[00:00:03] Speaker 04:
Case number 18-1342-L, American Sales and Management Organization, LLC, DBA, ULIN America, Petitioner vs. National Labor Relations Board.

[00:00:13] Speaker 04:
Mr. Koji for the petitioner, Ms.

[00:00:15] Speaker 04:
Rajatasky for the respondent, and Ms.

[00:00:18] Speaker 04:
Draco Otis for the entrepreneur.

[00:00:21] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:00:23] Speaker 00:
Good morning.

[00:00:25] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, my name is Brian Koji here on behalf of the petitioner, ULIN America.

[00:00:30] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, the issue in this case is whether there was substantial evidence to support the NLRB's determination that Ulan America was subject to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Act and not to the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act.

[00:00:44] Speaker 00:
In making that decision, the NLRB determined that the air carriers

[00:00:49] Speaker 00:
the airlines that are Ulan's clients did not exercise significant control over Ulan's operations.

[00:00:57] Speaker 00:
We submit to you that that determination ignored a whole swaths of evidence in the record and was contrary to the totality of the circumstances.

[00:01:08] Speaker 00:
Ulan America, the case here arises out of Fort Lauderdale Airport.

[00:01:12] Speaker 00:
Ulan America services six airlines in Fort Lauderdale.

[00:01:16] Speaker 00:
It's WestJet, Bahamas Air,

[00:01:18] Speaker 00:
Delta American Air, Spirit, and JetBlue.

[00:01:22] Speaker 00:
They performed different services for these.

[00:01:25] Speaker 00:
What the NLRB did in this case was they cherry picked data from some of the client contacts, some of it, for example, American Airlines.

[00:01:33] Speaker 00:
If all we had here was ULIN servicing American Airlines, the NLRB's decision likely is correct.

[00:01:38] Speaker 00:
Because American Airlines, all that ULIN does for American is clean its terminal offices,

[00:01:45] Speaker 00:
and does checkpoint services.

[00:01:47] Speaker 00:
This is the traffic cop when you come into the American terminal.

[00:01:51] Speaker 00:
What the LRB didn't do is it didn't look at the other airlines.

[00:01:56] Speaker 00:
There's only 10 to 12 employees employed by Ulan to service American Airlines out of 172.

[00:02:02] Speaker 00:
The bulk of Ulan's employees service Spirit Airlines, Delta, and WestJet.

[00:02:12] Speaker 00:
In our reply brief, we tried to

[00:02:14] Speaker 00:
Narrow it down as succinctly as possible.

[00:02:16] Speaker 00:
If you look at WestJet and what Yulin does for WestJet at Fort Lauderdale, we submit you cannot come to any conclusion other than the airlines directly control Yulin's operations.

[00:02:27] Speaker 06:
So is one carrier sufficient to demonstrate control?

[00:02:31] Speaker 00:
I think one carrier is sufficient in this case because of the volume, but we also have Delta and Spirit.

[00:02:38] Speaker 00:
And Delta and Spirit are by far the largest

[00:02:41] Speaker 00:
clients of ULN in Fort Lauderdale.

[00:02:44] Speaker 00:
There are 25 to 30 employees of ULN that service WestJet out of 172.

[00:02:48] Speaker 06:
So do you think it was error for the NLRB to look at all the carriers?

[00:02:52] Speaker 00:
They can look at all the carriers and you should take the totality of the circumstances, but the focus on the carriers where we only have 10 employees working on and pull all the data from there for the most part, that was erroneous.

[00:03:03] Speaker 02:
The underlying unfair labor practice charge related to the firing of a particular woman who was

[00:03:11] Speaker 02:
picketing, is that right?

[00:03:13] Speaker 00:
Correct, Ms.

[00:03:14] Speaker 00:
Joanna Alexander.

[00:03:15] Speaker 02:
On what airline did she work?

[00:03:20] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I believe it was either Spirit or Delta.

