DTG Operations, Inc. d/b/a Dollar Rent A Car and Thrifty Car Rental

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Dec 27, 2010

28-CA-023059 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 27, 2010)

JD(SF)–55–10
Las Vegas, Nevada
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
DTG OPERATIONS, INC. d/b/a
DOLLAR RENT A CAR and
THRIFTY CAR RENTAL
and Cases 28-CA-23059
28-CA-23069
28-CA-23107
E. SUNNY PAGLIOCCA, An individual
And
RUBEN V. LARA, III, An individual
And
KRISTINA HAYDEN, An individual
Joel C. Schochet, Esq., and Pablo A. Godoy, Esq.,
of Las Vegas, Nevada, for the General Counsel.
Michael W. Casey, III, Esq., and
Teresa M. Maestrelli, Esq., (Epstein Becker & Green),
of Miami, Florida, for Respondent.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
JAY R. POLLACK, Administrative Law Judge: I heard this case in trial in Las Vegas,
Nevada, from October 5 through October 8, 2010. On June 8, 2010, E. Sunny Pagliocca
(Pagliocca) filed the charge in Case 28-CA-23059 alleging that DTG Operations d/b/a Dollar
Rent A Car and Thrifty Car Rental (Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. Section 151 et seq., herein called the Act). On
June 15, 2010 Ruben V. Lara III (Lara) filed the charge in case 28-CA-23069 alleging that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. On July 19, 2010, Kristina Hayden filed
the charge in Case 28-CA-23107 alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act. On July 20, 2010, the Regional Director for Region 28 of the National Labor Relations
Board issued a consolidated complaint and notice of hearing against Respondent alleging that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Respondent filed a timely answer to the
complaint denying all wrongdoing.
The parties have been afforded full opportunity to appear, to introduce relevant
evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to file briefs. Upon the entire record,
JD(SF)–55–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses1 and having considered the post-hearing
briefs of the parties, I make the following:
Findings of Fact
l. JURISDICTION
Respondent, an Oklahoma corporation with an office and place of business in Las
Vegas, Nevada, has been engaged in the business of retail and nonretail leasing of
automobiles. During the twelve months ending June 8, 2010, Respondent received gross
revenues in excess of $500,000. During the same period of time, Respondent purchased and
received goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of
Nevada. Respondent admits and I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2)(6) and (7) of the Act.
Respondent admits and I find that Iron Workers Shopmen’s Local 509, affiliated with the
International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental Reinforcing Iron Workers, herein
called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
ll. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Issues
The consolidated complaint alleges that Respondent unlawfully discharged employees
Pagliocca, Lara, and Hayden in order to discourage union membership and activities in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act and unlawfully interrogated employees, unlawfully
prohibited employees from discussing union activities, threatened employees with discharge
and other reprisals for discussing union activities. Respondent avers that Pagliocca, Lara and
Hayden were discharged for violations of company rules and not for any reasons prohibited
under the Act.
B. Background
Respondent operates vehicle rental facilities nationwide and has its headquarters in
Tulsa, Oklahoma. Respondent is comprised of both Dollar Rent A Car (Dollar) and Thrifty Car
Rental (Thrifty). In Las Vegas, each brand has its own rental contract at McCarran Airport but
only Dollar also has rental facilities at the Swenson Street location and at ten hotel locations.
Respondent employs approximately 160 individuals at its Las Vegas facilities.
Pagliocca, Lara and Hayden were rental sales agents (RSAs). RSAs are paid an hourly wage
plus commission on the vehicles they rent. Important to this case is the fact that RSAs receive
commission on the incremental products they convince their customers to purchase. At the end
of each month, the amount of incremental products purchased by the RSA’s customers is
totaled and each incremental product is counted for each day the customer rented the vehicle.

1 The credibility resolutions herein have been derived from a review of the entire testimonial
record and exhibits, with due regard for the logic of probability, the demeanor of the witnesses,
and the teachings of NLRB v. Walton Manufacturing Company, 369 U.S. 404, 408 (1962). As to
those witnesses testifying in contradiction to the findings herein, their testimony has been
discredited, either as having been in conflict with credited documentary or testimonial evidence
or because it was in and of itself incredible and unworthy of belief.
JD(SF)–55–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
That amount is then divided by the total number of days for which the RSA rented vehicles and
results in the RSA’s yield. If the RSA’s yield meets the month’s sales target they are paid their
yield. If an RSA does not sell any incremental products, the RSA’s yield would be zero and he
or she would not receive a commission that month. RSAs must maintain a certain yield to
maintain their employment.
