25 NMB No. 69

March 18, 1998

Michael E. Avakian, Esq.

Center on National Labor Policy, Inc.

5211 Port Royal Road, Suite 103

North Springfield, VA 22151

Re:	NMB Case No. R-6358

Virgin Atlantic Airways

Dear Mr. Avakian:

This determination addresses the Virgin Atlantic Airways Employees Association (VAAEA) August 20, 1997 Motion for Reconsideration of the Board's decision in Virgin Atlantic Airways, 24 NMB 575 (1997). The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), the incumbent, filed a response on August 25, 1997 and VAAEA filed a reply on August 29, 1997. The Carrier did not file a position statement.

For the reasons set forth below, VAAEA's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

I.

In Virgin Atlantic Airways, supra, the Board dismissed VAAEA's application based upon its finding that certain carrier actions had tainted the laboratory conditions. This decision was issued after a lengthy and careful investigation which included review of all evidence and arguments submitted by the participants as well as interviews with employees, carrier officials, and the President of VAAEA. The Board found, inter alia, that as the result of a carrier-mandated meeting in Orlando, Florida at which VAAEA collected authorization cards, those cards and all those collected subsequently were tainted and, therefore, could not be counted towards VAAEA's showing of interest. In addition, the Board found that certain carrier officials had threatened employees "by equating representation by the IBT with a loss of job security."

II.

VAAEA's Motion is based upon several points. First, VAAEA argues that the Board erred in concluding that "the totality of the circumstances demonstrates carrier interference or coercion . . . ." Second, VAAEA contends that the Board's finding that all authorization cards collected subsequent to the Orlando meeting were tainted is not supported by the evidence and that the Board's refusal to count other cards was "not substantially justified." VAAEA's third basis is "[t]he Board's now carefully set forth script whereby a carrier may forever forestall employee organization by demonstrating simple acts of alleged favoritism to a labor union and thereby deprive that labor union of any opportunity to represent employees."

In response, the IBT maintains that Section 18.0 of the Board's Representation Manual precludes reconsideration from Certifications or Dismissals since the Board dismissed VAAEA's application due to an insufficient showing of interest. Further, the IBT argues that the Board should deny VAAEA's Motion because VAAEA has failed to demonstrate any material error of fact or law. Finally, IBT characterizes VAAEA's argument regarding the Board's "script" as absurd.

III.

Section 18.0 of the Board's Representation Manual provides as follows:

Motions for Reconsideration of Board decisions concerning jurisdiction, craft or class, challenges or objections or election interference will be given consideration only upon the following circumstances: 1) the motion (original and one (1) copy) is received by the Chief of Staff within five (5) working days of the decision's date of issuance; 2) the motion is accompanied by a certificate of service which attests to its simultaneous service on the designated participants in the proceeding; and 3) the motion states with particularity the points of law or fact which the movant believes the NMB has overlooked or misapplied and the detailed grounds for the relief sought. 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's review of VAAEA's submissions indicates that, while VAAEA disagrees with the Board's factual findings and its application of the law, VAAEA has failed to demonstrate a material error of fact or law. Mere dissatisfaction with the Board's conclusions does not provide a sufficient basis for reconsideration of those conclusions. Therefore, VAAEA's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

By direction of the NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD.

Stephen E. Crable

Chief of Staff

Copy to:

Paula J. Caira, Esq.

Ms. Theresa Williams

Michael Delikat, Esq.

Mr. Ray Benning