AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 18, 2014

18-CA-117054 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CORE SERVICES LLC
and Case 18-CA-102260
TEAMSTERS LOCAL No. 120
EDDISONS FACILITY SERVICES LLC
and Case 18-CA-102269
TEAMSTERS LOCAL No. 120
Al STAFFING
and Case 18-CA-105168
TEAMSTERS LOCAL No. 120
WAYLAND RESOURCES, LLC
and Case 18-CA-107874
TEAMSTERS LOCAL No. 120
AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC.
and Case 18-CA-117054
TEAMSTERS LOCAL No. 120
EDDISONS FACILITY SERVICES, LTD.
and Case 18-CA-117061
TEAMSTERS LOCAL No. 120
2
ORDER BIFURCATING PROCEEDING, DENYING MOTION IN PART
and
NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE
On April 2, 2014, Avis Budget Group, Inc. (Respondent Avis) filed with the Board
a Motion for Dismissal or Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of the February 25,
2014 consolidated complaint on the grounds that there are no genuine issues of fact
and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On April 9, 2014, the General
Counsel filed an Opposition to the Respondent Avis’s Motion. On April 10, 2014,
Respondent Avis filed a response to the General Counsel’s Opposition. Having duly
considered the matter,
IT IS ORDERED that the issues in the above-captioned proceeding be
bifurcated.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the issues and complaint allegations regarding
1) whether Respondent Avis and Respondent Eddisons Ltd. can be found to be
derivatively liable as joint employers for the unfair labor practices found in Eddisons
Facility Services LLC, Cases 18-CA-089191 et al., at a time when the litigation of the
Respondents’ knowledge of and involvement in the conduct at issue is precluded by
Section 10(b) of the Act, and
2) whether allegations of derivative liability can be raised in a new and separate
unfair labor practice proceeding rather than in a supplemental compliance proceeding to
the original case,
be transferred to and continued before the Board in Washington, D.C.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Avis’s motion is denied with
respect to all other issues and complaint allegations, as Respondent Avis has failed to
3
establish that there are no material issues of fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law on these matters.
NOTICE IS GIVEN that cause be shown, in writing, filed with the Board in
Washington, D.C., on or before July 2, 2014 (with affidavit of service on the parties to
these proceedings), why Respondent Avis’s Motion should not be granted with respect
to the issues transferred to and continued before the Board.1 Any briefs or statements
in support of the motions shall be filed by the same date.
Dated, Washington, D.C., June 18, 2014
MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN
HARRY I. JOHNSON, III, MEMBER
NANCY SCHIFFER, MEMBER

1 On May 19, 2014, Avis filed a motion in limine. The General Counsel filed an
opposition to the motion. The Board will consider that motion and opposition, both as to
the matters on which the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment has been denied
and as to those matters before it pursuant to the bifurcation and transfer of issues to the
Board. Regarding the matters to which the motion for summary judgment has been
denied, pending a ruling by the Board on the motion in limine, the General Counsel is
precluded from relying on the decision of Judge Fine in Cases 18-CA-089191, et al.
(JD-65-13) regarding Respondent Avis, and the administrative law judge assigned to
the instant proceeding is instructed not to give any weight to Judge Fine’s decision
regarding Respondent Avis.