Avis Budget Group

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Mar 23, 2015

07-CA-133881 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 23, 2015)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AVIS BUDGET GROUP
and Case 07-CA-133881
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 283
ORDER1
The petition of Avis Budget Group to revoke subpoena duces tecum B-1-K5ZKE7
is denied. The subpoena seeks information relevant to the matters under investigation
and describes with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, as required by Section
11(1) of the Act and Section 102.31(b) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.2 Further,
the Petitioners have failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the
subpoenas.3 See generally NLRB v. North Bay Plumbing, Inc., 102 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir.

1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a
three-member panel.
2 With respect to the Employer’s contention that the issue of single employer status is
not relevant in this proceeding, we note that the General Counsel is vested under Sec.
3(d) of the Act with exclusive prosecutorial authority and, as such, controls the theory of
the case and the scope of the investigation. See NLRB v. Fant Milling Co., 360 U.S.
301, 308 (1959) (“Once its jurisdiction is invoked the Board must be left free to make full
inquiry under its broad investigatory power in order properly to discharge the duty of
protecting public rights which Congress has imposed upon it.”) (Internal citation
omitted); BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles, 361 NLRB No. 75, slip op.
at 5 n.11 (2014) (MHS) (“Deciding what steps to take before issuing complaint, including
how to investigate the charge . . .” is within the General Counsel’s unreviewable
prosecutorial discretion).
3 The Region has indicated in its opposition brief that it is willing to modify subpoena
paragraph 1 to request documents which (1) list the names and titles of all directors and
officers of the Employer from January 1, 2013, through the present, including the dates
of tenure in their positions, and (2) all documents showing the titles of all supervisors
and managers of the Employer who (a) work or have worked at 287 Lucas Dr.,
Romulus, MI, or (b) have had job responsibilities related to the employees working at
that location from January 1, 2013, through the present, including the dates of tenure of
their positions. The Region has also indicated that it is willing to modify subpoena
2
1996); NLRB v. Carolina Food Processors, Inc., 81 F.3d 507 (4th Cir. 1996).
Dated, Washington, D.C., March 23, 2015.
KENT Y. HIROZAWA, MEMBER
HARRY I. JOHNSON, III, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER

paragraph 16 to request only documents executed by newly hired non-supervisory
employees. In considering the petition to revoke, we have evaluated the subpoena as
modified in this manner.
With respect to subpoena paragraph 18, the Employer is directed to provide the
Region with the business addresses of the named regional managers.
To the extent that the Employer has already provided the Region with documents
encompassed by this subpoena, it is not again required to provide them, provided that
the Employer accurately describes which documents under subpoena it has already
provided, states whether those previously-supplied documents constitute all of the
requested documents, and provides all of the information that was subpoenaed.