Vecellio & Grogan, Inc.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Vecellio & Grogan, Incorporated (Aviation Division) and Local Lodge 598 of the International Associa- tion of Machinist and Aerospace Workers, AFL- CIO, Petitioner. Case 9-RC-11823 August 4, 1977 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO AND MURPHY Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer James E. Horner. 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 9, this case was transferred to the Board for decision. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief. 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, Vecellio & Grogan, Incorporat- ed, is a West Virginia corporation engaged in the business of highway and heavy construction. The Aviation Division, the only division of the Employer involved herein, operates an air taxi service and maintains and repairs helicopters owned by other companies from a fixed base at South Charleston, West Virginia. The parties stipulated at the hearing that the Employer annually receives gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and that it makes purchases outside the State of West Virginia in excess of $50,000. The Employer's air taxi service is licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Civil Aeronautics Board, and the West Virginia Public Service Com- mission. Its air taxi service provides flights for coal company executives within West Virginia and to the States of Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Kentucky. Of the total flights made by the air taxi service less than 37 per cent are made within West Virginia. These record facts establish that the Employer is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. The Employer contends, however, that its operation is not subject to the 231 NLRB No. 27 National Labor Relations Act, but rather to the Railway Labor Act. Having therefore requested the National Media- tion Board to examine the record in this case and determine the applicability of the Railway Labor Act to the Emloyer, we have been administratively advised by the National Mediation Board that "the National Mediation Board is of the opinion that Vecellio & Grogan, Inc. (Aviation Division) is not a carrier within the meaning of Section 201 of the Railway Labor Act." Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, we find the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Therefore, we shall assert jurisdiction 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 the 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 composed of: All maintenance and parts department employ- ees, excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors, as defined in the Act. Of the approximately five employees in the unit requested by Petitioner, four are maintenance em- ployees (mechanics), and one works almost full time in the parts department. The Employer seeks to exclude this parts department employee from the unit on grounds that he does not share a sufficient community of interest with the mechanics. In this regard, the record indicates that the parts department employee, Joe Keene, was originally hired in 1974 as a mechanics' helper, but that in early 1975 he started working almost full time in the parts department. Keene's duties include maintaining the parts invento- ry, preparing and calling in purchase orders, and making minor repairs on helicopters. Keene does not have a mechanic's license nor does he have a regular mechanic's toolbox for use in his repair work. Further, it is undisputed that Keene spends the majority of his working time in the parts department. However, the record also establishes that all employ- ees share the same working hours and fringe benefits, that they utilize the same lunchroom and restroom facilities, and that Keene is paid approximately the same hourly wage as the lowest paid mechanic. It is evident that the mechanics and the parts department employee share a strong community of interest. Thus, they receive the same benefits, have frequent contact on the job, and on occasion perform 136 VECELLIO & GROGAN the same work. Additionally, if Keene were excluded from the bargaining unit he "might become the only unrepresented employee in the plant and thus effectively be denied the opportunity to be represent- ed in collective bargaining." We shall therefore include him in the unit. Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, we find that the following employees at the Employer's facility at South Charleston, West Virginia, consti- tute an appropriate unit for purposes of collective I Victor Industries Corporation of California, 215 NLRB 48, 49 (1974); Safair Flying Service Inc., 207 NLRB 119 (1973). bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All maintenance and parts department employ- ees, excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors, as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] 137