Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 19, 1986

281 N.L.R.B. 528 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. and Local Lodge 724,
International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 4-RC-14839
19 September 1986
ORDER DENYING MOTION
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
On 24 June 1986 the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Certification of Repre-
sentative in this case , overruling the Employer's
objections to an election held 22 October 1981
among full-time and regular part-time shuttlers em-
ployed at its 6615 Norwitch Drive, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania facility.'
Thereafter, on 22 July 1986, the Employer filed
a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reopening of
the Record.
The Board, having duly considered the matter,
denies the motion as lacking in merit.2
1 280 NLRB 580 (1986) (Member Babson and former Member Dennis,
Chairman Dotson dissenting in part). Member Johansen did not partici-
pate in the Board 's decision.
2 We agree with our dissenting colleague that the delay in issuing the
Board's decision here was unfortunate . We do not believe , however, that
such delay reflects on the Board 's substantive expertise
CHAIRMAN DOTSON , dissenting in part and concur-
ring in part.
For the reasons set forth in my partial dissent to
the original Decision and Certification of Repre-
sentative , I would grant the Employer 's Motion for
Reconsideration.
I take no position on the Employer 's current
claim of "inordinate delay" since the 22 October
1981 election. I note, however, that there were pe-
riods during the 4-year pendency of this case
before the Board-dating from 14 June 1982-
when the presence of an odd number of sitting
Board members arguably presented an excellent
opportunity for issuance of a decision . From May
to late August 1983 , there were five Board mem-
bers; from December 1984 to July 1985 , there were
three.
Regardless of the final outcome reached, or of
my disagreement with that outcome, the failure to
grasp an early opportunity to issue a decision in
this factually uncomplicated case involving no
novel legal issues does not speak well of the
Board's internal casehandling processes ' or of the
"expertise" to which we regularly ask the Federal
judiciary to defer. Our delay can only have injured
the parties and employees involved and frustrated
the purposes of the Act.
i My comments are directed to purely institutional concerns
281 NLRB No. 87