[00:03:23] Speaker 00:
It was not American Airlines.

[00:03:25] Speaker 02:
Well, what I wondered is why are all the airlines being looked at when the, I don't know, was she assigned to whatever particular airline for

[00:03:40] Speaker 02:
for on a semi-permanent basis?

[00:03:44] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:03:44] Speaker 00:
Alexander was assigned to specific airline, generally what ULIN does.

[00:03:48] Speaker 02:
Why wouldn't it be, why is it, why are we looking at all these other airlines?

[00:03:52] Speaker 00:
Because, Your Honor, you're either subject to the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act

[00:03:56] Speaker 00:
works in National Labor Act, you cannot be subject to both jurisdiction at the same time, same location.

[00:04:01] Speaker 02:
Yeah, I understand that.

[00:04:03] Speaker 02:
But in making that determination, why shouldn't it be specific to the particular employee?

[00:04:09] Speaker 02:
If you had a relationship with that particular airline where they had much more control than, say, United or American or whatever, these other ones, then that would make a difference, wouldn't it?

[00:04:24] Speaker 00:
In all due respect, I don't think it would, Your Honor, because while this case involves just the single unfair labor practice for the single employee, the ramifications for the company and for all of the employees go beyond that.

[00:04:37] Speaker 00:
So if Yulin, for example, is subject to the Railway Labor Act, then these employees, all 172 at Fort Lauderdale, all of the employees, the rest of the employees on the Spirit Airline account, they're not allowed to simply go on strike.

[00:04:51] Speaker 00:
purpose of the Railway Labor Act when it was passed is different from the National Labor Relations Act was precisely to prevent that kind of disruption.

[00:04:59] Speaker 00:
If you have disruption that you would normally have in another industry, you can shut down air cargo and airline passengers.

[00:05:06] Speaker 00:
So with the railway industry and the airline industry, Congress set those apart differently.

[00:05:11] Speaker 00:
So to have the test turn on specific airline or specific employee work might be different for one employee versus the other.

[00:05:19] Speaker 00:
Maybe that would be workable in an unfair labor practice where you're only dealing with a single employee, but with regard to the rest of the labor law, how we deal with strikes, works to opposites, things of that nature would be unworkable.

[00:05:30] Speaker 00:
So the way the statute's written here is if you are an employer and you have any employees subject to the Rural Labor Act, then you're not subject to the National Labor Relations Act.

[00:05:39] Speaker 00:
In our view, we look at it, if you look at WestJet and everything that ULIN does for WestJet at Fort Lauderdale,

[00:05:47] Speaker 03:
There is no WestJet employees in Fort Lauderdale.

[00:05:59] Speaker 03:
even if there's one airline for whom you could say they exercise control over Ulan, but the other five don't, that that would be sufficient.

[00:06:11] Speaker 03:
Is there any authority for that proposition?

[00:06:14] Speaker 00:
There's no authority specifically on that point.

[00:06:15] Speaker 00:
The authority says you look at the totality of the circumstances.

[00:06:18] Speaker 00:
Just so I'm clear, we are not relying solely on WestJet.

[00:06:22] Speaker 00:
We think that's the most obvious example, Spirit and Delta.

[00:06:26] Speaker 00:
and WestJet, make those three together make up more than 90% of all employees at ULIN at Fort Lauderdale.

[00:06:32] Speaker 00:
You look at those three together, they control ULIN, everything about ULIN.

[00:06:40] Speaker 00:
For example, the training component of the six factor test.

[00:06:44] Speaker 00:
What the LRB says is, one sentence, ULIN by and large controls the training, provides the training.

[00:06:51] Speaker 00:
That is absolutely not supported by this record.

[00:06:55] Speaker 00:
Delta, Spirit, and WestJet all dictate the training.

[00:07:00] Speaker 00:
Spirit and Delta provide computer systems where all ULIN employees have to sit down and pass and take those tests.