In this case, Respondent contends that Pagliocca was discharged because she refused
to rent to a customer so as to manipulate her yield. Respondent contends that Lara and
Hayden were discharged because of customer complaints that they pushed too hard to sell
incremental products.
Pagliocca worked for Respondent for 10 ½ years. Respondent admitted that Pagliocca
had no trouble maintaining her yields. Just three months prior to her discharge, Pagliocca
earned a prize from Respondent for her sales. Pagliocca worked at Respondent’s Swenson
street location where customer traffic was low.
In early November 2009, Pagliocca was invited to a Union meeting. She attended
several Union meetings and spoke with other employees about the Union. She spoke to
employees about the Union in the presence of Connie Hardy, operations manager.
On November 30, 2009, Pagliocca reported to work at 8:00 a.m. She testified that she
received a memo stating that there would be no “walk ups” that day.2 Respondent contends
that no such memorandum issued. It contends that this was the Monday after Thanksgiving and
that many cars were available. Its records show that many cars were available. Further, other
RSAs rented to walk ups that day and Pagliocca herself rented to a walk up that day.3
About 8:30 a.m. on November 30, Jill Syler, local marketing manager, called Pagliocca
and asked if she could send a customer to Swenson street to pick up a car. Pagliocca informed
Syler that she had no cars available at that time but might have a car available later that date.
Syler referred the customer to Respondent’s airport location.
Later that day, Syler learned that cars had been available as early as 7:00 a.m. that day.
Syler then spoke with Clayton Hopkins, general manager, to complain about being told that
there were no cars available when cars were in fact available. Hopkins had previously told
Syler he believed RSAs were not cooperating with Syler because her customers did not
purchase incremental products and because Syler’s customers had negotiated rates lower than
offered to others. Hopkins told Syler that he would look into the matter of November 30.
Hopkins contacted Misty Guillermo, city operations manager, and asked Guillermo to
investigate why Pagliocca failed to complete the rental for Syler. Hopkins knew that many cars
were available the Monday after Thanksgiving. Hopkins also discovered that Pagliocca had
failed to rent a vehicle to a guest with a reservation on November 30.
On December 3 Guillermo requested approval from Respondent’s corporate office to
discharge Pagliocca. On December 5, operations managers Mark Pfeifer and Daniel Silva
spoke with Pagliocca about the failure to provide a vehicle for Syler’s customer. Paglioca said

2 A “walk up” is a customer that does not have a reservation. On occasion, Respondent’s
dispatchers issue memoranda indicating that in order to meet reservations, cars are not to be
rented to walk-ups, people without reservations.
3 The walk-up customer that Pagliocca did rent to purchased an incremental product.
JD(SF)–55–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
that she did not remember the incident with Syler. On December 7, Jeremy Blair, senior
operations manager sent Hopkins an e-mail stating that Pagliocca had falsely told a customer
that there was no reservation in her name on November 30.
On December 10, the termination of Pagliocca’s employment was approved by
Respondent’s corporate office for “manipulating the rental process for personal gain” and
“Neglect of duties and poor work performance.”
On December 12, Pagliocca was called into the office and informed by Frances Paulson,
operations manager, that she was suspended for two days and would receive a call from Misty
Guillermo, city operations manager. On December 14, Pagliocca called Guillermo and was
directed to come into the office at noon. When Pagliocca went to the office that day, she met
with Hopkins and Guillermo. Hopkins informed Pagliocca that she was being terminated.
Hopkins stated that he did not know why Pagliocca did not rent the car to Syler’s customer
when cars were available. Pagliocca asked if they were through and Guillermo said they were.
Guillermo left and as Pagliocca was leaving, Hopkins asked her if she had heard any rumors
about the Union. Pagliocca answered that she didn’t know what he was talking about and
Hopkins apologized.
Respondent’s discipline policy generally has three categories: offenses that normally
require progressive discipline; attendance issues; and offenses warranting immediate
termination. Some examples of offenses that result in immediate termination are failure to
follow rental procedures, theft, fraud, and sharing passwords. Offenses that require progressive
discipline are matters such as poor job performance and failure to do paperwork properly. The
normal steps of progressive discipline are verbal counseling, followed by written warnings,
suspension, followed by termination.
Respondent’s rental procedures specifically prohibit RSAs form manipulating rental
procedures to meet their sales goals, described as “Finding a way to decline a multi-day
customer who is not purchasing optional products” and “passing on walk-up customers you pre-
qualify who do not wish to purchase additional options.’ Respondent’s rental procedures state
that violating one or more of these procedures will result in termination. Respondent produced
evidence that two other employees were terminated in 2009 for failing to rent to local customers
or VIP customers.
Lara began working for Respondent in 2004. He transferred to Las Vegas in 2006.
