Aircraft Service International, Inc., (2017)

Docket Number:12-RC-187676

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes.

Aircraft Service International, Inc. and Communications Workers of America, Petitioner and Local 74, United Service Workers Union, International Union of Journeymen and Allied Trades. Case 12–RC–187676

June 9, 2017




The National Labor Relations Board has carefully considered the Employer’s request for review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election. The request for review is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.

In denying review, we agree with the Regional Director that the Employer’s operation at Orlando International Airport is not covered by the Railway Labor Act (RLA).1 Although the Employer’s Request for Review does not specifically argue that its Orlando operation meets the National Mediation Board’s (NMB) two-part test for determining whether an employer is subject to the RLA, we find that with respect to the second part of that test—whether the employer is directly or indirectly owned or controlled by, or under common control with, a carrier or carriers—the Orlando operation is clearly subject to even less carrier control than in previous cases where the NMB has found an employer not covered by the RLA. See Miami Aircraft Support, 21 NMB 78 (1993). The Employer, in fact, has admittedly presented insufficient evidence to satisfy any of the six factors comprising that part of the test—extent of a carrier’s control over the manner in which the employer conducts its business, access to the employer’s operations and records, role in personnel decisions, degree of supervision exercised, control over training, and whether the employees in question are held out to the public as carrier employees. The Employer has also essentially stipulated that it has no such evidence. Accordingly, the evidence of carrier control in the instant case falls substantially short of the considerations relied upon by Member Geale

1 We also agree with the Regional Director that even if the agreement executed on November 5, 2016 did not require ratification, or if ratification was required and did occur, the petition would still be timely, given the conflicting contract duration dates in that agreement. See South Mountain Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center, 344 NLRB 375 (2005).

in his dissents in Airway Cleaners, 41 NMB 262 (2014), and Menzies Aviation, 42 NMB 1 (2014).

This is hardly surprising, since the Employer’s service contract is solely with the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (a governmental body), not with any carriers. Our dissenting colleague fails to take note of the significance of this critical feature, which distinguishes this case from the cases he cites...

To continue reading