In the Matter of the Application of the
alleging a representation dispute pursuant to
Section 2, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act, as amended
involving employees of
LSG Lufthansa Services, Inc.
25 NMB NO. 22
NMB CASE NO. R-6446
FINDINGS UPON INVESTIGATION-
AUTHORIZATION OF ELECTION
December 3, 1997
On February 5, 1996, the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union (HERE) filed an application for investigation of a representation dispute among personnel described as "all airport restaurants and in-flight catering employees including support employees located on Guam or Saipan," employed by LSG Lufthansa Services, Inc. (LSG).
At the time this application was received, these employees were unrepresented.
The Board assigned Mediator Charles R. Barnes to investigate. During the investigation, LSG raised several questions concerning the craft or class, including whether there are separate crafts or classes on Guam and Saipan and questions concerning eligibility, including questions concerning the eligibility of nonresident workers on Saipan.
On March 1, 1996, LSG filed challenges to the eligibility of its nonresident workers on Saipan and sought separate crafts or classes for its employees on Guam and Saipan. On March 27, 1996, HERE agreed that there should be separate crafts or classes of "In-flight Kitchen and Catering Employees" on Guam and Saipan, but did not agree that nonresident workers on Saipan belonged in a separate craft or class. Upon further consideration, on June 7, 1996, HERE amended its application seeking to represent "all in-flight catering employees located on Guam or Saipan." Based upon the several lists submitted by the carrier, on June 11, 1996, Mediator Barnes sent the parties a list of potential eligible voters for the craft or class of LSG's "In-flight Kitchen and Commissary Employees". On June 17, 1996, LSG filed objections to the list of potential eligible voters with Mediator Barnes. LSG again objected to the inclusion of nonresident workers of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) in any craft or class. On that same date, HERE challenged the omission of 14 individuals whom the carrier had listed as supervisors from the potential list of eligible voters.
On July 11, 1996, Mediator Barnes ruled that "a single System-wide craft or class of In-flight Kitchen and Commissary Employees is the appropriate craft or class" and that all nonresident employees of LSG performing work in the craft or class of In-flight Kitchen and Commissary Employees are eligible. Mediator Barnes further ruled that five individuals promoted to supervisory positions are not management officials and are eligible as employees or subordinate officials. Finally, Mediator Barnes ruled ineligible the 14 individuals HERE sought to include on the list because HERE failed to submit any evidence or argument in support of its assertions that the individuals were not management officials.
On July 22, 1996, LSG and HERE appealed Mediator Barnes' rulings. HERE appealed Mediator Barnes' ruling, providing evidence and argument in support of its assertions regarding the 14 challenged individuals. HERE's evidence consisted solely of assertions by counsel for HERE.
LSG appealed Mediator Barnes' ruling that all In-flight Kitchen and Commissary Employees should be included in a single craft or class and his eligibility rulings concerning nonresident workers and f I've individuals who LSG contends were promoted to management. On July 26, 1996, LSG also filed a response to the appeal filed by HERE.
On May 15, 1997, the Board sought additional information from LSG and, on June 4, 1997, LSG supplied that information to the Board.
Should the employees at issue be included in a single craft or class of LSG's In-flight Kitchen and Commissary Employees on Guam and Saipan or separate crafts or classes on Guam and Saipan? Are the CNMI nonresident workers covered by the Railway Labor Act, and, if so, are they eligible to vote in a craft or class of In-flight Kitchen and Commissary Employees? Are the Carrier's Flight Service Supervisors, Sous Chefs, Equipment Supervisors, and Duty Officers eligible to vote?
LSG asserts that there should be separate crafts or classes of In-flight Kitchen and Commissary Employees on Guam and Saipan. The Carrier further asserts that the CNMI Nonresident Workers Act (NWA) imposes requirements which are inconsistent with the Railway Labor Act and therefore CNMI nonresident workers should not be included in any craft or class. In the event that the Board finds the nonresident employees eligible to vote, LSG asserts that they should be in a separate craft or class because they do not share a community of interest with other In-flight Kitchen and Commissary Employees. Further, LSG asserts that Flight Service Supervisors, Duty Officers, Equipment Supp-i-visors and the Sous Chefs are management officials and are ineligible to vote.
