their own tools, and 120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD receive a higher rate of pay than linemen, mechanics and linemen are covered by the same hospitalization and life insurance plans and full-time linemen receive the same paid holidays as mechanics. While most mechanics are licensed after a course of formal training at schools approved by the Federal Aviation Agency (several part-time Safair linemen are current- ly taking such training), there is testimony in the record that formal training at such schools is not a prerequisite for licensing and that many mechanics are licensed after a period of on-the-job training. Moreover, Safair operates out of a single hangar facility and, while linemen generally work outside and mechanics work inside, both linemen and mechanics ring in at the same place and linemen work inside the hangar in the process of moving airplanes back and forth to the field. Consequently, it is apparent that there is frequent opportunity for contact between the two groups. There is also testimony that the Petitioner, at other facilities, represents units including mechanics and linemen. Although it is evident from the foregoing that these two categories of employees have certain distinct interests, we believe that the strong interests they share warrant our finding that they, together, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining. In addition, it appears that the Petitioner herein seeks to include the parts department employees. The parts department employees work from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Like the lineman and mechanics they punch timecards, are furnished uniforms, and work in the Company's single hangar facility. Moreover, they are covered by the same health, accident, and life insurance policies as linemen and mechanics. In view of the above, and inasmuch as it appears from the record that the parts department employees have strong interests in common with linemen and mechanics, we shall include them in the unit. We shall also include in the unit the porter employed by the Employer. Although Petitioner does not specifically seek to include the porter, no party objected to his inclusion and it is clear from the record that he enjoys the same benefits and has much the same interests as other employees in the unit. We find that the following employees at the Employer's facility at Teterboro, New Jersey, consti- tute an appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All maintenance employees including mechanics and linemen, parts department employees and porter, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, pilots , salesmen, and supervisors, as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.]