Mercury Service, Inc.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mercury Service, Inc.; Mercury Refueling, Inc.; and Crew Transit, Inc., Employer' and Internation- al Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 31-RC- 4679 November 24, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENEI.I.O, ANI) TRUISI)AI.E Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Susan D. Kunk. Following the hearing, and pursuant to Sec- tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the case was transferred to the National Labor Rela- tions Board for decision. 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 rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af- firmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds: Mercury Service, Inc., a California corporation, Mercury Refueling, Inc., a Nevada corporation, and Crew Transit, Inc., a California corporation, are all engaged in the business of furnishing ground support services to various interstate and/or inter- national air carriers. Each has its principal place of business located in Los Angeles, California, and each has received, during the 12 months preceding the filing of the instant petition, gross revenues in excess of $50,000 from providing these services to such air carriers as Lufthansa Airlines, Japan Air Lines, and Air France, each of which in turn re- ' At the hearing lhe parties stipulatcd that the petition should he amended Io reflectI he name f Ihc se three Employers, l 'ic wcre tIl he corIsiderel d it Silgle integrate]d Cnerpr i ceives annual gross revenues in excess of $1 million from the interstate and/or international transporta- tion of mail, passengers, and/or cargo. The record supports the stipulation of the parties that Mercury Service, Inc., Mercury Refueling, Inc., and Crew Transit, Inc. (hereafter collectively Mercury), should be considered as a single integrated enter- prise. Mercury contends that the petition should be dis- missed because jurisdiction is properly with the National Mediation Board under the Railway Labor Act and that the National Labor Relations Board therefore should not exercise jurisdiction. The Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that jurisdiction is properly with the National Labor Relations Board. 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 juris- dictional question presented here, we requested the National Mediation Board to study the record in this case and to determine the applicability of the Railway Labor Act to Mercury. In reply, we were advised by the National Mediation Board that, fol- lowing its reading of the record and of subsequent statements filed with them, the board had conclud- ed that: Based upon the nature of the activities per- formed by Mercury and the degree of control exercised by the carriers, the (National Media- tion) Board is of the opinion that the activities and employees performing such activities are subject to the Railway Labor Act.2 In view of the foregoing, we shall dismiss the in- stant petition. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition in Case 31- RC-4679 be, and it hereby is, dismissed. f Merurv Srvu., Inc., 8 NM B Nio 13 (Iq1KO) 253 NLRB No. 57 466