Although HERE has applied to represent LSG's In-flight Kitchen and Commissary Employees on Guam and Saipan in a single craft or class, it has indicated that it does not oppose separate crafts or classes on Guam and Saipan. However, HERE asserts that nonresident workers covered by the CNMI NWA are covered by the Railway Labor Act and are eligible to vote as In-f light Kitchen and Commissary Employees. HERE also asserts that the fourteen individuals it identifies as "in-flight service supervisors" are eligible to vote. Apparently, these individuals work in the job titles of Flight Service Supervisor or Equipment Supervisor.
FINDINGS OF LAW
Determination of the issues in this matter is governed by the Railway Labor Act, as amended, 45 U.S.C. § 151, et sea. Accordingly, the Board finds as follows:
I. LSG Lufthansa Services, Inc. , is a common carrier by air as defined in 45 U.S.C. S 181.
II. HERE is a labor organization and representative as provided by 45 U.S.C. 5 152, Ninth of the Act.
III. 45 U.S.C. § 152, Fourth, gives employees subject to its provisions, " . . . the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class for purposes of this chapter."
IV. 45 U.S.C. § 152, Ninth, provides that the Board has the duty to investigate representation disputes and to designate who may participate as eligible voters in the event an election is required. In determining the choice of the majority of employees, the Board is "authorized to take a secret ballot of the employees involved, or to utilize any other appropriate method of ascertaining the names of their duly designated and authorized representatives in such manner as shall insure the choice of representatives by the employees without interference, influence, or coercion exercised by the carrier. In the conduct of any election . . .the Board shall designate who may participate in the election and establish the rules to govern the election . . . ."
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. LSG provides in-flight catering services to airlines. LSG Lufthansa Service Guam, Inc. (LSG Guam), provides in-f light catering services at Guam International Airport. LSG Lufthansa Service Saipan, Inc. (LSG Saipan), provides in-flight catering services at Saipan International Airport.1 LSG Guam is wholly owned by LSG Catering Guam, Inc., which is wholly owned by LSG Lufthansa Service USA Corp. LSG Saipan is wholly owned by LSG Catering Saipan, which is wholly owned by LSG Lufthansa Service Asia LTD. LSG Lufthansa Service USA Corp. and LSG Lufthansa Service Asia, Ltd. are wholly owned by the German corporation, LSG Lufthansa Service Holding AG.
LSG Guam reports to the Board of Directors of LSG Lufthansa Service USA, and LSG Saipan reports to the Board of Directors of LSG Lufthansa Service Asia.
According to Reinhard E. Guth, Regional Manager f or LSG Guam and LSG Saipan, both LSG Guam and LSG Saipan have the same boards of directors. Both corporations also share a human resources manager, a finance manager, and a regional manager.
According to the organizational charts provided for LSG Guam and LSG Saipan, the resident manager on Saipan reports to Guth. All other senior management for Guam and Saipan appear on the organizational chart for Guam. The organizational chart for LSG Saipan includes an assistant manager, clerical assistance and line supervisors such as Flight Service Supervisors
LSG Guam and LSG Saipan enter into separate contracts with each carrier at each airport. LSG Guam's employees work exclusively on Guam and do not work under agreements entered into by LSG Saipan. Employees of LSG Saipan work exclusively on Saipan and do not work under agreements entered into by LSG Guam.
LSG employees are paid differently on Guam and Saipan. For example, drivers who transport meals from the kitchens to the aircraft are paid between $7.75 and $9.44 per hour on Guam. Drivers on Saipan are paid between $3.14 and $4.66 per hour. Helpers and kitchen workers are also paid differently on Guam and Saipan. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), which sets the minimum wage for Saipan, has set a minimum wage of $2.75 per hour. Guam is-subject to the United States, minimum wage. LSG's employees on Guam receive a $650 per year travel allowance, but LSG's employees on Saipan do not receive a travel allowance. LSG's employees on Guam and Saipan otherwise receive the same fringe benefits package.
