28 NMB No. 89

August 9, 2001

Jennifer A. Coyne, Esq.

General Attorney

United Airlines, WHQPS

1200 E. Algonquin Road

Elk Grove, IL 60007

David Neigus, Esq.

International Association of Machinists

& Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO

9000 Machinists Place

Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-2687

George Diamantopoulos, Esq.

Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen

11 Martine Avenue, Suite 1440

White Plains, NY 10606-4025

Re:	NMB Case No. R-6814

United Airlines, Inc.

Gentlemen and Ms. Coyne:

This determination addresses the appeals filed by the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA), the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (IAM), and United Airlines, Inc. (United or Carrier) of Investigator Eileen M. Hennessey's eligibility rulings. For the reasons discussed below, the appeals are denied, and AMFA's application is dismissed due to an insufficient showing of interest.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 30, 2001, AMFA filed an application pursuant to 45 U.S.C. § 152, Ninth, alleging a representation dispute among Mechanics and Related Employees of United. This application was docketed as NMB Case No. R-6814. The docketing letter directed the Carrier to provide a list "alphabetized on a system-
wide basis." The letter stated further, "[u]ntil an applicable list and the signature samples are received . . . in compliance with the above requirements, the Investigator will continue to accept additional authorization cards." The Board assigned Investigators Hennessey and Mary L. Johnson to the case.

United's Mechanics and Related Employees are currently represented by the IAM.

On April 6, 2001, United provided a List of Potential Eligible Voters, alphabetized by job title.1 No signature samples were provided. The Investigators advised the Carrier that the April 6, 2001, list did not conform with the National Mediation Board's (Board) April 2, 2001, docketing letter and, therefore, the Board would continue to accept additional authorization cards. On April 10, 2001, United provided a system-wide alphabetized List of Potential Eligible Voters but no signature samples.

On April 12, 2001, United supplied a list of all Lead Ramp Servicemen and Ramp Servicemen who spent the majority of their workday performing the fueling function for the 60-day period preceding the cut-off date.2

The IAM provided an initial position statement on April 16, 2001. The IAM contended that no authorization cards submitted after either April 6, 2001, or April 10, 2001, should be accepted.

On April 16, 2001, the Carrier provided the signature samples to the Board. Pursuant to the Board's Representation Manual (Manual) Section 6.3, the Investigators ruled that additional authorization cards would not be accepted after 5 p.m., EDT, April 16, 2001. Challenges to the List of Potential Eligible Voters or any objections were due April 23, 2001. Responses to challenges and objections were due on April 30, 2001.

AMFA requested an extension until May 1, 2001, to file challenges and objections. This request was granted. In addition, May 1, 2001, was established as the deadline for responses to the IAM's initial position statement. Responses to challenges and objections were due May 8, 2001.

A.

IAM's Challenges

The IAM supplemented its initial position statement on April 17, 2001, stating that the Carrier's list was deficient because certain job categories were omitted, specifically: Maintenance Planner/Schedulers; Technical Specialists; Maintenance Operations Control Coordinators; and Ground Service Equipment Technical Coordinators. The IAM cited US Airways, Inc., 28 NMB 104 (2000); US Airways, Inc., 28 NMB 91 (2000); and US Airways, Inc., 26 NMB 359 (1999) in support of its position. Based upon this supplementary position statement, on April 20, 2001, the Investigators requested that United provide additional information on the job functions IAM specified by May 1, 2001.

The IAM submitted its challenges and objections to the List of Potential Eligible Voters on May 1, 2001. The IAM contended that employees in the following job titles should be included:

Planner- Aircraft Maintenance

Planner- System Aircraft Maintenance

Planner- System Maintenance

Planner- Maintenance Procedures

Specialist- Maintenance Line

Specialist- Maintenance

Staff Specialist - Maintenance

Specialist- Ground Equipment

Staff Specialist- Ground Equipment

Sr. Staff Specialist- Ground Equipment

Specialist- Flight Simulator

Staff Specialist- Flight Simulator

Controller- Engine Maintenance

Controller- System Aircraft Maintenance

Coordinator- Plant and Equipment Maintenance

B.

United's Response

In response to the IAM's April 17, 2001, submission, on May 1, 2001, United submitted a Verified Statement of Facts "pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746." United stated that employees working in the job categories challenged by the IAM are ineligible because they are management officials and/or do not share a work-related community of interest with Mechanics and Related Employees. United identified nine job titles within the four categories challenged by the IAM and supplied job descriptions and a list of employees in these positions.

C.

AMFA's Challenges

On May 1, 2001, AMFA submitted a position statement and supporting documentation. Among its objections were:

• The inclusion of 419 Ramp Servicemen and Lead Ramp Servicemen, because these job titles have historically been included in the Fleet Service craft or class and there is a lack of evidentiary support that these individuals perform fueling for a majority of their working hours.

• The inclusion of 73 individuals who are furloughees who have been removed from the seniority list, and the inclusion of 45 furloughees who have lost recall rights.

• The exclusion of 14 individuals who are working regularly in the craft or class.

AMFA asserted that the deadline for accepting authorization cards should be April 16, 2001.

On May 8, 2001, AMFA submitted an additional position statement and documentation in response to the Carrier's and the IAM's May 1, 2001, submissions. AMFA objected to the proposed inclusion of relief fuelers, and the proposed inclusion of 83 individuals identified as SFO fuelers.

AMFA restated its objection to the inclusion of Ramp Servicemen and Lead Ramp Servicemen due to the Carrier's failure to quantify the number of hours worked as fuelers and cited Northwest Airlines, Inc., 18 NMB 357 (1991). AMFA also stated that the Investigators "lack the necessary authority to address the IAM's attempt to expand the craft or class to include additional job classifications."

D.

IAM's Response

On May 8, 2001, the IAM responded to United's and AMFA's position statements and challenges and objections as follows:

• Ramp Servicemen and Lead Ramp Servicemen who perform the work of fuelers are eligible, Ramp Servicemen in Tampa and Atlanta who primarily perform cleaning functions are eligible.

• Employees on furlough status remain eligible regardless of whether they are on the seniority list.

• The nine job titles included in United's position statement as well as 10 additional job titles identified by the IAM are not management officials and share a work-related community of interest with Mechanics and Related Employees.

E.

Additional Submissions and Responses

On May 8, 2001, United requested an extension until May 11, 2001, to reply to the Organizations' challenges and objections and position statements. This request was granted.

On May 10, 2001, AMFA objected to the extension of time granted to United because it provided United with "the unfair advantage of access to an AMFA submission it would not otherwise have had."

