29 NMB No. 56

May 17, 2002

VIA HAND DELIVERY, FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL

Ms. Ruthann S. Yamanaka

Senior Vice President

Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

3375 Koapaka Street, H460

Honolulu, HI 96819

Ken Hipp, Esq.

Marr, Hipp, Jones & Pepper

1001 Bishop Street

Pauahi Tower, Suite 1550

Honolulu, HI 96813

Peter Petesch, Esq.

Ford & Harrison, LLP

1300 19th Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20036

Mr. O. V. Delle-Femine, National Director

Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association

67 Water Street, Suite #208

Laconia, NH 03246

George Diamantopoulos, Esq.

Counsel for AMFA

Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen

11 Martine Avenue, Suite 1450

White Plains, NY 10606-4025

Mr. Sidney L. Key, Region 1 Dir.

Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal

Association

4920 Hyada Boulevard, N.E.

Browns Point, WA 98422

Mr. Robert Roach, Jr., Gen. VP

Mr. James Conley,

Special Projects Coordinator

David Neigus, Esq.

International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers

9000 Machinists Place

Upper Marlboro, MD 20772

Re:	NMB Case No. R-6865

Hawaiian Airlines, Inc./AMFA/IAM

Gentlemen and Ms. Yamanaka:

This determination addresses Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.'s (Hawaiian or Carrier) appeal of Investigator Sean J. Rogers' eligibility ruling. For the reasons discussed below, the appeal is denied.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 18, 2002, the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) filed an application to represent Hawaiian's Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class. The craft or class is represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM). On February 13, 2002, the National Mediation Board (Board) received Hawaiian's List of Potential Eligible Voters.

On February 21, 2002, the IAM challenged the omission of employees with the job titles: Maintenance Planners/Schedulers, Technical Specialists, Maintenance Controllers/Coordinators, Ground Service Equipment Technical Coordinators and Maintenance Planning Analysts/Data Controllers from the List of Potential Eligible Voters.

On March 1, 2002, Hawaiian responded to IAM's challenge and stated that Hawaiian employed only three Maintenance Planners/Schedulers, seven Maintenance Controllers/ Coordinators, and one Technical Specialist (hereafter referred to as Maintenance Planners, Controllers, and the Technical Specialist). In addition, Hawaiian asserted that these 11 omitted employees are not eligible to vote. Hawaiian stated it employed no one in the other job titles in IAM's challenge.

On March 5, 2002, AMFA responded to IAM's challenge stating that it did not oppose the addition of the employees as long as none was a management official.

On April 19, 2002, the Board mailed the ballots, which will be counted on May 17, 2002. Pursuant to the Board's Representation Manual (Manual) Section 12.205, all the employees whose eligibility was challenged were sent "challenged" ballots.

On April 25, 2002, the Investigator ruled that the 11 challenged employees were eligible voters.

On May 3, 2002, the Carrier appealed the Investigator's rulings. On May 6 and 13, 2002, respectively, AMFA and IAM responded and asserted that the Investigator's ruling should be affirmed.

INVESTIGATOR'S RULING

The Investigator's ruling stated:

In recent determinations, the Board found that individuals who perform functions similar to those performed by Hawaiian's Maintenance Controllers are part of the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class. AirTran Airways, 28 NMB 603 (2001); Mesaba Airlines, 26 NMB 227 (1999); US Airways, 26 NMB 359 (1999); Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 26 NMB 487 (1999). See also Aerovias de Mexico, 20 NMB 584 (1993).

Although Hawaiian contends that Maintenance Controllers, Planners and Technical Specialist belong in a different craft or class, the evidence is otherwise. Specifically, the record establishes that Maintenance Controllers, Planners and Technical Specialist support, control, coordinate, hire aircraft maintenance contractors, release aircraft from maintenance and generally direct the maintenance of Hawaiian's fleet. This is work traditionally performed by the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class.

HAWAIIAN'S APPEAL

Hawaiian appeals the Investigator's ruling pursuant to Manual Section 4.6. The Carrier argues Maintenance Controllers, Planners, and the Technical Specialist are not part of the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class.

Hawaiian contends that the Investigator "lump[s] individuals holding the Maintenance Controller; Planner and Technical Specialist positions at Hawaiian with individuals at other carriers having far less discretion and decision-making power." The Carrier asserts that Maintenance Controllers "are empowered to and in fact commit carrier funds exceeding $50,000 - an amount far in excess of the fiscal discretion entrusted to many undisputed members of management at many carriers."