According to Jeanne D' Ammassa, personnel manger for LSG Lufthansa Service Guam and LSG Lufthansa Service Saipan, LSG employs approximately 334 individuals in Guam and approximately 53 in Saipan. Since the workforce is larger on Guam, the carrier maintains that its employees on Guam have "more circumscribed" job responsibilities than employees on Saipan.
In 1975, the United States Congress approved the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States (Covenant) which created the CNMI as a "self-governing commonwealth..... in political union with and under the sovereignty of the United States of America." Pursuant to the Covenant, the CNMI created the Nonresident Workers Act (NWA) and, under the NWA, promulgated Alien Labor Rules and Regulations (ALRR) The NWA and ALRR provide standards and procedures for hiring and employing nonresident workers on Saipan. Together, the NWA and the ALRR provide comprehensive regulation over most aspects of the employment relationship between an employer on Saipan and its nonresident workers.
LSG Saipan employs approximately nine nonresident workers pursuant to the NWA and the ALRR. Before hiring nonresident workers, the employer must advertise for resident employees and must be qualified by the Commonwealth Chief of Labor (Chief). The NWA requires approval from the Chief before hiring nonresident workers, mandates minimum skill and training levels for nonresident workers, and requires LSG to enter into one year employment agreements with nonresident workers. These agreements provide that nonresident workers may be terminated only for cause. Nonresident workers are provided full benefits, including health insurance, for their entire contract period.' The regulatory scheme also provides a detailed grievance procedure for resolving contract claims of nonresident workers.
In contrast, employees on Guam and resident workers on Saipan are subject to a three month probationary period before they are eligible for benefits. According to D'Ammassa, at the end of the three months, probationary employees are evaluated, and either made regular employees and given a wage increase, terminated, or permitted to remain as probationary employees for an additional period.
Nonresident workers also receive other benefits not provided to resident workers on Saipan and employees on Guam. These benefits, required under the NWA and the ALRR, include yearly medical exams, employer-provided subsidized housing, one free meal per day even when they are not on duty, and free transportation to and from work. The NWA also requires LSG to pay the cost of transporting nonresident workers to the CNMI at the beginning of their employment and to transport them home when their employment is terminated.
LSG and HERE have identified four job titles where eligibility is at issue. LSG promoted five individuals to new positions during the Board's investigation. Those positions include Flight Service supervisor, Equipment Supervisor, and Sous Chef. HERE challenged the omission of 14 individuals from the potential list of eligible voters. According to the Carrier, those individuals work in either Flight Service Supervisor or Duty Officer positions.
A. Flight Service Supervisors and Duty Officers
During the course of the Board's investigation, three individuals, Marlon Cruz, Gary Forrest and Vincent Santos were promoted to the position of Flight Service Supervisor. LSG Guam employs six other Flight Service Supervisors who were never included on the eligibility list. HERE asserts that the three individuals at issue are eligible, but has not sought to include the remaining Flight Service Supervisors on the eligibility list.
According to the job description for Flight Service Supervisors at LSG Guam, their duties include "supervising and directing the loading of food and equipment, briefing the crew on board the aircraft, and directing staff and vehicles on the ramp to ensure smooth and efficient service." The job description also details the Flight Service Supervisors' specific duties. Most of those duties involve either performing tasks or reviewing and checking to ensure that all meals and equipment are properly packed, loaded, delivered and returned. Examples of those duties include:
Supervise the proper uplifting of meals and maintain accurate records.
Responsible for making sure all subordinates follow safety procedures outlined by the customer and LSG; supervise loading staff in general.
Supervise drivers and loaders to ensure that only trained personnel open gallery doors in accordance with the procedures outlined by the airline.
Supervise staff and vehicle movements on the ramp in accordance with their flight assignments, making sure that any irregularities are communicated to the proper personnel.