On May 11, 2001, United filed the following response with supporting documentation to the IAM's and AMFA's challenges and objections:

• The inclusion of Ramp Servicemen and Lead Ramp Servicemen who work preponderantly as fuelers conforms with Board precedent.

• The job titles identified by the IAM are either previously addressed by United in its initial position statement, obsolete, management titles, or do not share a community of interest with the Mechanics and Related Employees.

• All furloughed employees on United's list of potential eligible voters were appropriately included on the list.

On May 25, 2001, the IAM filed a submission stating that the Carrier failed to comply with the Board's April 20, 2001, request to provide additional information on the additional job categories. The IAM stated that certain positions were erroneously excluded from the list.

On May 25, 2001, Investigator Hennessey requested that United provide job descriptions and a list of employees occupying the job titles identified by IAM, as well as statements from station managers working at stations where Ramp Servicemen and Lead Ramp Servicemen perform fueling work. The deadline for this submission was June 4, 2001. The Investigator also gave AMFA until June 4, 2001, to respond to IAM's May 25, 2001, submission.

United responded to the Investigator's request for information on June 4, 2001. United provided job descriptions for additional job titles identified by the IAM and a list of the employees in these job titles. United took the position that these employees are not part of the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class. As requested, United also provided statements from the 13 station managers at stations where Ramp Servicemen and Lead Ramp Servicemen perform fueling functions.

On June 4, 2001, AMFA argued that IAM's May 25, 2001, submission should be rejected because it was not supported by substantive evidence and argument and was filed 17 days after the NMB deadline. AMFA also contended the IAM's proof was insufficient to show that the additional job classifications identified by the IAM are within the definition of the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class.

AMFA further stated that the IAM failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that there are 11 Ramp Servicemen in Tampa and one in Atlanta who are eligible because they primarily perform cleaning services.

On June 5, 2001, United supplemented its position statement.

On June 8, 2001, AMFA submitted its final position statement, objecting as follows:

United's June 4 and June 5 submissions as to alleged eligible fuelers do not remedy the insufficiency of its proof because the carrier does not provide the requisite documentary evidence used to identify the employees on the list "identifying all Lead Ramp Servicemen and Ramp Servicemen who spent the majority of their workday performing the fueling function for the sixty-day period preceding the cut-off date of March 24, 2001."

INVESTIGATOR RULINGS

Investigator Hennessey issued her rulings on June 15, 2001. The pertinent rulings were as follows:

1) The cut-off for additional authorization cards is April 16, 2001, because United did not comply with the Manual or the docketing letter until that date;

2) The IAM's and United's submissions after May 8, 2001, were not untimely;

3) Three hundred and eighty-eight Ramp Servicemen and Lead Ramp Servicemen preponderantly performing fueling work during the 60-day period prior to the cut-off date are eligible; but there is insufficient evidence that Ramp Servicemen in Tampa who perform aircraft cabin cleaning are part of the craft or class.

4) Furloughees who neither refused recall nor voluntarily terminated their employment with United are eligible, notwithstanding the fact that their names do not appear on the seniority list;

5) Four hundred and thirty employees in the following 18 job classifications are not management officials and share a work- related community of interest with Mechanics and Related Employees:

a) Planner- Aircraft Maintenance

b) Planner- System Aircraft Maintenance

c) Planner- Maintenance Procedures

d) Specialist- Maintenance Line

e) Staff Specialist- Maintenance

f) Staff Specialist- Ground Equipment

g) Specialist- Flight Simulator

h) Staff Specialist- Flight Simulator

i) Controller- Engine Maintenance

j)Controller-System Aircraft Maintenance

k) Coordinator- Plant and Equipment Maintenance

l) Coordinator- System Maintenance Workload

m) Coordinator- Technical Planning Services

n) Contoller- Production

o) Staff Analyst- Maintenance Scheduling and Planning

p) Maintenance Planning Analyst

q) Maintenance Data Controllers A

r) Maintenance Data Controllers B

AMFA, IAM, and United filed appeals to the Board, of various portions of the Investigator's June 22, 2001, rulings. Responses were filed June 29, 2001.

APPEALS

A.

AMFA's Appeal

AMFA appeals the Investigator's ruling on acceptance of submissions filed after May 8, 2001. According to AMFA, Manual Sections 4.2 and 4.3 require rejection of "untimely submissions" from the IAM and the Carrier. AMFA also appeals the inclusion of the Ramp Servicemen and Lead Ramp Servicemen, arguing there is insufficient evidence to support the eligibility finding.

AMFA also takes issue with the Investigator's ruling that the 430 employees in the additional 18 job titles are eligible. AMFA asserts that the Investigator lacked authority to add these positions to the craft or class. In addition, AMFA contends that the Investigator's ruling on this issue was not supported by substantive evidence, and that the positions are either management or clerical. On appeal, AMFA submitted evidence not previously submitted to the Investigator. This evidence included statements from 10 employees in the Maintenance Planning Analyst position who stated the job description relied upon by the Investigator "does not correspond with my daily job duties." Attached to these statements is a newsletter from United's Indianapolis Maintenance Center describing the functions of these employees.3 In addition, AMFA submitted a declaration from an Aircraft Maintenance Technician who asserts that several individuals should be removed from the list because they no longer work for United.

AMFA also submitted "statement[s] of fact from 10 employees who assert that various individuals are "MANAGEMENT personnel" because they "assign manpower, recommend discipline, authorize overtime, and in general act as representatives of the company." Attached to these statements are Carrier "payroll exception authorization[s]."

AMFA also asserts that 73 furloughed individuals whose names do not appear on the seniority list should be removed from the List of Potential Eligible Voters as well as 45 individuals who AMFA asserts lost their recall rights.

In addition to its appeals, AMFA states that the Investigator failed to rule on AMFA's May 1, 2001, challenge to the omission of 14 individuals.

Finally, AMFA cites several Board and judicial decisions for the proposition that the Board need not apply the majority showing of interest requirement contained in 29 C.F.R. § 1206.4(a), in view of the fact that the Investigator expanded the craft or class "in derogation of the Manual and Board precedent." In addition, AMFA argues that the Board must continue to accept additional authorization cards until the Carrier submits signature samples for the 430 individuals added to the craft or class.4

B.

IAM's Appeal

The IAM appeals the portion of the Investigator's ruling dealing with the eligibility of Ramp Servicemen in Tampa who perform cleaning functions. On appeal, the IAM submitted evidence not submitted to the Investigator. In support of its position, the IAM cites Board precedent holding that employees who perform interior aircraft cabin cleaning are part of the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class.

