Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jan 27, 2017

27-CA-173054 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 27, 2017)

JD(SF)-02–17
Denver, Colorado
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH
DOLLAR THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP,
and Case 27–CA–173054
COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA
LOCAL NO. 7777
Todd D. Saveland, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Debra Medina, for the Charging Party.
Mathew T. Miklave, Esq., for Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
AMITA BAMAN TRACY, Administrative Law Judge. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group
(Respondent, DTG, the Company, or the Employer) maintains many rules and policies by which
its employees are bound. Respondent expects its employees to be familiar with and abide by
these numerous rules and policies, many of which cross-reference other policies. Scattered
throughout these rules and policies are a few caveats specifically excluding protected concerted
activity as potentially violative of these rules and policies. Despite these few carve-out
exceptions, these rules and policies alleged unlawful by the General Counsel are overbroad and
violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The complaint and amended complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by unlawfully maintaining 18 rules in its
Employee Handbook and Employee On-Boarding Documents as well as other employment
materials. This case was tried in Denver, Colorado, on August 30, 2016. Communication
Workers of America Local No. 7777 (Union or Charging Party) filed the charge on April 1,
2016, and the General Counsel issued the complaint on June 30, 2016, which was amended twice
at the hearing. Respondent filed a timely answer.
JD(SF)-02–17
2
On the entire record,1 including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses,2 and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent,3 I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
5
I. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, a corporation with offices and places of business
throughout the United States including one located at Denver International Airport in Denver,
Colorado, is engaged in the business of renting cars and light-duty vehicles under the trade 10
names Dollar-Rent-A-Car, Thrifty Car Rental, and Firefly Car Rental, where it annually derived
gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchased and received at its Denver facility goods
valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points outside of the State of Colorado.4 Respondent
admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.15
Based on the above, I find that these allegations affect commerce and that the Board has
jurisdiction of this case, pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES20
A. Background
Respondent maintains countless employee rules and policies employees are responsible
for knowing of and abiding by; these rules and policies may be found on Respondent’s intranet 25
(Tr. 95). When employees are hired, they are given several on-boarding documents to review.
Respondent requires new employees to be familiar with these on-boarding documents but does
not alert employees when the policies or rules within these documents or other applicable rules
and policies are updated on its intranet (Tr. 96).
30
Respondent also conducts a variety of background checks on its employees. However,
employees do not have access to employees’ educational and criminal background check results
or drug test results (Tr. 53–54). These results are stored in databases named “Sterling” and

1 The transcripts in this case are generally accurate, but I make the following corrections to the
record: Transcript (Tr.) 6, Line (L.) 4: “Communications” should be “Communication”; Tr. 7, L. 9: “the”
appears in error; Tr. 7, L. 16; Tr. 11, L. 23; Tr. 52, L. 17; Tr. 57, L. 19: “they’re” should be “their”.
2 Both the General Counsel and Respondent presented witness testimony providing context and
background information regarding the rules. Although I have included citations to the record to highlight
particular testimony or exhibits, my findings and conclusions are not based solely on those specific record
citations, but rather on my review and consideration of the entire record for this case. I further note that
my findings of fact encompass the credible testimony and evidence presented at trial, as well as logical
inferences drawn therefrom.
3 Other abbreviations used in this decision are as follows: “GC Ex.” for General Counsel’s exhibit; “R
Ex.” for Respondent’s exhibit; “GC Br.” for the General Counsel’s brief; and “R. Br.” for the
Respondent’s brief.
4 Hertz Corporation acquired Respondent some years prior. Thus, some of the titles of the rules at
issue reference Hertz Corporation rather than Respondent.
JD(SF)-02–17
3
“eScreens,” respectively (Tr. 53–54). Employees also do not have access to other employees’
electronic personnel files, medical records, and other sensitive information such as allegations of
harassment (Tr. 56–57, 62–66).
Since February 5, 2016, the Union has represented a unit of employees at Respondent. 5
Prior to bargaining their first contract, the Union on February 17, 2016, requested information
from Respondent (GC Exh. 3). In response, shortly thereafter, the Union received employee
information, the employee handbook, a set of policies, and information on benefits and
healthcare, including the onboarding documents of employee Tesfaye Workneh (Workneh) who
signed these forms on October 11, 2015 (Tr. 16; GC Exh. 4, 7). In addition, in connection with a 10
disciplinary matter concerning employee Brandon Lawson (Lawson), in March 2016, the Union
received additional employee rules, regulations and policies, which had been signed by Lawson
on November 1, 2014 (GC Exh. 6). Respondent disciplined Lawson on March 10, 2016 for
violating at least one rule or policy he signed on November 1, 2014 (Tr. 26–28).