Unload QDS vehicle and return supplies to proper location. Verify with Duty Officer all bank meals or supplies provided to the respective flights are recorded on the Daily Log Sheet.
Supervisory responsibilities also include appraising performance; rewarding and disciplining employees; addressing complaints and solving problems.
According to D'Ammassa, Flight Service Supervisors have "independent authority to issue verbal and written warnings and to discipline employees up to and including suspending them from work indefinitely". D'Ammassa also stated that Flight Service Supervisors have authority "to authorize and grant overtime" and "to temporarily transfer the employees they supervise within the Operations Department". Flight Service Supervisors report to the Duty Officer.
LSG employs three individuals as Flight Supervisors/Duty Officers on Saipan and eight individuals as Duty Officers on Guam. On Guam, Duty officers report to the Shift Manager or the Manager of operations. Duty officers' job descriptions indicate that they supervise Flight Service Supervisors. However, LSG Guam's organizational chart does not reflect a supervisory relationship between Duty officers and Flight Service Supervisors.
In general, the Duty Officer is responsible for the "administrative functions of the dispatch office." The Duty Officer coordinates and assigns staff to service flights during each shift, supervises operational staff during assigned shifts, controls departure of trucks for aircraft and the number of flights each truck services. The Duty officer is also responsible for monitoring the daily appearance of delivery personnel, communicating flight assignments to delivery personnel, and communicating with Flight service supervisors regarding ongoing flight activity and preparation. The Duty Officer also supervises the delivery staff upon their return to the base to ensure that all equipment is cleaned and returned to the appropriate location. Like that of Flight Service Supervisors, the job description for the Duty Officers includes the following:
Supervisory responsibilities also include appraising performance; rewarding and disciplining employees; addressing complaints and solving problems.
B. Sous Chef
Yeosno Kroppen was originally included on the eligibility list, and was subsequently promoted to the position of Sous Chef. The Carrier asserts that the Sous Chef is a management official. HERE asserts that Kroppen is not a management official and should remain on the eligibility list.
The Sous Chefs are second level supervisors, on the same level as cooks, above the production workers and production supervisors. According to the job description for the Sous Chef position at LSG Guam, the Sous Chef is responsible for:
[S]upervising, organizing and participating in the preparation of foodstuffs according to specifications and basic recipes. The Sous Chef keeps chillers and work areas in good sanitary condition; requisitions foodstuff, stores and rotates food properly. The Sous Chef coordinates food production activities of establishment by performing the following duties personally or through subordinate supervisors. The Sous Chef establishes and maintains smooth function of food production in accordance with company, federal and local standards using designated food specifications and menus.
According to the job description, the Sous Chef also reviews and rates the performance of cooks and kitchen helpers and disciplines employees. The Sous Chef reports to the Executive Sous Chef and to the Executive Chef. D'Ammassa described the Sous Chef as responsible for "supervising the work of LSG Guam's Cooks and Kitchen Helpers, and preparing their work schedules." According to D'Ammassa, Yeonso Kroppen, the current Sous Chef, has independent authority to issue written warnings, suspend employees, grant overtime, and to temporarily transfer employees within the Kitchen Department.
C. Equipment Supervisors
Edgerdo Peregrino was originally included on the eligibility list, and was subsequently promoted to the position of Equipment Supervisor. The Carrier asserts that the Equipment Supervisor is a management official. HERE asserts that Peregrino is not a management official and should remain on the eligibility list.
According to the job description for the Equipment Supervisor position at LSG Guam, the Equipment Supervisor is responsible for "supervising and coordinating the activities of the Equipment Department staff, which includes the bar set, cutlery and equipment prep." According to the job description, the Equipment Supervisor also appraises performance and disciplines employees. The Equipment Supervisor reports to t4e Equipment Manager.
According to D'Ammassa, an Equipment Supervisor has independent authority to issue written warnings, to discipline employees up to and including indefinite suspension, to authorize and grant overtime and to transfer temporarily employees within the Operations Department.2 According to the job description, Equipment Supervisor responsibilities include:
Monitor all airline equipment supplies; daily check of levels of stock on the floor and levels of back up stock.