The IAM asserts that AMFA's arguments regarding showing of interest and acceptance of additional authorizations are not supported by a sufficient basis "to warrant deviation from the Board's long-standing rules and practices. . . ."

C.

United's Appeal

United appeals the Investigator's ruling that the 430 additional individuals are eligible. According to the Carrier, 15 of the 18 job titles in question are management positions, while the other three are Office Clerical. As the Carrier failed to address their eligibility previously, United provided information on the 14 individuals the Investigator did not rule on. Finally, United states it does not object to the inclusion of 11 Tampa employees who the IAM asserts primarily perform cleaning services.

DISCUSSION

Introduction

Parts I and II of the Discussion deal with procedural issues. Parts III - IX deal with substantive issues.

I.

Evidence Submitted on Appeal

Both AMFA and the IAM submitted evidence on appeal which was not submitted to the Investigator. Manual Section 4.6 provides, in part, "[a]bsent 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." AMFA asserts that "extraordinary circumstances" exist because of the "Investigator's unorthodox admission of untimely evidence to improperly expand the well-established scope of the craft or class created a moving target situation which AMFA has not been permitted to effectively address."

Over a two-month period the participants were afforded the opportunity to provide evidence and argument on the job titles sought to be added by the IAM. AMFA had numerous opportunities to submit the information it has submitted on appeal. AMFA opposed the further submission of evidence during the investigation and submitted new evidence on appeal. AMFA failed to establish the extraordinary circumstances requisite for Board consideration of new evidence. The Board will not consider the evidence submitted on appeal. Moreover, the statements submitted by AMFA, even if considered, would not change the Board's ruling on appeal.

II.

Acceptance of Additional Materials

A.

United's May 11, 2001, Submission

AMFA argues that the Investigator "erred" in granting United's May 8, 2001, request for a three-day extension to respond to challenges and objections. In support of this position, AMFA cites Manual Section 4.2, which provides, in part:

[A]ny request for an extension of time under this section must be supported by a reasonable justification and submitted to the Investigator in writing with proof of simultaneous service. . . . Absent extraordinary circumstances, no request for an extension of the deadline which is received on the date a submission is due will be considered.

As stated in the Investigator's decision, the Carrier notified the Investigator by telephone and subsequently in writing, that the Carrier would be unable to file its submission due to counsel's illness. This constitutes extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Manual Section 4.2. Therefore, United's May 11, 2001, submission was appropriately considered.

B.

IAM's May 25, 2001, Submission

AMFA also argues that the Investigator "erred" in considering the IAM's May 25, 2001, submission. In support of this argument, AMFA cites Manual Sections 4.2, 4.3, and three Board decisions, United Airlines, Inc., 27 NMB 293 (2000); United Airlines, Inc., 27 NMB 221 (2000); and Aloha Island Air, Inc., 25 NMB 444 (1998). AMFA also takes issue with the Investigator's reliance on Brotherhood of Ry. & S.S. Clerks v. Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees, 380 U.S. 650 (1965). According to AMFA, the case "does not say that the NMB may disregard those methods and procedures once established by the Board Investigator in a particular case."

Manual Section 4.3 provides, in part:

Challenges or objections not supported by substantive evidence and argument will be rejected by the Investigator. Challenges or objections not provided to the Investigator by the deadline . . . will be rejected.

AMFA argues that the final deadline for challenges and objections was May 1, 2001, and that the IAM did not request an extension beyond May 1.5

The Investigator ruled that IAM's May 25, 2001, was not a new challenge, "but a continuation of its April 17, 2001, submission." In accepting the May 25, 2001, submission, the Investigator cited Section 2, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) which gives the Board the authority to investigate representation disputes. The Investigator also cited Brotherhood of Ry. & S.S. Clerks which held that the Board has broad authority and discretion in fulfilling its obligations under Section 2, Ninth. Specifically, Section 2, Ninth, provides in part:	"[t]he Board shall have access to . . . the books and records of the carriers to obtain and utilize such information as may be deemed necessary by it to carry out the purposes and provisions of this paragraph." One such purpose is "the Board shall designate who may participate in the election. . . ."

The record establishes that on April 17, 2001, IAM challenged the eligibility list because it did not include several job classifications which were arguably part of the craft or class in light of several recent Board decisions. The Investigators requested United to provide a list of employees and job titles performing particular functions and the job descriptions.

Further, the Board finds AMFA's reliance on Aloha Island Air, and the two United decisions, cited above, misplaced. In Aloha Island Air, above, the Carrier did not respond to or file any challenges and objections until after the Investigator issued eligibility rulings. In United Airlines, Inc., 27 NMB 293 (2000), the Board was confronted with a Motion for Reconsideration, not a request for an extension or submission of additional material. Relief upon reconsideration of a Board decision is granted in very rare circumstances.

AMFA cites United Airlines, Inc., 27 NMB 221, 228 (2000), because there the Board stated that "[s]ince the period for challenges and objections has passed, only status changes will be accepted." This statement is taken out of context. In that case, the IAM filed a timely challenge alleging that certain additional employees should be added, but the Carrier did not identify a substantial number (500) of employees performing work in those classifications until after the Investigator ruled them eligible, two weeks after ballots were mailed. The Board ordered a re-run election, and accordingly, made the statement cited by AMFA.6

The Board finds that the Investigator's rulings on acceptance of additional materials were consistent with the Manual, Board precedent, and the RLA. The ruling is upheld.

III.

A.

Ramp Servicemen and Lead Ramp Servicemen

AMFA argues that the Investigator "erred" in finding 388 Ramp Servicemen and Lead Ramp Servicemen eligible. According to AMFA, United's evidence was "both untimely and insufficient."

Although the Investigators' April 6, 2001, letter requested the "underlying data" used, the Ramp Servicemen list provided by United on April 12, 2001, was based upon information "collected" by the Carrier's "station managers and supervisors who are responsible for these employees and have knowledge of these employees' current duties. . . ."

AMFA objected to the lack of evidentiary support on May 1, 2001. On May 11, 2001, United replied that it did not have "additional 'documentation' . . . [and] such documentation was not submitted in 1994 when the Board investigated the same issue. If requested, United can provide signed statements from its station managers for the 13 stations where Lead Ramp Servicemen and Ramp Servicemen work as fuelers." The Investigator requested the station managers' statements and United submitted them on June 4, 2001. The affidavits stated:

[I] reviewed company Ramp Operations records to determine what Lead Ramp Servicemen and Ramp Servicemen performed fueling functions for the majority of their time between January 24, 2001, and March 24, 2001. Based upon this review I have identified the following individuals as performing the fueling function and the approximate percentages of their time as indicated on Attachment A.