In 2007 Lara was promoted to lead RSA but after a year and a half to two years as lead RSA,
Lara decided to return to being an RSA rather than change to nights, which he would have had
to do to remain a lead RSA.
Lara testified that it was very important to sell upgrades and additional coverage (the
incremental products) as the commissions on these products constituted most of the RSA’s
compensation. Further emphasizing the importance of an RSA selling as much as possible was
the fact that an RSA could be disciplined for not meeting the minimum sales requirement.
During his employment, Lara received positive evaluations, while at the same time
receiving several written warnings. Lara knew that he could be disciplined for violating
Respondent’s rental policy, and he knew that the most frequent customer complaint related to
aggressiveness of RSAs in selling extra products.
In early 2010, Lara learned that there was Union activity at the Swenson street location.
After the Union filed a petition in February, Lara attended two Union meetings, passed out
JD(SF)–55–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
Union flyers and spoke to other employees about the Union. Lara spoke up at two company
held meetings about the Union. Hopkins was present when Lara suggested that employees
hear the Union’s side. Hopkins was also present when Lara stated that while Hopkins had an
open door, everything stopped there. Lara further stated that the Union might not be a bad
idea.
In early March, at about 10:30 a.m., Lara was in the breakroom speaking with two
employees about the Union, when Frances Paulson, operations manager, entered the room.
Paulson told the employees that they should not be talking about the Union. Lara continued on
his break but stopped talking about the Union.
Throughout his employment with Respondent, Lara received written warnings and even
suspensions for using aggressive tactics in selling products to customers. On
September 16, 2009, Jeremy Blair, senior operations manager, issued Lara a “Second Written
Notice” for using a threatening tone with a customer. On September 23, 2009, Blair issued a
“Suspension Notice” to Lara for poor customer performance. This suspension was due to two
customer complaints. On March 22, 2010, another customer complained about Lara’s use of
high pressure tactics. According to Respondent, Lara’s actions constituted the final step in the
progressive discipline chain.
On April 1, 2010, Guillermo requested approval of Lara’s discharge from Respondent’s
corporate offices. On April 2, Guillermo and Pfeifer spoke with Lara about the customer
complaint. Lara admitted to pushing coverage on all of his customers. Lara stated that he did
not remember this particular customer but denied that he was smug or condescending. Lara
further stated that since his suspension, he had been “walking on pins and needles because he
knew that one mess up could cost him his job.”
On April 4, Lara met with Hopkins. Lara asked to have a witness with him as instructed
by the Union. Hopkins denied Lara’s request for a witness. On April 9, Respondent’s corporate
offices approved Lara’s termination. In 2008 and 2009, Respondent had terminated two other
employees after customers had complained about their sales tactics.
Hayden began working for Respondent in October 2006 as a RSA. Before 2010 Hayden
had received warnings for policy violations. In April 2009, Hayden was suspended because she
had informed a customer that optional insurance was not optional. Hayden’s discharge was
approved but that discharge was revoked because another employee had committed the same
offense and not been discharged. Instead, Hayden was given a suspension and a final warning.
From the date of her suspension in 2009, Hayden received numerous customer complaints
regarding her sales technique. On November 15, 2009, Hayden was issued a Training
Communication by Constance Char, operations manager, for misrepresenting Respondent’s
pre-paid fuel policy.
In early March 2010, Hayden attended a company held meeting regarding unions. She
later attended Union meetings and handed out Union pamphlets to other employees. At the end
of March, Hayden was in the breakroom with service agent Paul Bradley when Constance Char,
operations manager, came into the room. Char told the two employees that they could be
terminated for speaking about the Union. The employees ended their discussion.
On March 27, one of Respondent’s customers complained about Hayden’s use of scare
tactics. On March 30, pursuant to the complaint submitted on March 27, Hopkins sought
Respondent’s clearance to discharge Hayden. On April 1, Hayden met with operations
manager Laura Sottile, and Guillermo. Guillermo said that a customer had complained that
JD(SF)–55–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
Hayden had used scare tactics in attempting to sell products. Hayden said she expected to be
called into the office because of the anti-Union meetings. She also told the managers that she
had an incident with Char but did not describe the incident. Guillermo said she would look into
the matter.
On April 2, employee relations manager Randy Betancourt gave his recommendation
that Hayden be discharged for “Failure to Follow Rental procedures” and for “Poor Work
Performance.”
On or about April 5, Hayden went out on Family Medical Leave approved by
Respondent. On April 14, Hopkins called Hayden at home and informed her that Respondent
had terminated her employment.