[00:07:08] Speaker 02:
I thought the board said that ULIN provides a 900-page training manual or something.

[00:07:16] Speaker 00:
The board, the brief keeps referring to the 900 page training manual.

[00:07:20] Speaker 00:
The record, there is a 900 page training manual, but the record in this case says that that only applies to Bahamas Air.

[00:07:27] Speaker 00:
Bahamas Air is the only one, that 900 page training manual is for all locations for you and around the country.

[00:07:34] Speaker 00:
The record evidence is that when the carriers have their specific training that they mandate, we use their training.

[00:07:40] Speaker 00:
When they don't, we use our manual.

[00:07:43] Speaker 00:
And in this case, the specific question was asked of the training director, who does that manual apply to at Fort Lauderdale?

[00:07:49] Speaker 00:
And they said, Bahamas area.

[00:07:51] Speaker 00:
The follow-up question was asked, does it apply to anybody else?

[00:07:53] Speaker 00:
His answer was no.

[00:07:55] Speaker 00:
That's because it doesn't apply.

[00:07:56] Speaker 00:
That training manual is not even completely in the record, only the first chapter for that reason.

[00:08:01] Speaker 06:
So do you think the NLRB was required to refer this question of jurisdiction to the NMB?

[00:08:07] Speaker 00:
We do think it should have been referred and was required.

[00:08:10] Speaker 00:
Their precedent is they refer it as a matter of course, but they reserve the right not to refer it when they think there's a clear answer.

[00:08:18] Speaker 00:
What happened here is there was a four or five year gap where they changed the test, and this court later found out to be erroneous.

[00:08:23] Speaker 00:
So during that year, four or five year gap, they were not referring any cases to the NNB.

[00:08:27] Speaker 02:
Did you file a motion before the NORB to refer to the PDG?

[00:08:33] Speaker 00:
We did not file a motion.

[00:08:34] Speaker 00:
We did ask, in our exceptions, that it be referred to the NNB.

[00:08:38] Speaker 02:
You asked the NORB to.

[00:08:39] Speaker 00:
We did ask that in our brief to the LRBS.

[00:08:43] Speaker 03:
Do you wish to reserve any time for rebuttal?

[00:08:46] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, I'd like to reserve one minute.

[00:08:48] Speaker 00:
This may be a good break.

[00:08:49] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:09:02] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honour.

[00:09:03] Speaker 01:
May it please the court?

[00:09:03] Speaker 01:
My name is Milak Shnee, Raja Paksa.

[00:09:05] Speaker 01:
I'm counsel for the National Labour Relations Board.

[00:09:09] Speaker 01:
The record fully supports the board's assertion of jurisdiction over the company in this case, and more specifically, its finding that the company is not under significant carrier control at FLL.

[00:09:22] Speaker 01:
The board considered not only the contracts that the company very much emphasizes in this court, but also the testimony of witnesses who had first-hand knowledge of how those contracts were applied on site.

[00:09:35] Speaker 01:
And the testimony taken together with the contracts does not show control.

[00:09:40] Speaker 01:
In considering the entire record in this manner, including the testimony, the Board stayed very much consistent with this Court's observation in ABM On-Site that to assess control it is important to understand the extent of the carrier's contractual and practical.

[00:09:56] Speaker 01:
involvement in the contractor's affairs.

[00:09:58] Speaker 01:
In this case, the record shows that the carrier's practical involvement in day-to-day affairs is highly limited.

[00:10:06] Speaker 01:
The carriers do not supervise employees.

[00:10:09] Speaker 01:
They do not assist the company in developing schedules and staffing plans.

[00:10:14] Speaker 01:
They seldom communicate at all about specific employees employed by the company.

[00:10:20] Speaker 01:
And the company has, contrary to what counsel has just stated,

[00:10:24] Speaker 01:
The company has in place its own independent training requirements, and they're quite extensive.

