Beckett Aviation Corporation-Cleveland

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Beckett Aviation Corporation-Cleveland and Cleve- land Professional Pilots Association, Petitioner. Case 8-RC-1217 January 13, 1981 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND TRUESDALE Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Marco E. Graves. 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. Briefs were filed by both parties. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's ruling made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af- firmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer, Beckett Aviation Corporation- Cleveland, is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Cleveland, Ohio, where it is engaged in the service and operation of private air- craft. The Employer is a wholly owned subsidiary of Aviation Enterprises, Inc., which is itself a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chessie System. Aviation Enterprises also owns four other separate- ly incorporated Beckett Aviation corporations lo- cated in Youngstown, Ohio and Pittsburgh, Penn- sylvania, Chicago, Illinois, and West Palm Beach, Florida. The parties stipulated that in each State where Aviation Enterprises has operations it annually re- ceives shipments of fuel, parts, aircraft, and sup- plies directly from outside the State of location in excess of $50,000 and that annually, in the course and conduct of its business, each corporation re- ceives gross revenues from its operations in excess of $500,000. Because the Employer is involved in the air transportation business, we have in this case, as in other similar cases,' requested the National Media- tion Board, as the agency primarily vested with ju- I See, e.g., Executive l&ght Services, Incorporated, d/b/a Air Oregon, Inc.., 235 NLRB 1142 (1978). 254 NLEB No. 13 risdiction under the Railway Labor Act over air carriers and having primary authority to determine its own jurisdiction, to study the record in the case and to determine the applicability of the Railway Labor Act to the Employer. We have been admin- istratively advised by the National Mediation Board under date of October 14, 1980, that Beckett's contacts with common carrier by air, and its own carriage activities, bear only a remote and insignificant relationship to common carriage by air. Based upon the record in this File, the Board is of the opinion that the activities and employees performing such activities are not subject to the Railway Labor Act. Accordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act toassert jurisdic- tion herein. 2. The parties stipulated that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act seeking to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of certain 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 pilots employed by Beckett Aviation Cor- poration-Cleveland excluding all office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit is a unit which includes all pilots from the five separate Beckett Aviation Corporations. The five Beckett Aviation Corporations (herein- after collectively referred to as Beckett) are highly integrated and administratively centralized. Beckett is headed by John Lyden, the company president, who is responsible for overseeing operations at all five divisions. The system chief pilot, Donald Minner, is in charge of overall policy regarding pilots throughout the company. In addition, there are division chief pilots at each location who di- rectly supervise pilots at those respective locations. It should also be noted that Beckett's customers may not arrange for service directly at the separate locations, but must contact the central office in Youngstown. Personnel policies for pilots in the five Beckett locations are established centrally. Pilots' duties, re- sponsibilities, and safety requirements, as well as 88 BECKETT AVIATION CORP. other significant rules and regulations, are set forth in the "Beckett Aviation Corporation Flight Oper- ations Manual," a document which is distributed to pilots at all locations.2 The hiring process is han- dled by a central committee of company officers. Discharges may be recommended by the division chief pilot at each location, but must be approved by President Lyden. Moreover, wages and benefits are applied uniformly among the various divisions. In addition, pilot transfers among the five locations are based on a systemwide seniority list and a bid- ding procedure. The Employer argues that Beckett's functional integration and centrally administered labor rela- tions policies are factors sufficient to rebut the Board's longstanding presumption that a single-lo- cation unit is appropriate. We have frequently noted that the party seeking to overcome the pre- sumptive appropriateness of a single-location unit must be able to show that the day-to-day interests of the employees at the sought location have merged with those of employees at the other loca- tions.3 We do not believe that the Employer herein has made such a showing. As previously indicated, responsibility for the day-to-day supervision of the pilots at each loca- tion is with the division chief pilot. The division chief pilot schedules the working hours of each pilot. Significantly, the division chief pilot has wide latitude to resolve grievances and he may personal- ly impose minor disciplinary measures on pilots and may recommend more severe strictures to Lyden. It should also be noted that although the seniority list for transfers among pilots is systemwide, vaca- tion schedules are determined according to senior- ity at each location. Thus, pilots at the Cleveland location perform their day-to-day work under the immediate super- vision of a division chief pilot who is personally in- volved with the daily matters which make up their grievances and routine problems. The Board has found this to be a crucial factor in determining whether employees at different locations share a community of interest. See Renzetti's Market, supra, Wyandotte Saving Bank, 245 NLRB 943 (1979), Haag Drug Company, Incorporated, supra. In addition, there is a low level of interchange among the pilots at the different locations. Lyden and Minner testified that pilots from one location 2 Pilots' duties are uniform throughout the company, with the excep- tion of the Tilford Division in West Palm Beach, Florida. At that loca- tion, pilots do not operate corporate airplanes, but are involved in flying charters and teaching in a flight school. I See, e.g., Renzetti's Market Inc., 238 NLRB 174 (1978), Purity Su- preme. Inc., 197 NLRB 915, 917 (1972), Haag Drug Company, Incorporat- ed, 169 NLRB 877 (1968), are assigned to another location on an average of five to eight times per month. However, this statis- tic is undermined by the fact that most of these as- signments result from a need to assign planes rather than pilots. Thus, flight crews are generally as- signed as a complete unit with all crew members from one location and there are very few crews which include pilots from different locations (which are referred to as "mixed" crews). Line pilot Sexton testified that he has not been a member of a crew for at least 2 years; line pilot Schmid has never been temporarily assigned during his 10 years with the Employer, and line pilot Newell has been in mixed crews only two or three times in 5-1/2 years. There is no forum for person- al contact or other forms of communication among pilots based in different locations. The Employer does not hold systemwide meetings for pilots, and there is no companywide newspaper. We find that the slight evidence of employee interchange does not undermine the separate community of interest of pilots at the Cleveland location. In view of the autonomous supervision of pilots at each location, the wide geographical separation between the five locations, the absence of any bar- gaining history among the employees, the lack of significant employee interchange, and the fact that no labor organization seeks to represent the em- ployees on a broader basis, we find that there is a sufficient basis for granting the Petitioner's request for a single-location unit. There remains for consideration by the Board the question of whether the division chief pilot of Beckett Aviation Corporation-Cleveland is a su- pervisor as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. As previously noted, the division chief pilot has au- thority to resolve grievances, impose discipline, and recommend hiring and termination of pilots. In addition, the Cleveland division chief pilot is a member of the systemwide hiring committee for pilot promotions at his location. These activities clearly serve to include the division chief pilot within the 2(11) definition of supervisor. Accord- ingly, we shall exclude the division chief pilots from the bargaining unit. We find that the follow- ing unit is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All pilots employed by Beckett Aviation Cor- poration-Cleveland excluding all office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] 89