27 NMB No. 103

August 31, 2000

Re: NMB Case No. R-6758

American Trans Air, Inc.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This determination addresses American Trans Air's (ATA or Carrier) appeal of Investigator Eileen M. Hennessey's eligibility ruling. For the reasons discussed below, the Carrier's appeal is denied.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 16, 2000, the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA or Organization) filed an application pursuant to 45 U.S.C. § 152, Ninth, alleging a representation dispute among Mechanics and Related Employees of ATA. On July 11, 2000, the Board found a dispute existed and authorized an election. Ballots were mailed July 31, 2000, and the count is scheduled for September 1, 2000. On July 21, 2000, AMFA filed eligibility challenges. The Carrier responded on July 27, 2000. Both participants filed additional submissions through August 4, 2000.

Investigator Hennessey issued her rulings on August 11, 2000. On August 18, 2000, the Carrier appealed the ruling that eight "Tool Room" employees are ineligible because their job functions place them outside the craft or class. In support of the ATA's appeal, the Carrier submitted a declaration from the Human Resources Manager for Maintenance, Danny R. Copp. This declaration was not submitted to the Investigator during the period provided for eligibility challenges.

AMFA responded on August 22, 2000, stating that the Board should reject ATA's appeal. The Organization based its position on both the merits of the appeal and on procedural grounds.

ATA's Position

The Carrier characterizes the Copp declaration as "new evidence," and argues that Tool Room employees are part of the Mechanics and Related craft or class. In support of its position, the Carrier cites Continental Airlines, Inc., 24 NMB 433 (1997). In Continental, supra, the Board found "utility mechanics" were part of the Mechanics and Related craft or class. ATA contends that its Tool Room employees perform functions similar to those of Continental's utility mechanics.

AMFA's Position

AMFA cites Section 4.6 of the Board's Representation Manual and argues that the Board should not consider Copp's declaration. The Organization contends that the Carrier did not demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances" necessary for the Board to consider evidence not submitted to the Investigator. Further, AMFA also argues that the Tool Room employees were properly excluded and cites United Air Lines, Inc., 6 NMB 134 (1977).

DISCUSSION

I.

Section 4.6 of the Board's Representation Manual provides, in part:

Absent extraordinary circumstances, evidence submitted on appeal will not be considered by the Board unless it has been submitted to the Investigator initially. It is the responsibility of the submitter to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances when additional evidence is presented on appeal.

The Board has stated repeatedly that it will not consider evidence submitted on appeal absent extraordinary circumstances. Sun Country Airlines, 26 NMB 385, 389 (1999); Aloha IslandAir, Inc., 25 NMB 290, 297 (1998); Long Island Rail Road Company, 24 NMB 664, 697 (1997); Union Pacific Railroad and Southern Pacific Railroad, 24 NMB 334, 337-8 (1997). As ATA has not demonstrated or argued "extraordinary circumstances," the Copp declaration will not be considered.

II.

In United Air Lines, supra at 135, the Board described the duties of Mechanics and Related Employees as follows:

A. Mechanics who perform maintenance work on aircraft, engine, or accessory equipment.

B. Ground service personnel who perform work generally described as follows:

Washing and cleaning airplane, engine and accessory parts in overhaul shops, fueling of aircraft and ground equipment, maintenance of ground and ramp equipment, maintenance of buildings, hangers, and related equipment, cleaning and maintaining the interior and exterior of aircraft, servicing and control of cabin service equipment, air condition of aircraft, cleaning of airport hangers, building, hangar and ramp equipment.

C. Plant maintenance personnel - including employees who perform work consisting of repairs, alterations, additions to and maintenance of buildings, hangars, and the repair, maintenance and operation of related equipment including automatic equipment.

Id. at 135.

AMFA submitted declarations from two employees in the craft or class who testified that Tool Room employees preponderantly "warehouse," "distribute," "clean," and "allocate" tools but "do not use the tools to perform federally mandated repairs on aircraft." The Investigator also considered the Carrier's evidence, a tool room job requisition which described the job functions as follows:

1. Issue and receive tooling to and from

maintenance production staff;

2. Record disposition of tool stock;

3. Manufacture repair tooling;

4. Stock and inventory tooling; and

5. Maintain work standards.

Investigator Hennessey relied on the evidence submitted by the participants in making her ruling. The Board's review of the evidence submitted to the Investigator, when viewed in light of United, leads it to conclude that Tool Room employees are not part of the craft or class of Mechanics and Related Employees. In so finding, the Board notes that Continental, supra, is distinguishable as the utility mechanics in that case actually performed and assisted with work on aircraft and aircraft equipment. Continental, supra, at 445-6.

CONCLUSION

The record establishes that there is no basis for the Board to overrule the Investigator's ruling that Tool Room employees are ineligible. Therefore, the Carrier's appeal is denied. The count will take place as scheduled at 11:00 a.m., September 1, 2000.

By direction of NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD.

Stephen E. Crable

Chief of Staff