Schedule employees to ensure sufficient manpower to cover daily operational functions.
Conduct daily check of all inbound flights for discrepancies that may occur with equipment received from any of the outstations; ensure proper notification is given to the airline.
Supervise staff to ensure that all areas are in proper order, airline stock is placed in designated area; and that area is clean before and after each shift.
Supervisory responsibilities also include appraising 'performance; rewarding and disciplining employees; addressing complaints and solving problems.
I. Initially, the Board must determine whether, as the Carrier contends, its Guam and Saipan operations constitute separate crafts or classes or whether LSG's Guam and Saipan operations constitute a single craft or class.
A. Section 2, Ninth of the Railway Labor Act provides f or representation of employees on a craft or class basis. In determining the appropriate craft or class of employees on a particular carrier, the Board examines a number of factors. These factors include, among others, functional integration, work classifications, terms and conditions of employment and work-related community of interest. See NMB Representation Manual, Section 5.1; America West Airlines, 22 NMB 54 (1994) ; Southwest Airlines, 20 NMB 116 (1992) ; British Airways, Inc. , 10 NMB 174 (1983). The factor of work related community of interest is particularly important. Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc., 23 NMB 23, 30 (1995) ; Iberia International Air Lines, 16 NMB 319, 324 (1989) ; USAir, Inc., 15 NMB 369 (1988).
The Board's longstanding practice is to conduct elections across a carrier's entire system. See Summit Airlines, Inc. v. Local 295, 628 F.2d 787 (2d Cir. 1980); America West Airlines, Inc., 16 NMB 135, 141 (1989). See Sapado I, 19 NMB 178, 205 for a discussion of the history of this practice. Crafts or classes include all of the employees working in the classification deemed eligible, regardless of work locations. Sapado I, 19 NMB at 204; Offshore Logistics, Aviation Services Division d/b/a Air Logistics, 11 NMB 144 (1984); Varig Airlines, 10 NMB 223 (198 3 ).
The Board has expressly rejected the argument that geographically segregated employees be treated as a separate craft or class "where such employees do not constitute the full craft or class carrier-wide." Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 6 NMB 63 J1976). See also Norfolk Southern,'16 NMB 355 (1988).
For example, in Off-Shore Logistics, the Board rejected the argument that employees in Alaska and California were not eligible to vote because they worked only in those states. The Board stated:
Section 2, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act provides for representation of employees or subordinate officials on a system-wide, rather than a local, basis. The craft or class must include all of the employees working in classifications deemed eligible, regardless of their work locations.
Off-Shore Logistics, 11 NMB at 152.
In-flight Kitchen and Commissary Employees perform the same work in the same job classifications, whether they are employed on Guam or Saipan. According to LSG, based upon the size of the respective stations, employees on Guam tend to perform more discrete tasks, and employees on Saipan tend to be cross-utilized to a greater extent and perform a wider variety of functions. However, the fact remains that the employees on Guam perform the same functions as the employees on Saipan. LSG's In-flight Kitchen and Commissary Employees on Guam and Saipan share a work-related community of interest. In addition, all In-flight Kitchen and Commissary Employees report directly to Flight Service Supervisors.
While employees in all classifications are paid at a lower hourly rate on Saipan than on Guam, the wage rates at both stations are keyed to the legal minimum wage at both locations. As discussed herein, employees working in the same job Classification are included in the same craft or class regardless of work location.
Based upon the work-related community of interest, common supervision and common functions, the Board finds that LSG's In-flight Kitchen and Catering Employees on Guam and Saipan are included appropriately in the same craft or class.
LSG asserts that its nonresident employees are not eligible to vote because the "obligations" imposed on the Carrier by the NWA "cannot be reconciled with its obligations and duties under the RLA". HERE asserts that nonresident employees on Saipan are covered by the Railway Labor Act and that the NWA of the CNMI does not preclude their voting in an election among LSG's In-flight Kitchen and Commissary Employees.
