25 NMB No. 70

March 19, 1998

John J. Gallagher, Esq.

Counsel for Aloha IslandAir, Inc.

Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Tenth Floor

Washington, DC 20004-2400

Paula J. Caira, Esq.

Associate General Counsel

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

Re: NMB Case Nos. R-6570 & R-6571

Aloha IslandAir, Inc.

Dear Mr. Gallagher and Ms. Caira:

This determination addresses the Carrier's February 4, 1998 appeal of Mediator Richard A. Hanusz's craft or class determination. The applicant in this matter, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), filed a response on February 17, 1998. For the reasons set forth below, the Carrier's appeal is denied.

I.

On December 5, 1997, the IBT filed applications alleging representation disputes pursuant to Section 2, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 152, Ninth, among Fleet and Passenger Service Employees and Flight Attendants, employees of Aloha IslandAir, Inc. The applications were docketed as NMB Case Nos. R-6570 and R-6571, respectively. These employees are currently unrepresented.

During the course of the investigation, an issue arose as to the proper craft(s) or class(es). The Carrier contended that the proper craft or class was Fleet and Passenger Service Employees which includes Flight Attendants. The Mediator, on January 7, 1998, requested that the Carrier furnish certain documents and answer several questions. This information was furnished by the Carrier on January 21, 1998. The Carrier supplemented its response on January 23, 1998.

Mediator Hanusz, on January 23, 1998, determined that in R-6571, "there is an identifiable group of employees with the job title of Customer Service Agent/Flight Attendant but they perform the functions of those employees in the established and traditional craft or class of Flight Attendants." The Mediator ruled that the proper craft or class for R-6571 is Flight Attendants. The Carrier appealed that decision.1

II.

The Carrier's appeal and the IBT's response include evidence which was not submitted to the Mediator. Section 4.6 of the National Mediation Board's Representation Manual states:

The Mediator's decision letter should advise the participants of their right to appeal the decisions in writing to the NMB. The decision letter should further state that appeals from any source will be denied as untimely unless received at the NMB's offices on or before the date specified within the letter. No participant shall be given more than ten (10) calendar days from the date of the decision letter for the receipt of their appeals by the NMB, unless specifically authorized by the Chief of Staff. Absent extraordinary circumstances, evidence submitted on appeal will not be considered by the Board unless it has been submitted to the Mediator initially. It is the responsibility of the submitter to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances when additional evidence is presented on appeal.

Neither the Carrier nor the IBT has alleged any extraordinary circumstances to warrant consideration of this evidence. For this reason, the additional evidence will not be considered in this appeal.

III.

The Carrier contends that the Customer Service Agent/Flight Attendant (CSAF) position is a "fully cross-utilized" composite job which is part of a broader craft or class of Fleet and Passenger Service Employees. The Carrier also contends that the Mediator did not apply the Board's preponderance test.

The IBT argues that a separate craft or class is appropriate and that the Board should affirm the Mediator's ruling.

The Mediator's ruling was made pursuant to Section 5.1 of the Representation Manual which states:

In determining craft or class issues the Board gives consideration to all relevant elements, most important of which is the intent of the Railway Labor Act in settling disputes and promoting stable labor relations. The Mediator must consult with the Case Manager, and Chief of Staff when appropriate, on all craft or class issues prior to issuing a decision. The Mediator's decision may be appealed to the Board pursuant to Section 4.6. Individual cases require consideration of facts peculiar to particular situations, but, in addition, there are general factors to be considered. These may include, among others, the composition and relative permanency of employee groupings along craft or class lines; the functions, duties, and responsibilities of the employees; the general nature of their work; and the extent of community of interest existing between job classifications. Previous decisions of the Board which bear upon the issues of the particular dispute should also be taken into account. Prior decisions of the Board in regard to craft or class on the same carrier shall be binding upon the Mediator.

In the present case, the Mediator requested job descriptions, training and certification information, time sheets, as well as pay and benefits information and documents on cross-utilization of the individuals designated as CSAF. The Carrier's job description states that the job of the CSAF is: "[t]o perform the check-in process for Aloha IslandAir passengers. To perform safety, passenger service and cabin preparation duties aboard Aloha IslandAir's flights in accordance with prescribed policies, procedures and regulations. To perform various administrative functions to support an efficient operation. To project a professional and courteous image."

Only the CSAF is certified by the Federal Aviation Administration and can fly in revenue service. The training program for the CSAF is mandated by the Federal Aviation Regulations and is different from the training program for Customer Service Agents. According to the Carrier, the CSAF attends "Initial Ground School for Flight Attendants." CSAF also receives recurrent training. The purpose of CSAF training is to introduce, indoctrinate and qualify flight attendant trainees in all procedural, operational, and regulatory matters related to the performance of duties of a flight attendant. The CSAF is paid at a higher wage than the Customer Service Agents. Investigation revealed that there is an identifiable group of employees who perform work of the traditional craft or class of Flight Attendants.

The Mediator's determination was in accordance with Board's procedures and policies. The decision is affirmed.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the facts of this case, the Board upholds Mediator Hanusz's ruling on the craft or class in R-6571. The Carrier's appeal is denied.

By direction of the NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD.

Stephen E. Crable

Chief of Staff