The Board finds that the Investigator properly accepted IAM's and United's submissions. Therefore, the issue is whether the Investigator's ruling on Ramp Servicemen was supported by sufficient evidence.

In United Air Lines, Inc., 22 NMB 12, 27 (1994), the Board held:

[The] inclusion of Ramp Servicemen who preponderantly or exclusively perform fueling functions is not a departure from its previous determinations on United. In 1977, fueling work, defined as Mechanics and Related work, was performed by Fuelers and Lead Fuelers. These classifications no longer exist at United. This work is now performed by certain Ramp Servicemen, except at stations where it is performed by mechanics. Therefore, these individuals for whom the carrier has provided documentary evidence demonstrating a preponderance of fueling work, will be considered part of the Mechanics and Related craft or class.

In support of its contention that the Carrier has not "provided documentary evidence demonstrating a preponderance of fueling work," AMFA cites (in addition to the United cases, cited above, on the same issue) Northwest Airlines, Inc., 26 NMB 77 (1998); and Northwest Airlines, Inc., 18 NMB 357 (1991). In the 1991 Northwest case, the Carrier provided a letter stating that:

[S]hortly after the Board announced that a Representation Election would be held, Northwest Airlines received a list containing the names of 462 equipment service employees who the IAM claimed were regularly assigned to cleaners' duties and therefore entitled to vote. . . . The Company contacted the station managers involved and was able to verify that in the opinion of such managers, 309 of such individuals were regularly assigned to cleaners duties.

18 NMB 357, 364-365 (Emphasis added).

The data provided in the 1991 Northwest case was far less substantial than the evidence provided in this case – 13 sworn affidavits from station managers attesting that they had reviewed carrier records and based upon that review, testifying to the percentage of time the identified individuals performed the fueling function. Further, the evidence relied upon by the Investigator in this case is more substantial than that relied upon by the Investigator and the Board in the 1994 United determination. The Board upholds the Investigator's ruling that the 388 Ramp Servicemen and Lead Ramp Servicemen who preponderantly perform fueling are eligible.

B.

Tampa Ramp Servicemen Performing Cleaning Duties

In its May 8, 2001, submission, the IAM submitted statements from 11 Tampa Ramp Servicemen and one Atlanta Ramp Serviceman who claimed to be eligible because the majority of their work is "aircraft cabin cleaning, including lav servicing." The IAM provided these statements to the Carrier but redacted the names of the employees and provided very little argument in support of these employees' inclusion on the list of eligible voters. The Carrier did not respond to the IAM's contention until June 29, 2001.7 The Investigator ruled: "Aircraft cabin cleaning including lav servicing are functions included in the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class. Ramp service employees preponderantly performing functions within the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class are eligible. However, absent additional documentation and argument, these 12 employees will not be added to the list at this time."

The Investigator's ruling that aircraft cabin cleaning duties fall within the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class is correct. However, there is insufficient evidence to add the Tampa Cleaners to the list. As previously stated, the additional evidence the IAM submitted on appeal will not be considered pursuant to Manual Section 4.6.

IV.

The 430 Employees in the 18 Job Titles

A.

AMFA and United appeal the Investigator's ruling that 430 individuals in 18 job titles are part of the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class. AMFA argues that the Investigator "misstates Board precedent" and that "the non-evidence supplied by the IAM, and the evidence supplied by the Carrier, combined, is insufficient for determining that these employees are eligible. . . ." United argues that 15 of the 18 positions are management, and the other three are clerical. Both participants argue that IAM never attempted to accrete these positions to its certification in the past, and that it should not be allowed to do so now. AMFA argues further that "the eleventh hour attempt at accretion fails to satisfy the threshold requirement that the IAM submit an initial showing of interest from the individuals employed in the job classifications to be accreted. US Airways, Inc., 28 NMB 104, 149-150 (2000)." (Emphasis supplied.)

AMFA also argues that the Investigator lacked the necessary authority to address the inclusion of additional job classifications. AMFA cites Manual Section 5.1 for the proposition that "prior decisions of the Board in regard to craft or class on the same carrier shall be binding upon the Investigator." AMFA states that the IAM's reliance on US Airways, above, is misapplied, and the more appropriate precedent is United Air Lines, 22 NMB 12 (1994); United Airlines, 6 NMB 464 (1978); United Airlines, 6 NMB 134 (1977). As previously stated, AMFA submitted evidence on appeal which will not be considered pursuant to Manual Section 4.6.

B.

The Board has the authority to accrete job titles into an already existing craft or class. Brotherhood of Ry. & S.S. Clerks v. Assoc. for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees, 380 U.S. 650, 662 (1965). See also US Airways, 27 NMB 138, 158 (1999).

Prior decisions of the Board in regard to craft or class on the same carrier are relevant to this decision. However, previous Board decisions which bear upon the specific issues of the particular dispute should also be taken into account (Manual Section 5.1). The Investigator did not err in considering the Board's rulings in other cases involving other carriers relevant to the job titles at issue.8

In determining the appropriate craft or class on a particular Carrier, the Board examines a number of factors. These factors include functional integration, work classifications, terms and conditions of employment, and work-related community of interest. Continental Airlines, Inc./Continental Express, Inc., 26

NMB 143 (1999); USAir, 15 NMB 369 (1988); British Airways, Inc., 10 NMB 174 (1983). The factor of work-related community of interest is particularly important. Continental, above; United Airlines, 10 NMB 458 (1983); Airborne Express, Inc., 9 NMB 115 (1981). The Board makes its craft or class determinations on a case by case basis. USAir, above; Simmons Airlines, 15 NMB 124 (1988); Continental Airlines, Inc., 8 NMB 709 (1977); Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 6 NMB 561 (1978).

In United Airlines, Inc., 6 NMB 134, 135 (1977), the Board outlined the functions of Mechanics and Related Employees, in part, 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 . . . cleaning and maintaining the interior and exterior of aircraft, servicing and control of cabin service equipment, air conditioning of aircraft . . . .