A. The Board finds the regulatory scheme covering LSG's nonresident employees on Saipan compatible with the Railway Labor Act.
Section 502(a)(2) of the Covenant provides that the laws of the United States that apply to Guam, "which are of general application to the several States" also apply to the CNMI, including Saipan. N. Mar. I. Commw. Cov. §502(a)(2). Under the Covenant, the laws of the United States, including the RLA, apply to the CNMI as they do to the States.4
Since the Railway Labor Act applies generally to carriers and their employees in the CNMI, the Board examines whether the Act applies specifically to LSG's nonresident workers on Saipan. The Railway Labor Act applies to, "every air pilot or other person who performs any work as an employee or subordinate official of such carrier or carriers, subject to its or their continuing authority to supervise and direct the manner of rendition of his service." 45 U.S.C. § 181.
In Saipan Hotel Corp. v. NLRB, 114 F.3d 994, 155 LRRM 2554 (9th Cir. 1997), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit examined the NLRA's definition of "employee" and held that the NLRB has jurisdiction over both resident and nonresident employees in the CNMI. Specifically, the Court reasoned that the NLRA does not distinguish between citizens and aliens.
The RLA limits the definition of an "employee" only to the extent that the carrier must retain the
authority to supervise and direct the employees I work. The Act does not distinguish between citizen and alien employees. While the NWA and the ALRR prescribe standards for salary and other working conditions, the regulatory scheme on Saipan does not prohibit LSG from supervising and directing the work of its nonresident employees.
The regulatory scheme created by the NWA and the ALRR is designed to "govern the hiring of nonresident workers, in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands." 10 N. Mar. I. Reg. 5512 (1988). The regulations set 'standards for hiring, termination, certain working conditions, and housing and sanitary facilities. The regulations provide nonresident workers with a forum for complaint and review of employment actions as well as for working and housing conditions. While these regulations cover many topics normally included in collective bargaining agreements, they are not so comprehensive as to prohibit employees from selecting a representative and bargaining collectively over terms and conditions of employment beyond those specified by regulation. The regulatory scheme sets certain standards, which complement employees rights to select a representative and bargain collectively pursuant to Sections 2, Third and Fourth of the Act. 45 U.S.C. §§ 152, Third and Fourth. Therefore, the Board finds the regulatory scheme covering nonresident employees on Saipan compatible with the Railway Labor Act.
B. LSG argues, in the alternative, that if the Board finds the regulatory scheme covering nonresident workers to be compatible with the RLA, then by virtue of that regulatory scheme, nonresident workers do not share a community of interest with LSG's In-flight Kitchen and Commissary Employees.
However, the nonresident employees on Saipan perform the same work, in the same job classifications, for the same supervisors as all other LSG employees in the same positions on Saipan. Therefore the Board finds that the nonresident employees on Saipan share a work-related community of interest with other In-flight Kitchen and Commissary Employees on Saipan and are eligible to vote.
III. Section 5.312 of the Board's Representation Manual provides guidance to the Mediator in determining whether an individual is a management official and, therefore, ineligible.
The Mediator shall consider, in the investigation, whether the involved individual has the authority to discharge and/or discipline employees or to effectively recommend the same; the extent of supervisory authority; the ability to authorize overtime; the authority to transfer and/or establish assignments; the authority to create carrier policy; the authority and extent to which carrier funds may be committed; whether the authority exercised is circumscribed by operating and procedural manuals; the placement of the individual in the organizational hierarchy of the carrier; and, any other relevant factors regarding the individual's duties and responsibilities.
In Pan American World Airways, Inc., 5 NMB 112, 115 (1973), the Board stated it would consider:
[V]arious individual elements and factors which might not be decisive if considered separately but considered cumulatively would remove a particular position from the status of employee or subordinate official.
Based upon the record in this case, the Board finds that the Flight Service Supervisor, Duty Officer, Equipment Supervisor and Sous Chef positions are employees or subordinate officials .