C. Analysis and Conclusions
1. The Alleged Interrogation
To determine whether questioning about Union activities violates the Act, the Board asks
“whether under all the circumstances the interrogation reasonably tends to restrain, coerce, or
interfere with rights guaranteed by the Act.” Sunnyvale Medical Clinic, 277 NLRB 1217(1985).
Factors considered by the Board include the background of the relationship, the nature of the
information sought, the identity of the questioner, and the place and method of the interrogation.
Here, Hopkins, Respondent’s general manager questioned Pagliocca about the Union in
his office after she had just been terminated. Based on the facts that Hopkins was
Respondent’s highest official in Las Vegas, that the questioning took place in his office, and at
the conclusion of Pagliocca’s termination, I find that questioning reasonably tended to restrain
and coerce Pagliocca in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. The Prohibition of Union Discussions
Section 8(a)(1) proscribes, among other things, employer interference with employees
rights to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment with others. See Beth Israel
Hosp. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483 (1978) (The right of employees to self-organize and bargain
collectively established by Section 7 of the NLRA, 20 U.S.C. Section 157, necessarily
encompasses the right effectively to communicate with one another regarding self organization
at the jobsite.”) A rule which purports to ban union activity during working hours is presumed
invalid because it is overly broad and tends to connote periods from the beginning of the
workday to the end of the work day, including the employees own time. Our Way, Inc.,268
NLRB 394, 394-395 (1983).
In this case Lara was on break with two other employees when Paulson entered the
room and declared that the employees should not be discussing the Union. Accordingly, I find
that by this action, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Further, Hayden was discussing the Union while on break when Char entered the room
and stated that the employees could be discharged for talking about the Union. Accordingly,
I find that by this action Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
JD(SF)–55–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
D. The Discharges
In cases involving dual motivation, the Board employs the test set forth in Wright Line, A
Division of Wright Line, Inc., 251 NLRB 1083, 1089 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981),
cert. denied, 455 U.S. 989 (1982), approved in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462
U.S. 393, 399-403 (1983). Initially, the General Counsel must establish by a preponderance of
the credible evidence that anti-union sentiment was a “motivating factor” for the discipline or
discharge. This means that General Counsel must prove that the employee was engaged in
protected activity, that the employer knew the employee was engaged in protected activity, and
that the protected activity was a motivating reason for the employer’s action. Wright Line, supra,
251 NLRB at 1090. Unlawful motivation may be found based upon direct evidence of employer
animus toward the protected activity. Robert Orr/Sysco Food Services, 343 NLRB No. 123, slip
op. at 2 (2004). Alternatively, proof of discriminatory motivation may be based on circumstantial
evidence, as described in Robert Orr/Sysco Food Services, supra:
To support an inference of unlawful motivation, the Board looks to such factors as
inconsistencies between the proffered reasons for the discipline and other actions of the
employer, disparate treatment of certain employees compared to other employees with
similar work records or offenses, deviations from past practice, and proximity in time of
the discipline to the union activity. Embassy Vacation Resorts, 340 NLRB No. 94, slip
op. at 3 (2003).
If the General Counsel has satisfied the initial burden, the burden of persuasion shifts to
Respondent to show by a preponderance of the credible evidence that it would have taken the
same action even in the absence of the employee’s protected activity. Peter Vitalie Co., 310
NLRB 865, 871 (1993). If Respondent advances reasons which are found to be false, an
inference that the true motive is an unlawful one may be warranted. Shattuck Denn Mining
Corp. v. NLRB, 362 F.2d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 1966); Limestone Apparel Corp., 255 NLRB 722
(1981), enfd. 705 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1982). However, Respondent’s defense does not fail simply
because not all the evidence supports its defense or because some evidence tends to refute it.
Merrilat Industries, 307 NLRB 1301, 1303 (1992). Ultimately, the General Counsel retains the
burden of proving discrimination. Wright Line, supra, 251 NLRB at 1088, n. 11.
The Discharge of Pagliocca
The General Counsel has established both Pagliocca’s union activities and the
knowledge or constructive knowledge of those activities by Respondent. There is no doubt that
Respondent suspected that Pagliocca failed to rent a car to Syler’s customer when cars were
available. The issue as to Pagliocca is whether or not the conduct was the reason for the
discharge rather than her protected union activities. It is therefore the termination process that
must be examined.
First, I find that the actions of Syler were based on a good-faith belief that Pagliocca had
failed to rent to her customer when cars were available. For legitimate reasons, Syler reported
her concerns to Hopkins. Second, I find that Hopkins had a good-faith belief that Pagliocca had
cars available and that she had refused to rent the car in order to manipulate her yield. Thus,
I find his referral of this matter to Guillermo was for legitimate business reasons.