Hawaiian states that these employees have the authority to choose the work to be performed by contractors. Hawaiian argues that this authority may foster grievances which "will pit craft and class member against craft and class member as witnesses."

The Carrier further argues that Maintenance Planners, Controllers, and the Technical Specialist are salaried members of management. In addition, Hawaiian argues that the history of collective bargaining with IAM and Articles II and IV of the IAM/Hawaiian collective bargaining agreement exclude by omission Maintenance Planners, Controllers, and the Technical Specialist from the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class.

AMFA'S RESPONSE

AMFA argues that the Investigator's ruling should be upheld because it is fully supported by the evidence. AMFA states that Hawaiian's appeal merely "reiterates the same arguments made previously without any convincing reason for the Board to alter the Investigator's ruling."

AMFA also argues that the Carrier's arguments on the collective bargaining history and certain IAM/Hawaiian collective bargaining agreement articles, are "attempts to introduce evidence not previously referred to in its March 1, 2002 submission." AMFA asserts that Hawaiian has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances for the Board to consider this evidence. Therefore, pursuant to Manual Section 4.6, AMFA asserts that "this 'new evidence' should not be considered."

IAM'S RESPONSE

IAM asserts that the Investigator's ruling should be upheld. IAM argues that the work performed by Maintenance Planners, Controllers, and the Technical Specialist is work traditionally performed by the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class. In addition, IAM argues that the evidence does not support Hawaiian's claim that these employees are management officials.

DISCUSSION

I.

Management Officials

Hawaiian bases its argument that Maintenance Planners and Controllers are management officials on two grounds. First, Hawaiian states that these employees have the discretion to commit substantial Carrier funds. Second, Hawaiian asserts, without specificity, that these employees have the discretion to choose whether routine and heavy maintenance will be performed by a contractor or by Carrier employees. According to the Carrier, this discretion creates a conflict of interest between the Maintenance Planners and the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class.

In support of its position, the Carrier submitted the affidavit of Charles Heirakuji, Manager of Maintenance Planning. Heirakuji's affidavit, states in pertinent part:

All maintenance planners coordinate with outside contractors for routine, heavy maintenance of Hawaiian aircraft. This involves making commitments to contractors costing sometimes $50,000, and choosing the work to be performed by their contractors.

The Board finds that this statement establishes that the Maintenance Planners' discretion over Hawaiian's funds is limited to $50,000 and, even at that level, the exercise of this discretion occurs only "sometimes." The Investigator correctly concluded that although the employees "do exercise some discretion in the spending of carrier funds, such expenditures are not large enough to qualify as significant." Furthermore, Hawaiian argues no other indicia of management duties and responsibility.

Hawaiian has presented no evidence and does not argue that the Technical Specialist is a management official. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Maintenance Controllers have any discretion over Hawaiian funds or discretion to choose contractors to perform maintenance.

While the Carrier asserts that the inclusion of these employees, without specificity, would create a conflict of interest with the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class, the Board finds this assertion speculative. In addition, Hawaiian's assertion that Maintenance Planners, Controllers, and the Technical Specialist are "salaried members of management" is not supported by the evidence.

The Board affirms the Investigator's ruling that the Maintenance Planners, Controllers, and the Technical Specialist are not management officials.

II.

Hawaiian's Collective Bargaining Claims

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.

Hawaiian's appeal presents certain contract articles and supporting argument concerning the history of collective bargaining which were not presented to the Investigator during the investigation of the IAM's eligibility challenges.

Hawaiian's appeal presents no extraordinary circumstances for the Board to consider this evidence. Therefore, the Board finds no reason to consider this evidence and argument on appeal.

III.

Maintenance Planners, Controllers and the

Technical Specialist, and	the Mechanic and Related

Employees	Craft or Class

In United Airlines, Inc., 28 NMB 533 (2001), the Board found Maintenance Planners, Controllers, and Technical Specialists are part of the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class. The record in this case establishes that the duties of the United Airlines employees are substantially similar to Hawaiian's Maintenance Planners, Controllers, and the Technical Specialist. Therefore, the Board finds that Hawaiian's Maintenance Planners, Controllers, and the Technical Specialist are part of the Mechanics and Related Employees craft or class and are eligible to vote.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that there is no basis to overrule the Investigator's rulings. Therefore, Hawaiian's appeal is denied. The count will take place as scheduled at 2 p.m Eastern Time, May 17, 2002.

By direction of the NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD.

Benetta Mansfield

Chief of Staff