[00:10:30] Speaker 01:
And the testimony of Mr. Foster, who presides over the company's training program and developed the manual, testified several times, and the relevant joint appendix citations are in the board's brief, but he testified that essentially the company only follows a carrier's training path

[00:10:50] Speaker 01:
when the carrier's training subsumes the material in the company's training manual.

[00:10:55] Speaker 01:
And he was emphatic on that point.

[00:10:57] Speaker 01:
So I have to disagree with counsel that the company is led by carriers in respect to training.

[00:11:04] Speaker 02:
Why is it?

[00:11:04] Speaker 02:
This test, where does it come from?

[00:11:07] Speaker 01:
The Six Factors test?

[00:11:09] Speaker 02:
The Six Parts.

[00:11:10] Speaker 02:
you know, factors, six factors with no particular weight to either one, any of them.

[00:11:15] Speaker 02:
Where does that test come from?

[00:11:17] Speaker 01:
The test was developed by the National Mediation Board.

[00:11:20] Speaker 02:
I understand that.

[00:11:21] Speaker 01:
Where did they get it from?

[00:11:24] Speaker 01:
They've developed this test over decades.

[00:11:28] Speaker 02:
It dates, well, this court stated... The purpose of the Railway Labor Act is to prevent disruption in transportation, correct?

[00:11:36] Speaker 02:
Right, but the word control... Well, if that's the reason behind it, then where in this test does that have any bearing on the ultimate purpose of the Railway Labor Act?

[00:11:52] Speaker 01:
The word control is in the Railway Labor Act.

[00:11:56] Speaker 01:
So the Railway Labor Act essentially imposes a two-factor inquiry when it comes to derivative carrier status.

[00:12:06] Speaker 01:
The requirement is not only that the contractor perform a function traditionally performed by a carrier.

[00:12:13] Speaker 01:
There's a second part.

[00:12:15] Speaker 01:
The contractor has to be directly or indirectly under the control of or

[00:12:20] Speaker 01:
commonly controlled with a carrier or carriers.

[00:12:22] Speaker 02:
That's part of the, what section of the Railway Labor Act?

[00:12:25] Speaker 01:
That's section 151 of the Railway Labor Act.

[00:12:27] Speaker 02:
Well that was my question where it came from.

[00:12:30] Speaker 06:
So why in this case did the NLRB not refer the matter to the NMB for a jurisdictional determination as it normally does?

[00:12:40] Speaker 01:
Well, as this court has recognized in several cases, the board is not obliged to refer cases to the NMB.

[00:12:48] Speaker 06:
But it usually refers to the NMB.

[00:12:49] Speaker 01:
It refers when there is substantial doubt about the outcome of the inquiry under the six-factor test.

[00:12:56] Speaker 01:
And then if the NMB does issue an opinion, the board then, as a matter of comedy and so on, defers to the NMB's determination.

[00:13:04] Speaker 06:
But in this case- So the real question is whether the referral is made in the first place.

[00:13:09] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:13:09] Speaker 01:
In this case, the board found that the factors overwhelmingly support a finding that the carriers do not control the company.

[00:13:17] Speaker 01:
And if you look at some of the factors that I mentioned earlier, supervision, control over personnel decisions, influence over training.

[00:13:25] Speaker 01:
But here, did the NLRB explain why it was not referring the matter?

[00:13:29] Speaker 01:
The NLRB wasn't obliged to explain, and I will also mention, Your Honor, that the company referred in passing to referral in its brief and supportive exceptions.

[00:13:40] Speaker 01:
It didn't actually accept the judge's decision and specifically request referral.

[00:13:47] Speaker 01:
And the board's practice is that, and the board's rules and regulations require that in order to preserve an issue,

[00:13:54] Speaker 01:
the company has to raise it in its exceptions, in its actual exceptions.

[00:13:59] Speaker 01:
There was a passing reference to possible referral in the company's brief and supportive exceptions, and that wasn't sufficient, I would say, to raise the issue to the board.

