27 NMB No. 51

March 6, 2000

Charles Bohannon, Esq.

General Counsel

DalFort Aerospace, L. P.

7701 Lemmon Ave., P.O. Box 7556

Dallas, TX 75209

William R. Wilder, Esq.

Baptiste & Wilder, P.C.

1150 Connecticut Ave., NW.

Washington, DC 20036

James L. Hicks, Esq.

Teamsters Local Union 19

2777 N. Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1100

Dallas, TX 76117

Mr. Terry Drake, Chairperson

The Committee for a Better DalFort

3901 Janrue

Fort Worth, TX 76117

Re:	NMB Case Nos R-6661 and R-6662

DalFort Aerospace, L.P.

Gentlemen:

This determination addresses the February 7, 2000, Motion for Reconsideration filed by DalFort Aerospace, L.P. (DalFort). DalFort moves for reconsideration of the Board's finding that it is subject to the Railway Labor Act (RLA). DalFort Aerospace, L.P., 27 NMB 196 (February 3, 2000).1 On February 15, 2000, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) filed a response opposing the motion. For the reasons set forth below, DalFort's motion is denied.

I.

In DalFort, supra, the Board concluded that DalFort is subject to the RLA. The Board based its conclusion on extensive participants' filings, including contracts between DalFort and its customers, as well as telephone interviews, and an on-site investigation.

The Board found evidence in the contracts, employee statements, and management affidavits to support the degree of control exercised by air carriers over DalFort and its employees. This control is sufficient to render the company subject to the RLA.

DalFort argues that the Board's decision contains substantive errors of law and fact "which the Board overlooked or misapplied." DalFort cites the following as "factual errors": 1) that DalFort acquired its facility from its former subsidiary Braniff Airlines; 2) that DalFort divested itself of Braniff; 3) that DalFort was acquired by Singapore Technologies; 4) that DalFort contracts with Triton Aviation Services, an airline leasing company; 5) that certain employees worked for DalFort for several years; 6) that Investigator Mansfield conducted an on-site investigation for two days; 7) that the Board previously asserted jurisdiction over DalFort or its predecessors; and 8) that jurisdiction was not challenged until the instant case. DalFort also disagrees with certain language in the decision as being ambiguous. Finally, DalFort asserts that the NMB's investigation was inadequate.

The IBT responds that DalFort's motion fails to identify any "material error of law or fact." The IBT states that DalFort does not present any error in the decision, but merely disagrees with the Board's factual findings and conclusion. IBT also states that the Board conducted a thorough investigation and granted DalFort "every opportunity" to submit argument and evidence. The IBT urges the Board to deny the motion for reconsideration.

II.

A.

Section 17.0 of the Board's Representation Manual provides:

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 two (2) business 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 certification or dismissal.

The Board grants relief upon requests for reconsideration only under very limited circumstances. For example, in Virgin Atlantic Airways, 21 NMB 183, 186 (1994), the Board stated:

The Board recognizes the vital importance of the consistency and stability of the law as embodied in both NMB determinations and judicial decisions. 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.

B.

The Board has carefully reviewed DalFort's motion. DalFort disagrees with some ancillary facts and the Board's ultimate conclusions based upon its factual findings. DalFort does not disagree with the Board's interpretation of its jurisdictional decisions, but states that the examples of carrier control at DalFort are isolated. DalFort fails to demonstrate a material error of fact or law, and merely reargues its view of the facts and its dissatisfaction with the Board's conclusion. The motion fails to state sufficient grounds for relief on reconsideration. See Virgin Atlantic Airways, 25 NMB 287 (1998).

III.

The Board has considered the submissions from DalFort and the IBT. The motion fails to state sufficient grounds for relief on reconsideration.

By direction of the NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD.

Stephen E. Crable

Chief of Staff