Dobbs International Service

577 305 NLRB No. 80 DOBBS INTERNATIONAL SERVICE 1 There was a dispute at the hearing regarding the correct legal identity of the Employer. 2 SAPADO I, 18 NMB No. 102 (Sept. 26, 1991). Dobbs International Service, Inc. and Hotel Em- ployees & Restaurant Employees, Local 5, AFL–CIO, Petitioner. Case 37–RC–3057 November 8, 1991 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS DEVANEY AND OVIATT Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held be- fore Hearing Officer Tony Bisceglia. Following the hearing, and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the case was transferred to the National Labor Rela- tions Board for decision. 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 affirmed. Dobbs International Service, Inc. (Dobbs) is a Dela- ware corporation which provides nonretail in-flight ca- tering services to various air carriers at different loca- tions including Honolulu, Hawaii, and Los Angeles, California. In 1983, Dobbs entered into a partnership with a subsidiary of Singapore Airlines to operate Dobbs’ facilities at Honolulu and Los Angeles. The new partnership was called SAPADO I. The Union seeks to represent a unit of the Employer’s employees at the Honolulu location.1 It was stipulated at the hear- ing that during the preceding 12 months the Employer had performed services valued in excess of $50,000 for customers located outside the State of Hawaii. The Employer contends that the instant petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the Na- tional Labor Relations Board. The Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the National Labor Relations Board should assert jurisdiction in this case. Section 2(2) of the Act provides in pertinent part that the term ‘‘employer’’ as used in the National Labor Relations Act should not include any person subject to the Railway Labor Act. Accordingly, because of the nature of the jurisdic- tional question presented here, we requested the Na- tional Mediation Board to study the record in this case and to determine the applicability of the Railway Labor Act to Dobbs. In reply, we were advised by the National Mediation Board that the board had con- cluded: Based upon the record in this case, the Board is of the opinion that SAPADO I’s Honolulu oper- ations and its employees are subject to the Rail- way Labor Act.2 In view of the foregoing, we shall dismiss the in- stant petition. ORDER It is ordered that the petition in Case 37–RC–3057 is dismissed.