C. Plant maintenance personnel . . . .

In subsequent decisions, the Board included classifications other than mechanics in the craft or class. US Airways, Inc., 28 NMB 104 (2000) (Planners and Technical Specialists); US Airways, 28 NMB 50 (2000) (Quality Assurance Consultants); United Parcel Service Company, 27 NMB 3 (1999) (Maintenance Controllers); Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 26 NMB 487 (1999) (Maintenance Operations Controllers); US Airways, 26 NMB 359 (1999) (Maintenance Operations Control Supervisors); Pacific Southwest Airlines, 14 NMB 10 (1986) (Flight Simulator Technicians); U.S. Air, 8 NMB 524 (1981) (Technical Specialists); World Airways, 7 NMB 420 (1980) (Maintenance Training Instructor, Senior Technical Writer, Technical Writer, Production Planners, Specialist Avionics, and Specialist Sheet Metal); Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 6 NMB 359 (1977) (Planners and Technical Specialists); United Airlines, Inc., 6 NMB 252 (1977) (Meteorologists).

In United Airlines, Inc., 6 NMB 134 (1977), the Board cited its determination in Eastern Airlines, 4 NMB 54, 63 (1965): "The related employees . . . while of different skill levels from the mechanics, nonetheless are closely related to them in that they are engaged in a common function - the maintenance function . . . ." See also Federal Express Corporation, 20 NMB 360 (1993)."

C.

Manual Section 5.312 details factors to be considered in a determination of whether an individual is a management official. These elements include:

[W]hether the involved individual has the authority to discharge and/or discipline employees or to effectively recommend the same; the extent of supervisory authority; the ability to authorize and grant overtime; the authority to transfer and/or establish assignments; the authority to create carrier policy; the authority and the extent to which carrier funds may be committed; whether the authority exercised is circumscribed by operating and policy manuals; the placement of the individual in the organizational hierarchy of the carrier; and any other relevant factors regarding the individual's duties and responsibilities.

See also Pan American World Airways, 5 NMB 112, 115 (1973) (the factors the Board examines are considered cumulatively) . The Board has previously determined that "while there are certain factors indicating some level of authority, when all factors are viewed cumulatively the individuals at issue generally are first-line supervisors, not management officials." USAir, Inc., 24 NMB 38, 41 ( 1996) (citing Comair, 22 NMB 175 (1995); American International Airways, Inc. d/b/a/ Connie Kalitta Services, 20 NMB 93 (1992); Challenge Air Cargo, 18 NMB 103 (1990); USAir, 17 NMB 117 (1990); Tower Air, Inc., 16 NMB 338 (1989); Northwest Airlines, 15 NMB 64 (1987)).

D.

Planners

The following Planner positions are at issue. The job descriptions are those provided to the Investigator.

1) Planner- Aircraft Maintenance 9

Analyzes workload forecasts or other planning data and develops plans for manpower, parts, equipment or documentation needed to satisfy the requirements of aircraft maintenance elements. Assures that procedures and documentation comply with FAA directives, engineering requirements and company policy.

United states that the current job responsibilities include:

[R]eviewing and researching aircraft part needs for maintenance parts. These individuals are generally referred to as Dock Material Planners ("DMP"). They are responsible for resolving critical aircraft part issues which involves monitoring part inventories and directing the purchase of parts needed to return aircraft to service.

2) Planner- System Aircraft Maintenance

Responsible for developing and implementing maintenance plans for out-of-service aircraft at non- maintenance stations. Reviews and monitors non- routine items to ensure the timely repair of affected systems, components and cabin equipment. Acts as the central focal point in providing assistance to maintenance personnel in procuring needed maintenance opportunities, parts, equipment and technical support. . . . Communicates closely with system and station operations, routers, maintenance controllers, maintenance stations and engineering. . . .

3) Planner- Maintenance Procedures

Performs a variety of technical planning functions which may include: determining procedures and processes required to overhaul, inspect, repair and modify airframes, components, engines and sub- assemblies; developing plans for the accomplishment of this work by analyzing forecast data and status reports and determining manpower, equipment and parts required and initiating action to implement the production plan.

4) Staff Analyst- Maintenance Scheduling and Planning

As assigned, performs tasks defined in one or more of the following activities. Analyzes aircraft and maintenance schedules to determine their impact on maintenance capability and to develop working plans and criteria to optimize the utilization of manpower, facilities and aircraft utilization and to control costs consistent with corporate and division goals and objectives. Develops models and prepares forecasts for future workload and manpower requirements to support divisional and station decision making. Facilitates the implementation of the maintenance program for product lines.

The Carrier asserts that these individuals receive management pay and benefits. United argues further that the Planner- System Aircraft Maintenance can authorize carrier funds up to $100,000 for aircraft repair or emergency field service. There is nothing specific in the position description that supports this position. In addition, the Carrier asserts that these employees create carrier policy in the aircraft maintenance area.

In US Airways, Inc., 28 NMB 104 (2000), the Board found that the Carrier's Planners made forecasts on manpower and material usages, coordinated and reviewed engineering orders, and coordinated placement and disposition of parts and materials.	The Board further found that employees who performed these planning functions shared a work-related community of interest with Mechanics and Related Employees.

The record in this case establishes that United's Planners perform many of the same functions - maintenance functions - performed by Planners on US Airways. Further, while some of these individuals can authorize Carrier funds, there is no evidence that they have any other authority such as hiring, firing, disciplining, or participating in the preparation of the Carrier's budget. The record supports the Investigator's determination that United's Planners are not management officials. Although the Carrier argues that the Planner-Maintenance System Aircraft can authorize up to $100,000 in carrier funds, there is no evidence as to the frequency of this authorization, and there is no other evidence of management status. Therefore, the Investigator's rulings on United's Planners are upheld.

E.

Specialists

The following Specialist positions are at issue. The titles and job descriptions are those submitted by United to the Investigator.

1) Specialist- Maintenance

Provides technical assistance to General Foreman and Foremen in analyzing and solving problems encountered in the daily mechanical and inspection work. Evaluates existing procedures and job sequencing to verify that resulting work will assure safety and economy consistent with government and company requirements. Develops and recommends written procedures and work documents to simplify and improve the quality of mechanical and inspection work and work records . . . may conduct specialized technical training.

United asserts that this position supervises outside vendors, prepares contracts, verifies vendor invoices, and "directly supervises individuals."

2) Staff Specialist - Maintenance

Ten years as Maintenance Specialist/Maintenance Technician or 15 years in technical positions, not including time as a craftsman, plus a continuing record of demonstrated significant contribution in a specialized field.

United states this individual supervises outside vendors, projects, and individuals working on these projects.