[00:14:09] Speaker 01:
The company also has waived referral before this court.

[00:14:14] Speaker 01:
It didn't argue referral in its brief.

[00:14:16] Speaker 01:
So I would ask that you just be attentive to that as well.

[00:14:20] Speaker 01:
The company's argument before this court has very much been about the merits of the board's finding as to lack of control.

[00:14:29] Speaker 01:
And if I may just go into this WestJet issue that the company has raised, I'll just say

[00:14:37] Speaker 01:
The company greatly emphasizes the fact that it stands in for WestJet, essentially, in some respects, at FLL.

[00:14:45] Speaker 01:
But the test, this control test, is not whether a carrier gives over an aspect of its operations, essentially, to a contractor.

[00:14:57] Speaker 01:
It's whether it controls the contractor.

[00:14:59] Speaker 02:
And that's a separate... Have you compared the board's analysis, in this case, with the board's analysis in Browning Forest?

[00:15:06] Speaker 01:
I have not, Your Honor.

[00:15:08] Speaker 02:
At Browning Forest, the question was whether one company was a joint employer of another.

[00:15:14] Speaker 02:
And the board's analysis here is, to my mind anyway, the direct opposite of what it did in Browning Forest.

[00:15:23] Speaker 02:
And I'll give you an example.

[00:15:28] Speaker 02:
Under one of the factors, the right to request discipline

[00:15:33] Speaker 02:
a carrier requesting discipline of a Ulan employee shows what?

[00:15:40] Speaker 01:
Control.

[00:15:41] Speaker 02:
That shows control?

[00:15:43] Speaker 02:
In Browning Ferris, it's just the opposite.

[00:15:46] Speaker 02:
Because if the main employer had to request the company to do something, then it didn't control the company.

[00:15:55] Speaker 02:
It was only making a request.

[00:15:56] Speaker 02:
Anybody can make a request.

[00:15:59] Speaker 02:
So there's, I don't know, what's happened with Browning Forest, by the way?

[00:16:05] Speaker 01:
I couldn't tell you, I really haven't.

[00:16:07] Speaker 02:
It's on remand, I know.

[00:16:08] Speaker 01:
The progress of that case.

[00:16:09] Speaker 02:
For rulemaking.

[00:16:10] Speaker 01:
Yeah, I will just note that the board in this particular jurisdictional area is applying really the National Mediation Board's interpretation of the Railway Labor Act and the requirements of that separate statute.

[00:16:24] Speaker 01:
So it really is not

[00:16:27] Speaker 01:
within the board's control to define what constitutes carrier control.

[00:16:33] Speaker 02:
So there's more reason to refer, isn't there?

[00:16:36] Speaker 01:
Well, no, the terms of the test are clear.

[00:16:39] Speaker 01:
I'm just saying that to the extent that there appears to be any inconsistency... But is the NLRB really applying the test in the same way?

[00:16:45] Speaker 06:
I think some of the NMB precedents suggest that any carrier is sufficient to establish control, whereas the NLRB seems to be suggesting that you need to have

[00:16:55] Speaker 06:
many, most, or all of the carriers exerting control.

[00:16:59] Speaker 01:
I disagree, Your Honor.

[00:17:01] Speaker 01:
I mean, I do think that some of the cases, if you look at Ogden Aviation, for example, or even Prime Flight, which is the case that the company has cited, the NMB does look at all of the operations for all of the different carriers and sort of takes into account the totality of the circumstances.

[00:17:20] Speaker 01:
And that's precisely what the board did in this case.

[00:17:22] Speaker 06:
Isn't one of the concerns that if this goes to the NMB, then they find

[00:17:27] Speaker 06:
jurisdiction under the RLA and if it stays with the NLRB that they don't?

[00:17:31] Speaker 06:
I mean, isn't that the practical outcome in many of these cases?