15
B. Contentions of the Parties
The General Counsel alleges that Respondent maintains 18 rules which are overbroad and
unlawful thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The General Counsel explains that he does
not contend that the rules were promulgated in response to protected concerted or union activity 20
but that they are facially unlawful or employees would reasonably construe the language to
prohibit Section 7 activity (GC Br. at 6–7). Furthermore, the General Counsel also argues that
all the rules were maintained during the 6-month period prior to the filing of the charge in this
matter (GC Br. 4, 8–9).
25
Respondent argues that the Board should re-examine the current legal standard as this
standard requires employers to ignore their obligations under federal and state statutes and
provides no meaningful guidance to employers on how to craft lawful rules under the Act (R. Br.
at 1–2, 24–29).5 In this context, Respondent alleges that the General Counsel has cherry-picked
certain rules as violations of the Act while other rules which are similar are not alleged as 30
violations (R. Br. at 25–26). Respondent also argues that some of the rules were not maintained
within 6 months of the filing of the charge (R. Br. 23–24). I address each complaint allegation
and affirmative defense below but begin with the principle that any changes to Board precedent
may only come from the Board or the Supreme Court. I am bound by current Board law, and my
analysis will proceed as such. Furthermore, Respondent argues that its employees are 35
responsible for reviewing all its policies and procedures (R. Br. at 14).

5 Respondent requested at the hearing that I take judicial notice of various state and federal laws
concerning data and privacy, as well as anti-bullying, intimidation, and disrespect in the workplace (Tr.
105–111). The General Counsel objected to this request as the documents are not relevant to these
proceedings. These documents were admitted into the record as Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Ex.
1(a), 1(b), and 2. As stated at the hearing, I am bound by Board law and do not find these documents
relevant to this proceeding. However, as these documents are reasonably relevant to Respondent’s
affirmative defense, I overrule the General Counsel’s objections and admit these documents as ALJ Ex.
1(a), 1(b), and 2.
JD(SF)-02–17
4
III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Procedural Issue
Respondent’s Section 10(b) Affirmative Defense5
In its brief, Respondent argues that the General Counsel failed to prove that the rules
cited in GC Exh. 6 which references complaint paragraphs 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 3(f), 3(g), 3(h),
3(i), and 3(j) were maintained during the Section 10(b) period (R. Br. at 23–24; see GC Exh. 6).
However, in its answer, Respondent admitted that complaint paragraphs 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 3(f), 10
3(g), and 3(h) were maintained since about November 1, 2014. Thus, only paragraphs 3(a), 3(i),
and 3(j) remain in dispute as to whether these rules were maintained during the Section 10(b)
period.6 Respondent explains that the General Counsel failed to prove that these rules were
maintained during the Section 10(b) period despite Respondent providing these rules to the
Union in March 2016, upon its request for Lawson’s personnel file. Respondent claims that 15
these were “historical” rules, and that instead it maintained lawful no-solicitation, no-distribution
rules during the Section 10(b) period (R. Br. at 1; see GC Ex. 7).
The General Counsel argues that Respondent maintained these rules within the Section
10(b) period as Respondent admitted that complaint paragraphs 3(a), 3(i), and 3(j) were issued 20
prior to October 2013, and that the documents indicate that Lawson signed the rules, contained in
his on-boarding document, on November 1, 2014 (GC Br. at 8–9; see GC Ex. 6 and 8).
Furthermore, these rules were found in Lawson’s personnel folder and Respondent disciplined
him in March 2016, for violating at least one of these same rules (see Tr. 27–28).