3) Staff Specialist- Ground Equipment

Duties include: Develops technical specifications, evaluations of proposals, prototyping, performance evaluation and final acceptance of all new, used or rebuilt ground equipment, including security screening and ground communications equipment.

United asserts that this position can effectively recommend discipline or discharge and participates in the development of carrier policy regarding ground service equipment.10

4) Senior Specialist- Simulator Fleet.

Duties include: Performs under guidance, software and hardware modifications on flight simulators, visuals and training devices. Maintains software and hardware configuration control from technical data on assigned training device systems. Installs new projects as defined by Flight Operations and United Services.

United contends that these employees share a work-related community of interest with Engineering employees because they fulfill the same role for simulators as Engineers do for aircraft.

5) Staff Specialist- Simulator Fleet

Duties include: Independently performs software and hardware modifications to flight simulators, visual systems and training devices. Provides software and hardware configuration control on assigned training device systems. Assist in the procurement, acceptance and update simulators and visual systems.

United, states that all these positions receive management pay and benefits.

United also contends that these employees share a work-
related community of interest with Engineering employees.

In numerous instances, the Board has found employees who perform work similar to that performed by the positions described above to be part of the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class. US Airways, Inc., 28 NMB 104, 146 (2000); US Airways, 26 NMB 359 (1999); U.S. Air, 8 NMB 524 (1981); Frontier Airlines, Inc., 7 NMB 406 (1980); Allegheny Airlines, 6 NMB 359 (1977); Braniff International, 7 NMB 47 (1979); Braniff International, 5 NMB 246 (1975). Further, as stated above, the Board has found employees who work on flight simulator equipment are part of the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class. United Parcel Service, 25 NMB 326 (1998); Pacific Southwest Airlines, 14 NMB 10 (1986); American Airlines, 5 NMB 248 (1976). On United, Flight Simulator Technicians are already included in the craft or class of Mechanics and Related Employees. 6 NMB at 135.

The record in this case establishes that the Specialist positions at issue share a work-related community of interest with the Mechanics and Related Employees. Further, although United asserts that some of these individuals can "effectively recommend discipline or discharge" or participate in the budget process, there was no evidence of examples presented to support that assertion, and no evidence that they meet the other indicia of management officials. In Mesaba Airlines, 26 NMB 227, 237 (1999), the Board found that the Carrier's assertion that certain Supervisors were management officials was not supported by evidence, accordingly, the Board held that the Supervisors were eligible voters. In contrast, in Canadian Pacific Railway, 26 NMB 212, 216 (1999), the Carrier provided "several examples when the Supervisor recommended and implemented discipline." In this case, the Carrier did not provide examples in support of its assertions. Therefore, the Investigator's rulings on the "Specialist" positions are upheld.

F.

Controllers

There are three Controller positions at issue. The job titles and job descriptions provided to the Investigator are as follows:

1) Controller- Engine Maintenance

Monitors the mechanical status of all engines for all fleets to determine the need and arrangement of on- wing and off-wing field repairs, and to expedite the return of aircraft to service. Provides technical support and focus in diagnosing engine problems and coordinates the assistance of Technical Service when required.

2) Controller - System Aircraft Maintenance

Has authority and responsibility for making final decisions concerning the course of action required to assure safe airworthy aircraft in accordance with regulatory requirements. Assists flight crews in resolving aircraft systems anomalies on the ground and in-flight. . . . Communicates with other organizations to provide flight crew support. . . . Directs maintenance activities at non-maintenance stations. Monitors the health of the assigned fleet through reviews of aircraft history, chronic and deferred items.

3) Controller- Production 11

Coordinates and controls the production scheduling of company and customer maintenance workload within a department at the Maintenance Operations Center and at the San Francisco line station. . . . Assure that maintenance accomplished is properly documented. Keeps concerned personnel informed of work status and any deviations from plan that would affect maintenance plan.

United states that the current job responsibilities include:

[C]oordinates and controls the engine production schedules for the company. This includes engine repair that is contracted with outside vendors. . . . Responsible for keeping the engine repair service schedule on target and informing others in management when targets are not being met. . . . [H]ave the authority to make strategic decisions regarding engine maintenance and can authorize engine maintenance decisions which have significant financial impact on carrier funds.

United argues that the Controller- Engine Maintenance and the Controller- System Aircraft Maintenance are "at a very high level in the maintenance organizational hierarchy." The Carrier asserts that the incumbents can commit funds in excess of $100,000, and the Controller- Engine Maintenance, "can effectively recommend discipline or discharge of employees and directly supervise the work of Inspectors and Mechanics . . . ." United also states that the Controller- System Aircraft Maintenance directs maintenance activities "through daily calls with Maintenance Supervisors," and has the authority to bind the Carrier to outside parties.

United asserts that the Controller- Production has "unilateral authority to make decisions with outside vendors which can have significant impact on Carrier funds."

In several recent decisions, the Board has found that individuals who perform maintenance control functions share a work-related community of interest with Mechanics and Related Employees. For example, in United Parcel Service, 27 NMB 3, 15 (1999) the Board found that Maintenance Controllers were responsible for monitoring aircraft maintenance, and "of necessity" worked with Mechanics "and other maintenance personnel to perform that function."

In Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 26 NMB 487 (1999), the Board found Maintenance Operations Controllers were part of the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class. Although the Carrier asserted that the Controllers authorized overtime and recommended discipline and discharge, the Board found insufficient evidence that they actually exercised such authority. See also US Airways, 26 NMB 359 (1999); Mesaba Airlines, 26 NMB 227 (1999); Aerovias de Mexico, 20 NMB 584 (1993). In Mesaba, above at 237, the Board found that while Maintenance Supervisors (formerly Maintenance Controllers) possessed "a degree of supervisory responsibility, there is insufficient evidence that they actually exercise management authority."

In contrast, in American Airlines, Inc., 24 NMB 521 (1997), the Board found the Carrier's Maintenance Supervisors were management officials. The Maintenance Supervisors directed and assigned work through a crew chief and regularly exercised the authority to discipline employees. Further, these individuals were involved in the hiring process, could grant or deny grievances, authorized and granted overtime, and participated in the budget process.

The Board finds that United's Controller positions share a work-related community of interest with Mechanics and Related Employees. As in United Parcel Service, above, these individuals monitor and control aircraft maintenance activities, and work with maintenance personnel. Despite the Carrier's assertion that the Controller-Engine Maintenance and the Controller- System Aircraft Maintenance are high-level management officials, United failed to provide evidence of examples that these individuals actually exercise the degree of authority alleged by the Carrier. Therefore, the Investigator's rulings are upheld.