[00:17:36] Speaker 01:
I couldn't say that that's true, Your Honor.

[00:17:37] Speaker 01:
I haven't surveyed all of the cases.

[00:17:40] Speaker 01:
But in this instance, the board acted very much within its range of authority in maintaining the case and in applying the NMB's test and finding that five of six factors favor a finding of board jurisdiction.

[00:17:56] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much.

[00:18:00] Speaker 03:
All right, we'll hear from counsel for intervener.

[00:18:20] Speaker 05:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:18:21] Speaker 05:
My name is Jessica Drangel-Oaks.

[00:18:22] Speaker 05:
I represent the Intervenor SCIU Local 32BJ in this matter.

[00:18:27] Speaker 05:
And I'm here to support the board's cross-petition.

[00:18:31] Speaker 05:
The record supports, substantial evidence supports the finding here that you enforce under the National Labor Relations Act.

[00:18:38] Speaker 05:
I'd first like to say something about the test in response to some of your questions.

[00:18:47] Speaker 05:
It is true that all carriers are considered, the totality of the circumstances are considered when evaluating the test.

[00:18:56] Speaker 05:
And I don't believe, Your Honor, there's any difference between how the NLRB has viewed this historically or the NMB has viewed this historically.

[00:19:04] Speaker 05:
And as counsel for the board pointed out, or I think Mr. Koji mentioned, there is no authority for the view that a single carrier should determine

[00:19:16] Speaker 05:
the outcome here in the analysis.

[00:19:19] Speaker 05:
The NMB has consistently looked at all the carriers, and there's certainly no case where a single carrier that is not a major player, vast percentage of the work, dictates the outcome here.

[00:19:35] Speaker 05:
And so the company's reliance on WestJet is really misplaced.

[00:19:41] Speaker 05:
WestJet, well, I would first say that I believe

[00:19:44] Speaker 05:
that their argument about WestJet in the reply brief is waived before you because as they've emphasized for the very first time in the reply brief was the absence of personnel at the Fort Lauderdale Airport.

[00:19:57] Speaker 05:
Their argument basically turned everything they'd been arguing prior on its head and said because we don't have personnel here therefore we are WestJet, we stand in the shoes of WestJet and therefore

[00:20:11] Speaker 05:
we are a carrier, and obviously that is contrary to the statute and what they've been doing previously, which has been pointing to examples on the ground about how WestJet influenced them.

[00:20:24] Speaker 05:
So this was the first argument, the first time this argument was made, it was in the reply brief.

[00:20:29] Speaker 02:
Who did the cleaning of the compartments while the strike was going on?

[00:20:36] Speaker 05:
The strike, Your Honor,

[00:20:38] Speaker 05:
I believe management did some of the cleaning.

[00:20:42] Speaker 05:
At issue were two one-day strikes.

[00:20:45] Speaker 02:
Management of Yulin or management of the carriers?

[00:20:48] Speaker 05:
No, the carrier spirit.

[00:20:49] Speaker 05:
To answer to your question, Your Honor, Ms.

[00:20:52] Speaker 05:
Alexander, the terminated worker here, she worked for Spirit as a cabin cleaner.

[00:20:58] Speaker 05:
And so it was her managers who stepped in on those days.

[00:21:03] Speaker 05:
And in fact, that's part of the record below.

[00:21:08] Speaker 05:
So yes, in answer to your question earlier, she worked for Spirit.

[00:21:14] Speaker 05:
WestJet is 15% of the workers were assigned to WestJet, 25 to 30.

[00:21:19] Speaker 05:
Spirit and Delta are the more dominant players at the airport.

[00:21:24] Speaker 05:
50 to 60 employees in Spirit and Delta, 50.

[00:21:31] Speaker 05:
The company would have you focus on WestJet.

[00:21:34] Speaker 05:
Fifteen percent of the workers are assigned to WestJet.

[00:21:37] Speaker 06:
Doesn't the statute say any carrier, which would include WestJet or any carrier with respect to control?

