March 12, 2002
Tom A. Jerman, Esq.
O'Melveny & Meyers LLP
555 13th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Mr. Keith D. Houk
President & C.E.O.
Mr. Michael Scrobola
Director of Flight Operations
Allegheny Airlines, Inc.
1000 Rosedale Avenue
Middletown, PA 17057
Mr. John F. Leonard
President & CEO of Piedmont
President of Potomac Air, Inc.
Ms. Kristen Collins
VP Human Resources
Mr. Steve Farrow
VP Flight Operations
Piedmont Airlines, Inc.
Salisbury Ocean City Wicomico Regional Airport
5443 Airport Terminal Road
Salisbury, MD 21804
Mr. Richard Pfennig
President & C.E.O.
Mr. Tim Keuscher
Mr. Dave Glenn
PSA Airlines, Inc.
3400 Terminal Drive
Vandalia, OH 45377
Edward J. Gilmartin, Esq.
Richard P. Wrede, Esq.
Association of Flight Attendants
1275 K Street, NW.
Washington, DC 20005-40006
Re: NMB File No. R-6862
Allegheny Airlines, Inc./AFA
This determination addresses the February 13, 2002, Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA). AFA seeks reconsideration of the National Mediation Board's (Board) January 14, 2002, decision finding that Allegheny Airlines, Inc. (Allegheny), Piedmont Airlines, Inc. (Piedmont), Potomac Air (Potomac),(1) and PSA Airlines, Inc. (PSA), collectively the Carriers, do not constitute a single transportation system. Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 29 NMB 160 (2002).
Allegheny, Piedmont, and PSA filed a joint opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration on February 20, 2002. The Board grants reconsideration and denies relief.
I.
CONTENTIONS
AFA
AFA argues that the Board erred in finding that Allegheny, Piedmont, and PSA do not constitute a single transportation system. AFA argues that the relationship between the Carriers and US Airways is virtually identical to the relationship between USAir, Inc. and Shuttle, Inc. where the Board found a single transportation system to exist. See USAir, Inc./Shuttle, Inc. d/b/a USAir Shuttle, 19 NMB 388 (1992).
AFA contends that "the separate flight operations and maintenance departments of the Express carriers do not destroy a single transportation system." AFA further states that "the Board improperly minimized the extent to which the Express carriers hold themselves out to the public as a single transportation system."
AFA also argues that the Board failed to continue its investigation and hold an evidentiary hearing, which "would disclose that bargaining is directed by US Airways Group via its Express Division such that a single transportation system would be found."
Allegheny, Piedmont and PSA
The Carriers assert that AFA's Motion for Reconsideration is merely a reassertion of factual and legal arguments previously presented and should be denied. In addition, the Carriers argue that AFA has not demonstrated a material error of law or fact. The Carriers also argue that AFA failed to show that the public interest would be served by a reversal of the Board's decision. The Carriers oppose AFA's request that the Board conduct an evidentiary hearing.
II.
DISCUSSION
The Board finds that the AFA has stated sufficient grounds to grant reconsideration pursuant to the Board's Representation Manual (Manual) Section 17.0.
Manual Section 17.0 states:
Upon consideration of a Motion for Reconsideration, the NMB will decline to grant the relief sought absent a demonstration of material error of law or fact or under circumstances in which the NMB's exercise of discretion to modify the decision is important to the public interest. The mere reassertion of factual and legal arguments previously presented to the NMB generally will be insufficient to obtain relief. Reconsideration may not be sought from the Board's certification or dismissal.
The Board grants relief on Motions for Reconsideration in limited circumstances,
Accordingly, the Board does not intend to reverse prior decisions on reconsideration except in the extraordinary circumstances where, in its view, the prior decision is fundamentally inconsistent with the proper execution of the NMB's responsibilities under the Railway Labor Act.
Virgin Atlantic Airways, 21 NMB 183, 186 (1994).
The Board conducted a complete investigation and found no need to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
AFA argues that the "relationship between the Express carriers is virtually a carbon copy of the relationship between USAir, Inc. and the Shuttle, Inc." See USAir/Shuttle, above. In Allegheny Airlines, above, the Board compared the current case to USAir/Shuttle, above, and found that unlike the Shuttle, labor relations were handled by Allegheny, Piedmont, and PSA separately. Moreover, each of the three carriers in Allegheny Airlines, above, hired its own corporate officers and management team.
In its motion, AFA argued that the Board found a single transportation system did not exist because Allegheny, Piedmont, and PSA had separate flight and maintenance departments. AFA misstates the Board's findings. The fact that each of the three carriers had its own flight and maintenance departments, is only one factor the Board examined in determining whether a single transportation system existed.
The Board also noted that each Express carrier is identified by name in the US Airways' System Timetable. In addition, the Board noted that the Express carriers are identified by name and flight number on the US Airways website.
AFA argues that the Board "erred as a matter of law in the conclusions it drew from the facts it found in its investigation." AFA may disagree with the Board's assessment of the evidence, however, AFA's reassertions are insufficient to obtain the relief requested at this time.
CONCLUSION
The Board has reviewed the AFA and Carriers' submissions. AFA has failed to demonstrate a material error of law or fact or circumstances in which the Board's exercise of discretion to modify the decision is important to the public interest. The AFA merely reasserts arguments made in previous submissions. Therefore, any relief upon reconsideration is denied.
By direction of the NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD.
Benetta M. Mansfield
Chief of Staff
Copies to:
Jerry D. Anker, Esq.
Russell Bailey, Esq.
Marcus C. Migliore, Esq.
Robert Roach, Jr.
James Conley
David Neigus, Esq.
Ray Benning
Joshua D. McInerney, Esq.
1. Potomac ceased operations on October 6, 2001.
| Determinations Menu |