25
Section 10(b) of the Act provides that “no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair
labor practice occurring more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board.” 29
U.S.C. Section 160. “Section 10(b) functions in part as a statute of limitations by prohibiting the
issuance of a complaint based on conduct occurring more than 6 months prior to the filing of a
charge.” Carney Hospital, 350 NLRB 627, 628 (2007). In this instance, the complaint was filed 30
and served on Respondent on April 1, 2016; thus, the Section 10(b) period ran from October 1,
2015 to April 1, 2016. In March 2016, Respondent provided the rules described in complaint
paragraph 3(a), 3(i), and 3(j) to the Union in response to its request for the personnel file of
Lawson. Respondent disciplined Lawson for allegedly violating at least one of these rules found
in his personnel file. Thus, Respondent maintained these rules described in complaint 35
paragraphs 3(a), 3(i), and 3(j) during the 6-month period prior to the filing of the charge, dated
April 1, 2016. Control Services, Inc., 305 NLRB 435 fn. 2, 442 (1991), citing Alamo Cement
Co., 277 NLRB 1031, 1036–1037 (1985). Respondent claims that it maintained a lawful no-
solicitation, no-distribution policy during the Section 10(b) period, which the General Counsel

6 Section 10(b) is an affirmative defense, which if not timely raised in the answer or at the hearing is
waived. EF International Language Schools, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 20, slip op. at 1 fn. 2 (2015).
Respondent failed to assert in its answer or during the hearing that the rules described in complaint
paragraphs 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 3(f), 3(g), and 3(h) did not fall within the Section 10(b) period thereby
waiving its right to assert such an affirmative defense in its posthearing brief. However, even assuming
that Respondent timely raised this affirmative defense with regard to these rules, I find that these rules
were maintained during the Section 10(b) period as they were included in Lawson’s personnel file which
was provided to the Union after Lawson was terminated for violating at least one of these rules.
JD(SF)-02–17
5
did not allege as violations of the Act. While Respondent’s claim may be true, Respondent also
failed to prove that it did not also maintain the rules claimed to be violations of the Act
(complaint paragraphs 3(a), 3(i), and 3(j)) during the Section 10(b) period.
The Legal Standard5
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer “to interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 [of the
Act].” Section 7 provides that “employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join
or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own 10
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such
activities.” Specifically, Section 7 protects employees’ right to discuss, debate, and
communicate with each other regarding workplace terms and conditions of employment.
15
Board law establishes that an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act if it maintains
workplace rules that would reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights. Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646, 646 (2004), citing Lafayette Park
Hotel, 326 NLRB 824, 825 (1998), enfd. 203 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Valley Health System
LLC d/b/a Spring Valley Hospital Medical Center, 363 NLRB No. 178 (2016); T-Mobile USA, 20
Inc., 363 NLRB No. 171 (2016). Mere maintenance of a rule which inhibits Section 7 activity is
an unfair labor practice. Lutheran Heritage Village, supra at 646. The analytical framework for
determining whether maintenance of rules violate the Act is set forth in Lutheran Heritage
Village-Livonia. Under that test, a work rule is unlawful if “the rule explicitly restricts activities
protected by Section 7.” 343 NLRB at 646 (emphasis in original). If the work rule does not 25
explicitly restrict protected activities, it nonetheless will violate Section 8(a)(1) if “(1) employees
would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was
promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise
of Section 7 rights.” Id. at 647.
30
Here, the General Counsel maintains that the rules in question are facially discriminatory
or overbroad such that employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7
activity. In determining whether a rule is overbroad, the Board has held that it “must give the
rule a reasonable reading,” and “refrain from reading particular phrases in isolation, and […]
must not presume improper interference with employee rights.” Id. at 646. An ambiguous rule, 35
however, can chill employees’ Section 7 protected activities by creating “a cautious approach” to
those activities because of fears of employer retaliation. Whole Foods Market, Inc., 363 NLRB
No. 87, slip op. at 3 fn. 11 (2015). Therefore, all rules are examined to determine whether an
employee would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activities, and
ambiguous rules are construed against the drafter of the rule. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 363 NLRB 40
No. 171, slip op. at 13 (2016); Lily Transportation Corp., 362 NLRB No. 54 (2015); Flex Frac
Logistics, LLC, 358 NLRB 1131, 1132 (2012), remanded on other grounds, 360 NLRB 1004
(2014), enfd. 746 F.3d 205 (5th Cir. 2014). The test for Section 8(a)(1) violations is not
subjective but rather objective, asking whether the rules would have a reasonable tendency to
interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. See 45
generally Multi-Ad Services, Inc., 331 NLRB 1226, 1227–1228 (2000), enfd. 255 F.3d 363 (7th
JD(SF)-02–17
6
Cir. 2001); Whole Foods Market, supra, slip op. at 2, citing Triple Play Sports Bar, 361 NLRB
No. 31, slip op. at 7 (2014), enfd. 629 Fed.Appx. 33 (2nd Cir. 2015).