[00:21:46] Speaker 05:
The statutory language, any company which is directly or indirectly controlled or controlled under the common control with any carrier,

[00:21:54] Speaker 05:
But historically, if there's record evidence about what is going on, they look at all the carriers involved.

[00:22:01] Speaker 05:
There are no cases when the NMB, who the NLRB has historically followed, focuses only on one carrier, only if the carrier is extremely dominant.

[00:22:13] Speaker 05:
And even then, there's going to be reference to the other carriers.

[00:22:17] Speaker 05:
There's no rule or practice that says you only look at one carrier.

[00:22:22] Speaker 05:
And certainly here, we all agree, the airports will pay.

[00:22:25] Speaker 06:
But can the reference to the other carriers defeat?

[00:22:27] Speaker 06:
I'm sorry?

[00:22:28] Speaker 06:
Can the reference to the other carriers defeat RLA jurisdiction?

[00:22:33] Speaker 06:
Because one of the purposes of the RLA is to prevent any kind of disruption in this sector, in the transportation sector.

[00:22:42] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:22:43] Speaker 05:
So I'm not sure I'm understanding your question.

[00:22:47] Speaker 05:
So if one carrier has significant control

[00:22:52] Speaker 06:
the fact that other carriers have maybe less control.

[00:22:56] Speaker 06:
I'm not sure how those things fit together.

[00:22:58] Speaker 05:
I think that what the NMB has done is weighed that.

[00:23:01] Speaker 05:
So if the dominant carrier is subject to the control that meets the NMB's test that applies the statute, then the NMB has found RLA jurisdiction.

[00:23:15] Speaker 05:
But that is not the case here.

[00:23:17] Speaker 05:
None of the carriers here meet the NMB's

[00:23:22] Speaker 05:
control test.

[00:23:24] Speaker 05:
It's not the case here.

[00:23:25] Speaker 05:
We're not conceding.

[00:23:26] Speaker 05:
No one's saying here that any of the carriers meet the control test.

[00:23:31] Speaker 05:
In fact, none of them do.

[00:23:34] Speaker 05:
But the analysis is as a group.

[00:23:37] Speaker 05:
But I think you should be comfortable here that none of them do.

[00:23:41] Speaker 05:
They have different factors that they don't all have the same elements.

[00:23:46] Speaker 05:
That's the nature of this multi-factor factors within factor test.

[00:23:52] Speaker 05:
But this is not a case where one carrier is clearly controlled, where one contract, one relationship is clearly controlled by a carrier.

[00:24:03] Speaker 05:
That's not what we have here, Your Honors.

[00:24:06] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:24:09] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:24:10] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:24:17] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:24:17] Speaker 03:
I think you had a minute and a half left.

[00:24:20] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:24:24] Speaker 00:
Spirit and Delta also control.

[00:24:27] Speaker 00:
I just want to point out a few of the factors that show they're controlled.

[00:24:30] Speaker 00:
Both of them require us to impose their training.

[00:24:34] Speaker 00:
In fact, they make us use their computers and our employees have to go to their computers to take online training courses.

[00:24:39] Speaker 00:
Delta created seven training courses for ULIN employees.

[00:24:44] Speaker 00:
Delta requires us to use three of their pieces of equipment to do the cabin cleaning.

[00:24:49] Speaker 00:
Spirit requires a ULIN employee

[00:24:52] Speaker 00:
to sit in with their headquarters as the coordinator to watch all the flights coming.

[00:24:58] Speaker 00:
They average 53 flights a day over a week.

[00:25:01] Speaker 00:
And we have to have a ULIN employee sit alongside the Spirit Control Center so that Spirit can give us direction on where to send all of our employees.

[00:25:10] Speaker 00:
That, Your Honor, is control.

[00:25:13] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:25:13] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:25:14] Speaker 03:
We'll take the matter under advisement.