26 NMB No. 49
                          May 3, 1999


William R. Wilder, Esq.
Baptiste & Wilder, P.C.
1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036

          Re:    NMB Case Nos. R-  6661 and R-6662
                                                      Dalfort Aerospace, L.P.

Dear Mr. Wilder:

    This determination addresses the appeal filed by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) of Investigator Benetta M. Mansfield’s eligibility rulings in NMB Case Nos. R-6661 and R-6662.  For the reasons set forth below, the Investigator’s rulings are sustained.

I.

    On February 16, 1999, the Committee for a Better Dalfort (CBD) filed an application seeking to represent “Aircraft Mechanics & Related, Refuelers & Cleaners (Janitors), Stock Clerks, [and] Card Booth Clerks.”  This application was initially assigned NMB File No. CR-6650.

    At the time the application was filed, these employees were represented by the IBT.

    The Board assigned Benetta M. Mansfield to investigate.  Based upon the investigation, on March 15, 1999, the Board found that the application covered two crafts or classes, Mechanics and Related Employees, and Stock Clerks.  These cases were docketed as Case Nos. R-6661 and R-6662, respectively.

    The Board also found disputes to exist and authorized elections in both cases.  Ballots were mailed April 6, 1999, and the count is scheduled for May 4, 1999.

    The IBT challenged the eligibility of Supervisors in both cases.  On April 14, 1999, Investigator Mansfield ruled that the Supervisors were eligible voters.  The IBT appealed that ruling on April 19, 1999.  Neither CBD nor the Carrier filed a response to the IBT’s appeal.

II.

    IBT bases its appeal on two points.  First, the Organization argues that, historically, Supervisors have never been part of the craft or class of Mechanics and Related Employees on either Braniff or  its successor, Dalfort.  According to the Organization, in elections conducted by the Board in 1985 and 1989, Supervisors were not included.

    The Organization also argues that the Supervisors’ authority to either initiate or effectively recommend, discharge, or discipline renders them Carrier officials.  In addition, the IBT cites the fact that the Supervisors can recommend overtime or even authorize overtime “in the absence of higher management.”  Finally, the Organization asserts that “managerial personnel whose pay rates and working conditions are different from those they supervise,” should not be included in the same craft or class.

III.

    The Investigator based her ruling on a review of the evidence and arguments submitted by the Carrier and the IBT, as well as telephone interviews she conducted with three employees.  Included among the evidence provided by the Carrier were job descriptions for the individuals at issue.    For example, some of the responsibilities for the Aircraft Supervisor include:


  1) Supervising mechanics performing aircraft repair, checks and/or overhauls;  

  2) Trains and assists subordinates in the proper work procedures;  

  3) Ascertains that all required maintenance entries on forms . . . are properly executed;  

  4) Assures  the proper handling of all parts . . . .  

  5) Provides for continuity of maintenance responsibilities;  

  6) Ensure only qualified mechanics sign for work performed in accordance with FAR 145.61;  

  7) May delegate all duties to any qualified assistant as necessary [however] such delegation does not relieve the Aircraft Supervisors of overall responsibility;  

  8) Performs such other tasks that may be assigned by the Director of Maintenance.  

    Most of the other Supervisors have job descriptions which vary depending on the area of responsibility but are otherwise consistent with the one described above. The Supervisor-Material oversees the work performed by employees in the craft or class of Stock Clerks.  All other Supervisors oversee the work performed by Mechanics and Related Employees.
                                
    The Supervisor-Material has the additional responsibility to “[A]ccomplish employee evaluations,” and the Supervisor R&E is additionally responsible for “[p]lan[ing] work schedules for assigned mechanics.”

IV.

    Charles Bohannon, Director-Human Resources, has submitted a sworn statement in which he asserts, inter alia:

1) Supervisors cannot discharge and/or discipline employees “pursuant to the working agreement and company policy,” but can recommend discipline, including discharge, “but there is no assurance that it will be adopted.”

2) Supervisors can recommend overtime, and if no manager is available, can authorize overtime. According to Bohannon, “it would be a very rare occurrence for no upper level management to be available.”

3) Supervisors can establish work assignments.

4) Supervisors cannot create Carrier policy or commit Carrier funds.

5) Supervisors report to Managers and/or Directors.  Mechanics and Clerks report to a Senior Mechanic or a Senior Clerk who reports to the Supervisor.


    
V.

    The IBT submitted statements from four employees who state that they have witnessed Supervisors “firing personnel, mainly contractors and permanent workers on numerous occasions.” The Investigator also spoke with three witnesses whose names were provided by the IBT.  The witness interviews established that Supervisors “do not have the power to discharge or discipline employees,” although they can present a recommendation of “a level of discipline” at disciplinary hearings.  Disciplinary hearings are conducted by a Director or a Manager.  The investigation also established that “work assignments . . . [are] determined by the planning department, and a manager can authorize overtime.”  Supervisors are salaried employees whose wages are equivalent to the highest wage scale mechanics.

VI.

DISCUSSION

I.

    Section 5.312 of the Board’s Representation Manual provides:

  If an individual is determined to be a management official, the individual is ineligible.  The Investigator 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 and grant overtime; the authority to transfer and/or establish assignments; the authority to create carrier policy; the authority and the extent to which carrier funds may be committed; whether the authority exercised is circumscribed by operating and policy 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.  

    When the Board applies these criteria, the Board must consider various individual elements and factors which might not be decisive if considered separately, but considered cumulatively would remove a particular  position from the status of an employee or subordinate official.  Pan American World Airways, Inc., 5 NMB 112, 115 (1973).  See also USAir, Inc., 24 NMB 38 (1996); Comair, Inc., 22 NMB 175 (1995); American International Airways, Inc. d/b/a Connie Kalitta Services, 20 NMB 94 (1992); Challenge Air Cargo, 17 NMB 501 (1990); USAir, 17 NMB 117 (1990); and Tower Air, Inc., 16 NMB 338 (1989).  In many cases, the Board finds that while there are certain factors indicating some level of authority, when the factors are viewed cumulatively, the individuals at issue generally are supervisors, not management officials.
The fact that these Supervisors have never been covered by the collective bargaining agreement is not material to the Board’s determination.

B.

    Application of the standards cited above to the record in this case establishes that Dalfort’s Supervisors are not management officials.  While these individuals can recommend discipline, their recommendations are not necessarily accepted.  They have no authority to commit funds or create carrier policy.  While they can authorize overtime, it is only in the unlikely event of a Manager’s absence.  Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the Supervisors of Mechanics and Related Employees and of Stock Clerks are eligible employees.




CONCLUSION

    The Board finds that Dalfort’s Supervisors are eligible to vote in elections among either the craft or class of Mechanics and Related Employees or of Stock Clerks.  Therefore, the Investigator’s rulings are sustained.  The counts will take place as scheduled at 2 p.m., Tuesday, May 4, 1999.

    By direction of the NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD.



                    Stephen E. Crable
                    Chief of Staff

Copy to:
Mr. Charles S. Bohannon
Mr. Ray Benning
James L. Hicks, Jr., Esq.
Mr. James R. Haga
Ms. Benetta M. Mansfield

Determinations Menu