A. Employee Handbook Rules
5
The General Counsel alleges that since at least October 1, 2015, Respondent maintained
the following unlawful rules in its Employee Handbook:
2003 DTG Employee Handbook: Introduction—At-Will Employment and Your
Handbook10
[…]
The policies, practices and benefits set forth in this Handbook are subject to
applicable laws and regulations and may be applied differently in some states in 15
order to comply with such laws. The policies and provisions in this Handbook
supersede all prior employee handbooks. To the extent there is any conflict
between a policy of the Company and any material set forth in this Handbook,
including any policy summary, the policy of the Company posted at www.dtgnet
will control and prevail. It is each employee’s responsibility to ensure that he or 20
she is fully informed as to a policy and any changes to it by reviewing it at
www.dtgnet or checking with Human Resources. (GC Exh. 4, page 6).
Amended Complaint Paragraph 3(q): “Electronic Communication Policy”
25
Certain employees of DTG are granted the privilege of accessing e-mail, voice
mail and Internet via the Company’s computers. When it becomes necessary to
utilize e-mail, voice mail or Internet via the Company’s computers for occasional
and infrequent non-business, good judgment must be exercised. Any
inappropriate or prohibited Internet, voice mail or e-mail access or use may result 30
in discipline up to and including termination from employment.
DTG is dedicated to providing a work environment that is free from unlawful
harassment. Any Internet access to content or materials which are of an offensive
nature, including pornographic or obscene materials and materials that otherwise 35
may reasonably be considered inappropriate, will be considered willful
misconduct and will result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.
Transmitting materials which are defamatory, discriminatory, threatening,
profane, slanderous, libelous, harassing or otherwise offensive through the 40
Company’s email or voice mail systems is also prohibited and will be cause for
discipline, up to and including termination from employment. Materials covered
by this restriction including documents, messages, jokes, images, cartoons,
programs and software. All e-mail messages and attachments, and voice mail
messages whether business or personal in nature, are the property of the 45
Company. Employees should expect that anything in an electronic file is always
available for and subject to review by the Company.
JD(SF)-02–17
7
(GC Exh. 4, page 27).
[…]
5
Regarding Respondent’s electronic communication policy, described at complaint
paragraph 3(q), the rule is overbroad. The rule prohibits “inappropriate or prohibited” use of the
internet and email, as well as transmitting information to anyone that is “defamatory” and
“otherwise offensive. These terms are not defined by Respondent, and the policy fails to provide
any examples to clarify for employees what is to be considered inappropriate, defamatory or 10
otherwise offensive. As such, employees would reasonably consider their Section 7 protected
activity to be prohibited acts. For example, employees would reasonably fear that criticizing
their employer to a third party or to one another would lead to discipline as the criticism may be
viewed by the employer as inappropriate, defamatory or offensive. Board law clearly supports
the premise that laws which flatly prohibit defamatory, offensive or inappropriate conduct 15
toward the employer will not lose the Act’s protection. See Casino San Pablo, 361 NLRB No.
148, slip op. at 3–4 (2014) (false or defamatory criticism will not lose the Act’s protection unless
the rule prohibits maliciously false statements); First Transit, Inc., 360 NLRB 619, 621 (2014)
(finding a rule prohibiting “inappropriate attitude or behavior…to other employees” unlawful
due to its “patent ambiguity”); Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, Local 114, 383 20
U.S. 53, 61 (1966) (statement would be defamatory if made with knowledge of falsity or reckless
disregard for its truthfulness). Accordingly, I find that Respondent’s rule described at complaint
paragraph 3(q) is overbroad and therefore unlawful in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Amended Complaint Paragraph 3(p): “Non-Disclosure and Confidentiality”25
In your job, you may have access to or be exposed to information regarding the
Company. Each employee is prohibited from disclosing, directly or indirectly, to
any unauthorized person (including other employees), business or other entity, or
using, for the employee’s own purposes, any confidential information. The 30
protection of confidential business information and trade secrets is vital to the
interests and the success of DTG. Such confidential information includes, but is
not limited to, the following examples:
 Compensation data;35
(GC Exh. 4, page 28).