I further find that the investigation that took place was consistent with Respondent’s
business practices and was not evidence of disparate treatment of Pagliocca. Nor do I find
evidence that the actions taken against her were because of her union activities or to
discourage the union activities of others.
JD(SF)–55–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
Respondent has demonstrated that the rule against manipulating the rental process for
personal gain is enforced strictly and consistently. Considering the context, I find that the
General Counsel has not been able to demonstrate by a preponderance of the credible
evidence that the discharge recommendations involving Pagliocca were based on anti-union
sentiment. Given this finding, it follows that the General Counsel has failed to prove that
Pagliocca was fired for union activities as alleged in the complaint.
The Discharge of Ruben Lara
My analysis of the discharge of Lara applies the same analytical framework used to
consider the discharge of Pagliocca. I find the General Counsel has established his union
activities and that his union activities were known to Respondent’s supervision and
management.
Lara’s circumstances involved Respondent’s actions in several steps. Lara was given a
“Second Written Notice” on September 16, 2009 for using a threatening tone with a customer.
Then on September 23, 2009, Lara was issued a suspension based on two customer
complaints. On March 22, 2010, Respondent received another customer complaint concerning
Lara’s sales tactics. Under Respondent’s progressive discipline system, Lara was subject to
termination.
On April 2, when Guillermo and Pfeifer spoke to Lara about the customer complaint,
Lara admitting knowing that “one mess up could cost him his job.” Considering the events up to
and including the final customer complaint, I find there is no evidence that anti-union or
protected conduct informed the process. I therefore find that the General Counsel failed to
establish consistent with the analytical framework set forth supra, that Lara was discharged in
violation of the Act.
Given this finding, it follows that the General Counsel has failed to prove that Lara was
fired for union activities as alleged in the complaint.
The Discharge of Hayden
The General Counsel has established Hayden’s union activities and Respondent’s
knowledge of those activities. The same analytical approach as undertaken in resolving the
earlier allegations applies here.
On April 13, 2009, Hayden was issued a “Suspension and Final Written Notice” for using
improper verbiage with a customer. Hayden’s discharge had been changed to a “Suspension
and Final Written Notice.” Thereafter, on November 15, 2009, Hayden was not discharged but
instead given a “Training Communication” for misrepresenting Respondent’s pre-paid fuel
policy. On March 27, 2010, Respondent received a complaint that Hayden had used scare
tactics.
The General Counsel takes the position that Hayden received numerous complaints and
that Respondent only discharged her after she engaged in Union activities. Considering the
testimony of the witnesses and their demeanor as well as the arguments of the parties and the
record as a whole, I reject the General Counsel’s argument. Rather, I find in agreement with
Respondent, that under Respondent’s progressive discipline system Hayden was subject to
termination after using scare tactics in violation of Respondent’s rental procedures.
JD(SF)–55–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
It follows that the General Counsel has failed to prove that Hayden was discharged
because of her union activities as alleged in the complaint. Therefore I shall dismiss those
complaint paragraphs that apply to Hayden.
E. Summary and Conclusion
The complaint alleges three wrongful discharges in violation of Section 8(a)(1), and (3) of
the Act. I have found in each instance the General Counsel has not sustained the allegation.
I have further determined the relevant allegations of the complaint shall be dismissed.
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating an employee about
union activities.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by telling employees not to discuss the
Union and by threatening employees with discharge for discussing the Union.
5. Respondent did not otherwise violate the Act as alleged in the complaint.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended4
ORDER
Respondent, DTG Operations, Inc. d/b/a Dollar Rent A Car and Thrifty Car Rental, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Telling employees that they could not discuss unions.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge if they engage in conversations about
unions.

4 All motions inconsistent with this recommended order are hereby denied. In the event no
exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD(SF)–55–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
(c) Interrogating employees about union activities.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities in Las Vegas,
Nevada, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 28, after being signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or
closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by
the Respondent at any time since December 2009. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an
internet site, or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its
employees by such means.
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 27, 2010
_____________________
Jay R. Pollack
Administrative Law Judge

5 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in
the notice reading “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD”
shall read “POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.”
JD(SF)–55–10
Las Vegas, Nevada
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had a chance to give evidence, the National Labor Relations
Board has found that we violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice
The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees the following rights:
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT threaten you with discharge for engaging in conversations about unions.
WE WILL NOT tell you that you cannot discuss unions at work.
WE WILL NOT interrogate you about union activities.
DTG Operations, Inc. d/b/a Dollar Rent A Car and
Thrifty Car Rental
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
2600 North Central Avenue, Suite 1800
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-3099
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
602-640-2160.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 602-640-2146.