TNT Skypack

62 311 NLRB No. 16 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1 TNT Skypack, Inc., 20 NMB 153, 160 (1993). TNT Skypack, Inc. and Local 851, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO, Peti- tioner. Case 29–RC–7885 May 17, 1993 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND RAUDABAUGH Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Emily DeSa. Follow- ing the hearing, and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regula- tions, the case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D.C., for determina- tion of whether it has jurisdiction over the Employer. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Upon the record in this case, we find that TNT Skypack, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the transportation of materials throughout the United States and international locations. The Employer asserted that it might be subject to the Railway Labor Act and, therefore, outside the NLRB’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, we requested an opinion from the National Mediation Board (NMB) on the jurisdictional question. The NMB has advised us that: [W]hile the Railway Labor Act applies to airlines contracted by Skypack to ship material, it does not follow that the Act applies to Skypack be- cause it contracts with airlines, as a shipper, to transport material. After consideration of all the evidence, the Board finds Skypack to be an inde- pendent entity not under direct or indirect control of a carrier. . . . Skypack’s operations at JFK International Airport are not subject to the Railway Labor Act.1 In consideration of the decision of the National Me- diation Board, we find that the Employer is an ‘‘em- ployer’’ within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act. We will remand the proceedings to the Regional Di- rector for a determination of the remaining issues. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that the proceeding is remanded to the Regional Director for Region 29 for processing consistent with this Decision and Order.