[…]
40
Amended Complaint Paragraph 3(o): “Pay Policies”
Formal pay policies have been developed for all pay actions within the Company.
Questions regarding these policies should be forwarded to your supervisor or
Human Resources.45
JD(SF)-02–17
8
DTG strives to pay salaries and wages competitive with those in our community
and industry. We consider your pay a confidential matter and encourage you to
do the same. For more information on DTG’s compensation program, please
contact Human Resources.”
5
(GC Exh. 4, page 47).
The rules described at complaint paragraphs 3(o) and 3(p) are facially unlawful. These
rules clearly prohibit employees from revealing compensation data, or wages, to anyone else
including colleagues. Thus, employees may not discuss their wages with one another or with an 10
outside party, including union representatives. Respondent’s rule regarding the discussion of pay
(complaint paragraph 3(o)) appears to be optional, but when read with the rule at complaint
paragraph 3(p), employees would reasonably understand that Respondent does not permit them
to discuss their wages with anyone. The Board has consistently held that rules which prohibit
employees from discussing wages or other terms and conditions of employment are unlawful. 15
See Hyundai America Shipping Agency, Inc., 357 NLRB 860, 871 (2011) (finding rule unlawful
that prohibited “[a]ny unauthorized disclosure from an employee’s personnel file”); IRIS U.S.A.,
Inc., 336 NLRB 1013, 1013 fn. 1, 1015, 1018 (2001) (finding rule unlawful that stated that all
information about “employees is strictly confidential” and defined “personnel records” as
confidential). Thus, Respondent’s rules, described at complaint paragraphs 3(o) and 3(p), are 20
unlawful and violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Amended Complaint Paragraph 3(r): “Media Relations”
Employee participation in public and community activities is encouraged. 25
However, Corporate Communications and Investor Relations have established
excellent relations with the news media on a local, national and international
basis. Because the image we portray to this critical audience is very important to
our Company, Corporate Communications and Investor Relations must approve
any interviews, speeches or articles requested by the media with respect to the 30
Company and its business to assure that the views expressed are accurate,
consistent and reflect well in the marketplace. If a member of the news media
contacts you for information, always refer them to a member of Corporate
Communications or Investor Relations.
35
(GC Exh. 4, page 42).
As for the rule described at complaint paragraph 3(r), Respondent’s media relations rule,
this rule is also overbroad. Employees would reasonably construe the phrase “with respect to the
Company and its business” to encompass employment concerns and labor relations. The rule40
contains no limiting language or example to clarify for employees that the rule only applies to
those employees who speak in an official capacity for Respondent. Moreover, the rule requires
employees to seek Respondent’s permission to speak to news media. It is well established that
employee communications with the news media regarding labor issues are protected under the
Act. DirecTV U.S. DirecTV Holdings, LLC, 362 NLRB No. 48 (2015); Trump Marina Hotel 45
Casino, 354 NLRB 1027, 1029 (2009), 355 NLRB 585 (2010) (three-member Board), enfd. 435
Fed. Appx. 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Moreover, the Board recently affirmed an administrative law
JD(SF)-02–17
9
judge’s conclusion that the employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by requiring employees
to obtain its prior approval before responding to media inquiries. Burndy, LLC, 364 NLRB No.
77 (2016). Accordingly, Respondent’s rule, described at complaint paragraph 3(r) is overbroad,
and violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5
B. Rules Signed and Maintained in Lawson’s Personnel File: Employee Rules and
Regulations; Hertz Information Security Statement and Confidentiality Agreement for
Hertz Employees; Employee Internet Acceptable Use Policy (IUAP) and Access
Disclosure Statement; Media Requests for Company Information7
10
The General Counsel alleges that since about November 1, 2014, Respondent has
maintained the following rules which are unlawful. These rules, under the headings of Employee
Rules and Regulations; Hertz Information Security Statement and Confidentiality Agreement for
Hertz Employees; Employee Internet Acceptable Use Policy (IUAP) and Access Disclosure
Statement; Media Requests for Company Information were provided to the Union after its 15
information request and in response to its request for information regarding the discipline of
Lawson:
Employee Rules and Regulations: The Company has established rules of
conduct for the protection of its employees, its property and to ensure the most 20
efficient and harmonious operation. The Company does not waive the right to
discharge or discipline for other offenses not specified herein. This is not
intended to be a complete list of rules, regulations, policies, and procedures, but
merely an illustration of the type of infractions which could lead to disciplinary
action. The following are breaches of good conduct (substandard performance) 25
which can subject an employee to progressive discipline including verbal and/or
written warning, suspension, or discharge.
