International In-Flight Catering Co., Ltd.

444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International In-Flight Catering Co., Ltd. and Interna- tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 1245, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 37-RC-1874 March 6, 1974 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 Dennis R. MacCarthy. Following the hearing, the Regional Director for Region 20 transferred this case to the Board for decision. Thereafter, Petitioner and Em- ployer filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(h) 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 rulings made by the Hearing Officer 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 makes the following findings: The Employer (IICC) is a Hawaii corporation providing airline catering services, currently at only Honolulu International Airport. Japan Air Lines (JAL) owns 51 percent of the stock of IICC; Kokusai Kogyo Company, Ltd., owns 39 percent of the stock; and V. Boyd, vice president of IICC, owns 10 percent of the stock. IICC was created in 1971 at the direction of the board of directors of JAL following a feasibility study ordered by JAL. Prior to the creation of IICC, JAL used private contractors for its catering needs in Hawaii. The IICC stock structure resulted from Hawaii Department of Transportation advice (in response to JAL questions) that, in order for JAL to be able to assign its existing lease of airport property from JAL to IICC, JAL must maintain at least 51 percent majority control of the subsidiary. JAL designated Yukichi Abe, a retiring executive of the Airline, to become president of 11CC. According to record testimony, JAL currently controls the votes of 8 of the 12 members of the IICC board of directors. JAL considers IICC one of its related companies and, consequently, Mr. Abe must attend bimonthly meetings in Tokyo of the JAL Department of Related Companies at which all JAL's subsidiaries are represented. The executives of IICC conduct the business of the flight kitchen pursuant to a memoran- ' The sublease to 11CC provides that if IICC should cease being majority owned by JAL, the lease revert-, hack to JAL dum from the JAL Department of Related Compa- nies which requires the prior consent of JAL for the following IICC activities: Agendas for IICC stock- holder meetings; any change in IICC's board of directors or corporation officers, or salary changes for these individuals; corporate planning; establish- ment of related companies and/or investments; establishment and deviation of major rules and regulations; and other similar important items. IICC must file with JAL, each month, the minutes of all board of director meetings, a monthly financial report, a report of major changes in organization or personnel affairs, and a statement of leasehold improvements. JAL maintains the master lease on the property used by IICC i and holds a mortgage on all IICC trucks, equipment, and leasehold improvements. The Airline has complete control over the menus and their preparation and is free to inspect the facilities at all times, but the Petitioner Union asserts that this is equally true as to the facilities of subcontractor catering companies. JAL is the recipient of 78 percent of IICC's catering services; 20 percent of IICC's business is with Korean Air Lines; and the remaining 2 percent is provided for Pan American. Each of the three airlines has a written contractual arrangement with IICC for the provision of such services. Although informal business negotiations have occurred with Air New Zealand, no subsequent contracts have resulted. The officers of IICC allege that their primary concern is to provide JAL with all necessary catering services, and contracts with other airlines are dependent on the availability of IICC facilities unnecessary to meet JAL obligations. The parties stipulated that the Employer during the past calendar year received gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchased food and beverage supplies from local firms who, in turn, purchased such supplies from outside the State of Hawaii valued in excess of $50,000. However, the Employer urges dismissal of the petition on the ground that, because of its affinity with JAL, a foreign air carrier, its operations and employees are covered by the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, and this Board is therefore without jurisdiction. Because of the nature of the jurisdictional question presented here, we have in this case, as has been our practice in the past,2 requested the National Media- tion Board as the agency primarily vested with jurisdiction, under the Railway Labor Act, over air carriers and having primary authority to determine its own jurisdiction to study the record in this case and determine the applicability of the Railway Labor 2 See, a g.. Trans-East Air, Inc, 189 NLRB 185 209 NLRB No. 102 INTERNATIONAL IN-FLIGHT CATERING CO. Act to the Employer. We are administratively advised by the National Mediation Board that: The National Mediation Board . . . has con- cluded that International In-Flight Catering Co. Ltd. is a company which is directly owned or controlled by or under common control with an air common carrier, Japan Air Lines Co., Ltd. International In-Flight Catering Co. Ltd. pro- vides services exclusively in connection with transportation of property by air common carriers and the major portion of these catering services (78 percent) are provided to Japan Air Lines. Additionally, Japan Air Lines directs the manner of rendition of the services provided to the air 445 carrier by its subsidiary, International In-Flight Catering Co., Ltd. Under these circumstances , the National Medi- ation Board has concluded that International In- Flight Catering Co. Ltd. meets the statutory definition of carrier as contained in Sections 1 of Title I and 201 of Title II of the Railway Labor Act. In view of the foregoing, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition in Case 37-RC- 1874 be, and it hereby is, dismissed.