McKinley Air Transport, Inc.

MCKINLEY AIR TRANSPORT 267 McKinley Air Transport, Inc. and International Pro- fessional Helicopter Pilots Association, a Division of ILA, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 8-RC-10253 December 14, 1976 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION - BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS_ FANNING AND JENKINS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Terry J. Koozer. Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, by direction of the Regional Director for Region 8, this case was transferred to the Board for decision. 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 fmds: 1. The Employer, McKinley Air Transport, Inc., is an Ohio corporation engaged in a fixed-base operation at Canton-Akron Airport in North Canton, Ohio, where it conducts a flight school, offers charter services, sells and rents light aircraft, performs minor repair work, and fuels aircraft. At the hearing on February 23, 1976, the Employer stipulated that it annually receives gross revenue in excess of $500,000 and that it annually receives in excess of $50,000 for performing charter services for employers such as Ohio Power Company and Bab- cock and Wilcox Company, which meet the Board's jurisdictional standards. The Employer's flight school is licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration. Its charter service is licensed by the Civil Aeronautics Board. The Employer fuels aircraft for Eastern, American, and United Airlines at the Canton-Akron Airport. These facts of record indicate that the Employer is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. The Employer, however, contends that its operation is not subject to the National Labor Relations Act, but rather to the Railway Labor Act. 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 Board is of the opinion that McKinley Air Transport Inc. does not meet the definition of a common carrier by air engaged in interstate commerce as set forth in Title II, Section 201 of the Railway Labor Act and that there is not a sufficient basis for this Board to assert jurisdic- tion. On the basis of the facts set forth above, we fmd that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Accordingly, we shall assertjurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit com- posed of: All employees, including linemen, pilots and mechanics, excluding all office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors, as defined in the Act. The Employer contends that pilots should not be included in the unit. The petitioned-for unit would include all, of the Employer's approximately 22 employees, of whom approximately 9 are pilots, 11 are linemen, and 2 are mechanics.' The record reveals that linemen prepare, service, and fuel the Employer's planes and fuel the airplanes of several scheduled airlines. Although no formalized prehire training is required; linemen generally have background in automotive mechanics or military aircraft. The two mechanics repair the Employer's aircraft. One mechanic is certified. The pilots fly passengers for hire, or, as flight instructors, train students. Pilots are required to have completed a training course which includes 200 hours of flying for a commercial rating granted by the Federal Aviation Administration. In addition, the Employer requires that its charter pilots have had 2,000 hours of flying experience and that its flight instructors have an instructor's rating. While the linemen and mechanics work an 8-hour day, the charter pilots' hours are determined by flight schedules and the flight instructors' hours are deter- mined by the students. Linemen, mechanics, and flight instructors are paid an hourly wage. Charter pilots are salaried. Linemen, mechanics, and pilots 1 The parties stipulated, and we find , that President Kenneth Little and the Act and hence excluded. The parties further stipulated that Little's son, Director of Operations Richard With are supervisors within the meaning of Dana Little, should be excluded from the unit. 227 NLRB No. 62 268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD receive the same fringe benefits such as vacations, insurance, and retirement plan. The record further reveals that there is frequent opportunity for contact between the pilots and linemen and mechanics. For example, they speak directly about problems with the aircraft. Further- more, the Employer's president, Little, testified that, on occasion, pilots fuel and clean their aircraft and linemen (some of whom are pilots) 2 taxi the aircraft. There is no bargaining history for any of the Employer's employees and no union seeks to repre- sent the groups separately. It is evident from the foregoing that the linemen, mechanics, and pilots share a strong community of interest. Thus, they receive the same fringe benefits, have frequent fob-related contacts, and on occasion perform certain of the same duties., These facts, together with the absence of a bargaining history and the fact that no other union seeks to represent the pilots separately, warrant our finding that the em- ployees petitioned for have a community of interest. Accordingly, we fmd that the linemen, mechanics, and pilots constitute an appropriate unit for collective bargaining.3 The Employer also contends that Glen Zanetic, Robert Dexter, and Ken Weber are supervisors and should be excluded from the unit. Petitioner disagrees with- this contention and maintains that these three individuals should properly be included in the unit. As the chief flight instructor, Zanetic directs the operation of the Employer's flight school. Zanetic assigns schedules and assigns instructors to students. He has authority to sign for gasoline and supplies for the flight school. He has effectively recommended 2 Chairman Murphy notes that the linemen who hold pilot licenses do not perform duties as pilots for this Employer. 3 Members Fanning and Jenkins also find that the record fails to support the Employer's contention that the pilots are professional employees within the meaning of the Act. Chairman Murphy agrees that the pilots are not professionals within the hiring one pilot and against hiring another. More- over, while the flight instructors are hourly paid, Zanetic is salaried. On the basis of these facts, we fmd Zanetic to be a supervisor and shall exclude him from the unit. Dexter is the chief lineman. He has authority to hire and fire and has done both. He is charged with the assignment and responsible direction of the linemen. Unlike the linemen who are paid an hourly wage, Dexter is salaried. We conclude that Dexter is a supervisor and shall exclude him from the unit. Weber is the chief pilot of the Employer's charter service. It appears that his duties differ from the other charter pilots only insofar as he assigns crews to planes and flights. The assignment function appears to be routine in nature, determined largely by plane and pilot availability. Weber spends approximately 75 percent of his time flying charter. Director of Operations With performs the assignment function when Weber is flying. We find that Weber lacks any indicia of supervisory authority and hence shall include him in the unit. We, find that the following employees at the Employer's facility at North Canton, Ohio, constitute an appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees, including linemen, pilots, and mechanics, excluding all office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors, as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote'omit- ted from publication.] meaning of Sec. 2(12) of the Act inasmuch as the record demonstrates that their work is standardized and apparently is not "predominantly intellectual and vaned," and it does not appear that their training requires "a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study in an institution of higher learning ... "