[…]
30
Complaint Paragraph 3(a): Solicitation-Rule #4
4. Soliciting, direct/indirect sale of any item, distributing and collecting any
papers, materials or contributions on company premises or posting literature or
other materials without Management authorization.35
(GC Exh. 6, page 3).
[…]
40
Rules prohibiting solicitation during worktime are presumably lawful as “[…] that term
denotes periods when employees are performing actual job duties, periods which do not include
the employee’s own time such as lunch and break periods.” Our Way, 268 NLRB 394, 394–395
(1983). However, rules which prohibit “solicitation or distribution in the workplace at any time,

7 The rules found at complaint paragraphs 3(f) and 3(g) were also contained in the onboarding
documents signed by Workneh.
JD(SF)-02–17
10
for any purpose, is overbroad.” Casino San Pablo, 361 NLRB No. 148, slip op. at 5 (2014).
Furthermore, rules which fail to limit the distribution of literature to nonwork times and nonwork
areas are invalid. Our Way, supra. Rules requiring employees to obtain permission from the
employer to solicit or distribute literature are also unlawful. Enterprise Products Co., 265
NLRB 544, 554 (1982), citing Peyton Packing Co., 49 NLRB 828 (1943); Stoddard-Quirk Mfg. 5
Co., 138 NLRB 615 (1962).
Applying the above principles, I find rule #4 described in complaint paragraph 3(a) to be
unlawful for several reasons. Respondent’s rule imposes a precondition on employees to obtain
its permission before any solicitation or distribution may occur which is unlawful under Board 10
law. As for solicitation, Respondent’s rule makes no distinction between work and nonwork
time. Furthermore, with regard to distribution of literature, Respondent’s rule fails to make a
distinction between work and nonwork time as well as define “on company premises.” Thus,
rule #4 described at complaint paragraph 3(a) is clearly overbroad and violates Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.15
Complaint Paragraph 3(b): Action to Disrupt Harmony-Rule #9
9. Action on the part of any individual or group of employees to disrupt harmony,
intimidate fellow employees, or to interfere with normal and efficient operations.20
(GC Exh. 6, page 4).
[…]
25
Respondent’s rule #9 described in complaint paragraph 3(b) is unlawful as it is phrased
broadly and lacks clarity. In Williams Beaumont Hospital, 363 NLRB No. 162, slip op. at 1–2
(2016), the Board found unlawful a rule that prohibits conduct by employees that “impedes
harmonious interactions and relationships.” Citing its decision in 2 Sisters Food Group, 357
NLRB 1816, 1817 (2011), where the Board found unlawful an employer rule subjecting 30
employees to discipline for an “inability or unwillingness to work harmoniously with other
employees,” the Board found the similar rule in Williams Beaumont Hospital to be “sufficiently
imprecise that it could encompass any disagreement or conflict among employees, including
those related to discussions and interactions protected by Section 7, and that employees would
reasonably construe the rule to prohibit such activity.” Id. Here, Respondent’s rule is analogous 35
to the rules found unlawfully overbroad in Williams Beaumont Hospital and 2 Sisters Food
Group. Furthermore, Respondent fails to define what action can and cannot disrupt harmony in
the workplace. Therefore, Respondent’s rule #9 described at complaint paragraph 3(b) is
unlawfully overbroad and violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
40
Complaint Paragraph 3(c): Leading or Participating-Rule #26
26. Leading or participating in any activity that would interfere with the
Employer's operation including, but not limited to, any unlawful strike.
45
(GC Exh. 6, page 5).