Flight Service Supervisors and Duty Officers are first level supervisors who chiefly work along side of and direct the work of loaders and drivers who load airline meals onto delivery trucks and deliver the meals to the aircraft. Flight Service Supervisors have authority to authorize overtime and temporary transfers within the department, appraise performance, and to reward and discipline. There is no evidence, however, that this authority is exercised. Additionally, Flight Service Supervisors and Duty officers do not have the authority to commit carrier funds or to establish carrier policy. When the evidence is considered cumulatively, the Board finds that Flight Service Supervisors and Duty Officers are employees or subordinate officials and, as such, are eligible to vote in an election among In-flight Kitchen and Commissary Employees.
Equipment Supervisors are first level supervisors who chiefly work along side of and direct the work of the equipment workers who handle inventory and clean all airline equipment including cutlery and bar sets. Equipment Supervisors have authority to authorize overtime and temporary transfers within the department, appraise performance, and to reward and discipline employees. There is no evidence, however, that this authority is exercised. Additionally, Equipment Supervisors do not have the authority to commit carrier funds or to establish carrier policy. When the evidence is considered cumulatively, the Board finds that Equipment Supervisors are employees or subordinate officials and, as such, are eligible to vote in an election among In-flight Kitchen and commissary Employees.
The Sous Chefs direct the work of the Cooks and Production Workers in the Kitchen. Sous Chefs coordinate food production activities. Sous Chefs have authority to authorize overtime and temporary transfers within the department, appraise performance, and to reward and discipline employees. There is no evidence, however, that this authority is exercised. Sous Chefs maintain the smooth functioning of the kitchen in accordance with established LSG standards, but do not participate in establishing LSG's policies. Additionally, Equipment Supervisors do not have the authority to commit carrier funds. Considering the evidence cumulatively, the Board finds that Sous Chefs are employees or subordinate officials and, as such, are eligible to vote in an election among In-flight Kitchen and Commissary Employees.
Based upon the record in this case and for all of the reasons described above, the Board finds that the appropriate craft or class is LSG's In-flight Kitchen and Commissary Employees employed on Guam and Saipan. The regulatory scheme covering nonresident workers on Saipan is compatible with the Railway Labor Act. Nonresident employees on Saipan, as well as Flight Service Supervisors, Duty Officers, Equipment Supervisors and Sous Chef's are eligible to vote in the craft or class of In-flight Kitchen and Commissary Employees.
The Board finds a dispute to exist in NMB Case No. R-6446 among In-flight Kitchen and Commissary Employees, employees of LSG Lufthansa Services, Inc. An all mail ballot election is hereby authorized using a cut-off date of January 23, 1996 with applicant HERE on the ballot.
Pursuant to Section 11.2 of the Board's Representation Manual, the Carrier is hereby required to furnish, within five calendar days, alphabetized peel-off labels bearing the names and current addresses of those employees on the list of potential eligible voters. The ballot count will take place in Washington, D.C.
By direction of the NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD
Stephen E. Crable
Chief of Staff
Joseph L. Manson, III, Esq.
William A. Sokol, Esq.
Mr. Elwood K. Mott, Jr.
1. Guam and Saipan are territories of the United States. Saipan is covered by the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America (Covenant).
2. Edgardo Perigrino is the only Equipment Supervisor challenged by HERE. However the Carrier indicated that other Equipment Supervisors were not included on the Potential List of Eligible Voters it provided.
3. Neither LSG nor HERE has asserted that LSG Guam and LSG Saipan are separate carriers.
4. The Railway Labor Act has been applied to other air carriers operating in the CNMI. See
Continental Airlines, Inc. , Air Micronesia v. NMB, 140 LRRM 2120 (D.C. Cir.) , cert. denied, 506 U.S. 827 (1992).
5. The record establishes that the eligibility of certain individuals holding the positions at issue has been challenged. The record also establishes that other individuals holding the same position have not been challenged. In the interest of stable labor relations and of ensuring the freedom of an employee or employees to join a labor organization, the Board will resolve the status of all individuals holding the positions at issue. Air Transport International, Inc., 24 NMB 263, 275 (1997).