G.

Coordinators

There are three Coordinator positions at issue. The titles and job descriptions submitted to the Investigator are as follows:

1) Coordinator- Technical Planning Services

Serves as a focal point in coordinating and controlling required aircraft maintenance action items at a station terminal or hangar location as assigned received from flight, system/local maintenance functions and up-line non-maintenance locations. . . . Prepares work schedules and assignments for station maintenance by day, week, and month. Records and reports out-of-service aircraft problems and coordinates return to service estimates for hangar operations. Assures required resources are available for the implementation of the station maintenance plan by causing parts/tools to be pre-ordered and positioned, directing trouble- shooting technical information to the proper zone/foreman and identifying the need to reallocate manpower.

2) Coordinator- Plant and Equipment Maintenance

Plans and schedules all ground equipment to attain effective use of labor, equipment and materials. Establishes and maintains a maintenance information system that chronicles the repair work for Team Leaders and Lead Mechanics. Provides PM schedules of equipment, list of outstanding projects and open non-routine maintenance work orders.

3) Coordinator- System Maintenance Workload

Coordinates the assignment of maintenance workload with OPB, SAMC and stations for aircraft overnighting at maintenance stations. Assures optimal buildup of assignment and initiates action through appropriate organizations to ensure station workload meets target on consistent basis.

The Carrier states that the Coordinators receive management pay and benefits.

United further argues that Coordinator- Technical Planning Services can "commit several thousand dollars of carrier funds at one time." The Carrier also asserts that the Coordinator- Plant and Equipment Maintenance is "[r]esponsible for budgets, accounts payable and capital budgets," and "[d]irectly supervises office employees" and that the Coordinator- System Maintenance Workload can "[a]ssign and transfer maintenance work . . . . Assignments significantly impact overtime. . . ."

The record establishes that United's Coordinators perform work in support of the Carrier's maintenance function as they coordinate and control aircraft maintenance. Therefore, they share a work-related community of interest with Mechanics and Related Employees. Further, while they have some budgetary authority and assign work, the Carrier did not provide evidence of examples that they exercise any significant degree of managerial authority. Therefore, the Investigator's ruling is upheld.

H.

Maintenance Planning Analyst and Maintenance

Data Controllers

United asserts that Maintenance Planning Analysts and Maintenance Systems Data Controllers share a work-related community of interest with Office Clerical Employees. AMFA agrees with United and argues, in addition, that "these employees are part of United's management as they receive management training. . . ."

In support of its contention that these positions are not part of the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class, United cites the fact that these positions were included in an election among the Carrier's Office Clerical Employees craft or class in 2000. United Airlines, 27 NMB 356 (2000).

The job descriptions submitted to the Investigator for the positions at issue are as follows:

1) Maintenance Planning Analyst

Analyzes planning data to define manpower, parts, and other resources required to meet production requirements. Assists in a variety of planning, scheduling, and documentation activities in a base maintenance element.

2) Maintenance Data Controller A

One year of experience and proficiency as a Maintenance Data Controller B.

3) Maintenance Data Controller B

Interprets, converts, and controls the Record of Maintenance (ROM) for aircraft, engines, and controlled components in the COMIS, AMIS, and Engine Parts Monitoring (EPM) computer systems. . . . Notifies Operations Planning-OPBOP of components approaching maximum time so that aircraft may be routed for prescribed service work. . . . Monitors system produced reports and other output for airframes, engines, and major components to ensure that no items remain in service beyond their legal limits. Compiles and inputs data into a computer system for Airworthiness Compliance reporting.

United asserts that these individuals answer telephones, route mail, and enter data and maintain data bases.

In United Airlines, above, involving the Office Clerical Employees craft or class, these three positions were on the eligibility list. However, the issue of their eligibility was not challenged and, therefore, the Board did not rule on their eligibility. Had the Board been presented with the issue, it would have found these employees were not part of the craft or class of Office Clerical Employees. The precedent discussed in Sections IV. D and E above applied to the record evidence leads the Board to conclude that these employees perform work in support of United's maintenance function. Therefore, the Investigator's ruling that these employees are part of the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class12 is upheld.

V.

Furloughees

AMFA appeals the Investigator's failure to remove 73 furloughed employees and 45 employees alleged to have lost their recall rights. AMFA argues that these employees' names do not appear on the seniority list. AMFA bases its position, in part, on Article X, Section F, of the United/IAM bargaining agreement. According to AMFA, the agreement provides that furloughed employees lose seniority rights if they fail to accept an offer of re- employment in a timely fashion.

In response, the IAM asserts that AMFA misinterprets the agreement, and states that furloughed employees retain seniority regardless of whether their names appear on a seniority list, "if it has not been lost under . . . . Article X, Section F."

AMFA also argues that several employees' recall rights have expired.

Manual Section 5.305 states that:

Furloughed employees are eligible in the craft or class in which they last worked provided they retain an employee-employer relationship and have a reasonable expectation of returning to work. However, a furloughed employee regularly working in another craft or class is ineligible in the craft or class from which the employee is furloughed.

According to the information supplied by the Carrier, recall rights for Mechanics and Related Employees at United do not expire until the employee refuses recall or voluntarily terminates his employment with United. United states that all of the furloughed employees on United's List of Potential Eligible Voters meet the Board's standards for eligibility.

An employee's absence from a seniority list is not dispositive that the employee/employer relationship no longer exists. Seniority lists may be instructive in determining the eligibility of employees. However, such lists cannot substitute for the List of Potential Eligible Voters. In addition, the Board finds furloughed employees eligible to vote regardless of the length of time they are on furlough, if their recall rights have not expired. Continental Airlines, 23 NMB 118 (1996). The Board upholds the Investigator's ruling on this issue.

VI.

Employees Not Ruled Upon

AMFA asserts that the Investigator failed to rule on the eligibility of 14 individuals whose omission from the list was challenged in AMFA's May 1, 2001, submission. United did not address AMFA's assertion until its June 29, 2001, submission. The Carrier asserts that one of the 14 individuals, Michael A. Holan, is already on the list, and that Brian T. Savini was included in the Carrier's May 11, 2001, submission.13 In addition, according to United, nine individuals "were properly excluded." The Carrier agrees that the remaining three should be on the list. Those names are added to the list. The total of eligible employees is 16,757.

VII.