JD(SF)-02–17
11
In Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, the Board, adopting the administrative law judge’s
reasoning, determined that a provision which prohibited employees from “engaging in unlawful
strikes, work stoppages, slowdowns, or other interference with production […]” was unlawful as
the rule could reasonably be read to include Section 7 activity. Lutheran Heritage Village-
Livonia, supra at 655. The administrative law judge reasoned that the rule’s reference to 5
“unlawful strikes, work stoppages, and slowdowns protected legitimate business interests,” the
rule’s subsequent reference to production at any of the employer’s facilities was overbroad as it
could chill employees’ exercise of protected activity. Id; see also Purple Communications, Inc.,
361 NLRB No. 43 (2014) (holding that employer’s no-disruption rule, “[c]ausing, creating or
participating in a disruption of any kind during working hours on Company property,” is 10
unlawful as it is overbroad). Similarly, Respondent’s rule #26 described at complaint paragraph
3(c) is overbroad as it could reasonably include Section 7 activity such as protesting working
conditions during a work gathering. The language in this rule is overbroad as it could be
interpreted to include the right to engage in a work stoppage as the term “interfere” is not
defined, or explain that it is not intended to refer to Section 7 activity. Thus, Respondent’s rule 15
#26 as described in complaint paragraph 3(c) is overly broad and violates Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
Complaint Paragraph 3(d): Personally Identifiable Data
20
Hertz Information and Security Statement and Confidentiality Agreement
for Hertz Employees: “Hertz Confidential Information” means each of the
following types of information: (i) information that is labeled, or that other
Company policies and procedures specifically classify as “secret,” “confidential,”
or “proprietary,” including, but not limited to, marketing data, financial results 25
and operating data; (ii) information that the Company is legally or contractually
required to keep confidential, including without limitation, information that is
subject to confidentiality agreements or protective orders; (iii) personally
identifiable data (“PID”) recorded in any form about identified or identifiable
individuals, including, but not limited to, prospective, current, or former 30
employees, customers, vendors, business partners, or any other natural persons in
connection with the rental business or car sales business of Hertz, or acquired by
Hertz as part of its claims management activities or any other business which
Hertz, any Hertz employee, consultant, contractor, Licensee, agent, and other
party obtains in the course of Hertz business; and (iv) information that could have 35
a competitive impact on the Company or its organizational, technical, or financial
position or which could cause damage to the Company or its prospective, current,
or former customers, employees, or reputation if disclosed either internally or
outside the Company.
40
(GC Exh. 6, page 8).
This rule, described at complaint paragraph 3(d), continues by informing employees that
they are responsible for the protection of Respondent’s confidential information along with any
other requirements outlined in the employment contract and employee handbooks. In the 45
employee handbook, the definition of confidential information includes compensation data (GC
Exh. 4, p. 28). The rule concludes by requiring the employee to agree not to divulge any
JD(SF)-02–17
12
confidential information to anyone including current employees. Respondent’s employees are
required to sign this rule annually.
An examination of a number of Board decisions leads to the conclusion that
Respondent’s rule, described at complaint paragraph 3(d) is unlawful. In Flex Frac Logistics, 5
LLC, 358 NLRB 1131, 1131 (2012), the Board reiterated its holding that confidentiality
provisions similar to Respondent’s above-rule are unlawfully overbroad as employees would
reasonably believe that they are precluded from discussing wages and other working conditions
with nonemployees such as union representatives. See IRIS U.S.A., Inc., 336 NLRB 1013, 1013
fn. 1, 1015, 1018 (2001) (finding unlawful rule stating that all information about “employees is 10
strictly confidential” and defined “personnel records” as confidential). Also, prohibiting
employees from sharing information with nonemployees infringes on employees’ Section 7
rights to discuss terms and conditions of their employment with others. See, e.g., Triple Play
Sports Bar & Grille, 361 NLRB No. 31, slip op. at 7; Bigg’s Foods, 347 NLRB 425, 425 fn. 4
(2006).15
Respondent’s rule, described at complaint paragraph 3(d), precludes employees from
disclosing any information that is deemed “confidential,” “secret,” or “proprietary.” As the
General Counsel argues, this information reasonably includes employee compensation data,
which is noted as “confidential” by Respondent in the employee handbook (GC Exh. 4, p. 38; 20
GC Br. at 14). Here, Respondent’s rule precludes employees from discussing wages which is
unlawful. Cf. Waco, Inc., 273 NLRB 746, 748 (1984) (absent a legitimate and substantial
justification, rules prohibiting employees from discussing their wages are unlawful).