Showing of Interest and Acceptance of

Additional Authorization Cards

AMFA argues that the showing of interest "must be based" on the craft or class excluding the 18 job titles in Section IV. AMFA cites Board and judicial decisions in support of its contention that "[s]howing of interest standards are for the Board's administrative purposes only," and "are not statutory or jurisdictional." Therefore, AMFA asserts that "the Board need not feel compelled or bound . . . to elevate form over substance by applying the fifty percent showing of interest. . . ."

AMFA also argues that the Board should continue to accept additional authorization cards because the Carrier has not submitted signature samples for the 430 employees in the 18 classifications.

In response, the IAM asserts that "AMFA has failed to state any sufficient reasons to warrant deviation from the Board's long- standing rules and practices. . . ."

The IAM also asserts that April 16, 2001, was established as the final date for submitting cards. The IAM argues "AMFA cites no precedent for extending the time period . . . and none exists despite the fact that the composition of the craft or class in Board representation cases is routinely adjusted by challenges and objections . . . ."

A.

Showing of Interest

The cases AMFA cites in support of its position regarding the showing of interest include Guilford Rail Division, 19 NMB 32 (1991); Eastern Airlines, Inc./Continental Airlines, Inc., 17 NMB 432 (1990); Air Florida, 8 NMB 571 (1981); and Air Canada v. NMB, 478 F. Supp. 615 (S.D.N.Y. 1979), on final hearing, 107 LRRM 2028 (S.D.N.Y. 1980), aff'd, 659 F.2d 1057 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 454 U.S. 965 (1981).

In Eastern Airlines, above at 436, the Board stated:

[T]he Board's showing of interest standards are neither jurisdictional nor imposed by statute. Even the particular percentages of employee authorizations in the agency's regulations . . . are not applicable to the Board's initial investigation. . . . Initially, the Board must determine the precise scope of the particular craft or class. . . . It is only after the scope of the potential employee electorate has been determined . . . that the Board has the necessary factual basis to assess whether an applicant has satisfied its showing of interest . . . . Even then, since the showing of interest requirement is meant to conserve administrative resources, it is a matter solely of concern to the Board and to no one else.

[Emphasis supplied]

In Guilford, above, the Board noted its "broad discretion in determining when a showing of interest has been met," citing Local 732 IBT v. National Mediation Board, 438 F. Supp. 1357 (S.D.N.Y. 1977).

In Air Canada, above, the Court stated that, the courts have uniformly held that "the validity of the showing of interest is for administrative determination and may not be litigated by . . . either Employer or Union." 478 F. Supp. at 618.

The Court, in Local 732, IBT, above, held: "the authority conferred on the Board by Section 2, Ninth, surely encompasses broad discretion to decide when a showing of interest . . . has been made. . . ." 438 F. Supp. at 1364.

AMFA's argument that the showing of interest "must be based" on the craft or class excluding the 18 additional job titles is not supported by precedent. To the contrary, it is routine for the Board to find that the craft or class contains additional employees and to base the showing of interest determination on the total number of employees in the craft or class.14 For example, recently, in American Eagle Airlines, 28 NMB 371 (2001), the Board's investigation established that the scope of the system applied for by AMFA encompassed an additional 177 employees at a location which AMFA contended was not part of the system. The employees were represented by another union. The Board found that AMFA's application was subject to the showing of interest requirement set forth at 29 C.F.R. § 1206.2(a) of the Board's Rules.

Where the employees involved in a representation dispute are represented . . . and are covered by a valid existing contract . . . a showing of proved authorizations . . . from at least a majority of the craft or class must be made before the National Mediation Board will authorize an election . . . .

29 C.F.R. § 1206.2(a).

The Board finds that AMFA's application is subject to the showing of interest requirement as set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1206.2 (a).

B.

Acceptance of Additional Cards

In USAir, Inc., 24 NMB 38, 56 (1996), the Board rejected a request that it continue to accept authorization cards after the deadline established by the Investigator. The Board found that there was an insufficient basis to accept additional cards, stating "the Board deviates from its rules and practices only under extraordinary circumstances, and [the union] has failed to provide the Board with sufficient evidence of extraordinary circumstances to warrant the acceptance of additional authorization cards." See also Eastern Airlines, Inc., 9 NMB 411 (1982) (no basis for accepting additional authorizations submitted).

In United Airlines, Inc., 8 NMB 642 (1981), the Board similarly declined to accept additional authorization cards. The IAM sought judicial review of the Board's decisions in United but did not prevail. International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. NMB, 109 LRRM 2440 (N.D. Cal. 1981)(the Board "conducted an investigation within the meaning of Section 2, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act . . . and therefore the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. . . .").

Here, AMFA argues that the Board's expansion of the craft or class to include 430 additional employees constitutes "extraordinary circumstances" for the acceptance of additional authorization cards. The Board does not find extraordinary circumstances in this case. First, the additional 430 employees constitute only 2.5 percent of the total eligible voters. Second, the addition of employees is not extraordinary and can happen at the initial phase of the investigation or after the authorization of an election during the challenge and objection period. See United Airlines, 27 NMB 221 (2000); Federal Express Corporation, 20 NMB 404, 471, 422 (1993).

The Board finds that AMFA has not demonstrated the "extraordinary circumstances" necessary to warrant the acceptance of additional authorization cards past the date that the List of Potential Eligible Voters was properly received by the Board.

VIII.

Status Changes

On July 6, 2001, AMFA requested that the Board consider status changes. On July 9, 2001, the IAM objected, arguing that AMFA's submission was untimely "or, alternatively, held in abeyance pending the Board's determination whether to designate the official eligibility list."

The Board does not consider status changes for purposes of calculating the showing of interest. In USAir, Inc., above at 53-
54, the Board stated:

It is the Board's longstanding policy not to add names to the list of potential eligible voters after the cut-off date has been established for the purpose of determining showing of interest. This policy protects against manipulation. For similar reasons the Board has determined to apply the same policy to the issue of deleting names in determining the showing of interest.

[Emphasis added]

In addition, AMFA's submission is rejected as untimely.

CONCLUSION

The investigation established that AMFA failed to support its application with the required number of authorizations from the employees in the craft or class as set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1206.2(a) of the Board's rules.

Therefore, the Board finds no basis upon which to proceed in this matter and the application is hereby dismissed subject to 29 C.F.R. § 1206.4(b) of the Board's Rules.15

By direction of the NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD.

Stephen E. Crable

Chief of Staff

Copies to:

Mr. William Hobgood

Mr. Al Koehler

Mr. Robert Roach, Jr.

Mr. Scotty Ford

Mr. O.V. Delle-Femine

Mr. Terry Harvey