Respondent’s rule, described at complaint paragraph 3(d), also precludes sharing 25
personally identifiable information and information which may damage the reputation of
Respondent with anyone including current employees. This information reasonably includes
“key personnel data,” defined as confidential material in the employee handbook. Taken
together, although not defined by Respondent, the rule is reasonably read as prohibiting the
sharing of employee names, addresses and phone numbers as personally identifiable information 30
which hinder employees’ exercise of their Section 7 rights as they could not share this
information with one another or union representatives. See Quicken Loans, Inc., 361 NLRB No.
94 (2014), affirming as modified, 359 NLRB 1201, 1207 (2013); see also Hills & Dales General
Hospital, 360 NLRB 611, 611 (2014).
35
Furthermore, the rule, described at complaint paragraph 3(d), precludes employees from
sharing information that could cause “damage” to Respondent or its employees or “reputation” if
disclosed within or outside Respondent. Under this rule, Respondent disallows employees’ right
to complain about their working conditions to one another or to an outside entity as that criticism
may damage to Respondent and its reputation. Under Section 7, employees may complain about 40
their employer lawfully, with limits. Quicken Loans, supra, slip op. at 8.
In sum, Respondent’s rule, described at complaint paragraph 3(d), is overbroad in that
employees would reasonably interpret this rule to preclude Section 7 activity. Applying Board
precedent, Respondent’s rule, described at complaint paragraph 3(d), is unlawful and violates 45
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
JD(SF)-02–17
13
Employee Internet Acceptable Use Policy (IUAP) and Access Disclosure
Statement: Employees of the Hertz Corporation (the “Company” and its
subsidiaries, vendors, business partners, consultants, contractors, licensees, agents
and any other natural person, who are given Internet/SMTP access privileges will
be asked to review and sign the following statement before access is granted.85
[…]
THE DISCOVERY OF INAPPROPRIATE USE OR UNAUTHORIZED
ACTIVITY MAY RESULT IN DISCONNECTION FROM THE INTERNET 10
AND OR OTHER POSSIBLE DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
I acknowledge the following unacceptable practices may be subject to disciplinary
action, including but not limited to written warnings or revocation of access
privileges.915
Complaint Paragraph 3(f): Internet Websites
Visiting Internet sites which contain obscene, sexually explicit, hateful or
otherwise objectionable materials; sending or receiving, via the internet or e-mail, 20
any material that is obscene, sexually explicit or defamatory, or which is intended
to annoy, offend, harass or intimidate another person or language including
disparagement of others based on their race, national origin, sex, sexual
orientation, age, disability, religious or political belief.
25
(GC Exh. 6, page 17; GC Exh. 7, page 11).
[…]
Respondent’s rule regarding internet websites and described at complaint paragraph 3(f) 30
is unlawful as it is overbroad. The rule contains broad, sweeping bans on sending or receiving
via the internet or emails any material which is “defamatory,” “intended to annoy, offend”
“another person” or disparaging others for their political beliefs. In the context of this rule, an
employee would reasonably read the rule to encompass concerted communication such as
complaining about working conditions. The rule does not specifically exclude Section 7 35
communication. Furthermore, Section 7 protects communication about employees’ political
beliefs which can include union organizing. Again, the rule provides no clarifying examples so
to be clear to employees that Section 7 communications are permitted. See Southern Maryland
Hospital, 293 NLRB 1209, 1222 (1989), enfd. in relevant part 916 F.2d 932, 940 (4th Cir. 1990);
Claremont Resort & Spa, 344 NLRB 832 (2005); Beverly Health & Rehabilitation Services, 332 40

8 Respondent’s electronic communication policy, in its employee handbook, provides some
employees the right to use email (GC Ex. 4, page 27). In addition, Respondent’s electronic
communication policy permits employees, who have the right to use email, occasional and infrequent
nonbusiness use provided employees exercise good judgment.
9 In Workneh’s information security statement, this section states, “22. By way of example but not
limitation, I acknowledge the following to be unacceptable practices:” (GC Exh. 7, page 11).
JD(SF)-02–17
14
NLRB 347, 348 (2000), enfd. 297 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2002).10 Thus, Respondent’s maintenance
of the rule regarding internet websites, described at complaint paragraph 3(f), is unlawful as
employees may reasonably believe that Section 7 activity is encompassed in the rule, and as
such, violates Section 8(a)(1).
5
Complaint Paragraph 3(g): Soliciting Emails
Soliciting emails that are unrelated to business activities, or soliciting non-
company business for personal gain or profit.
10
(GC Exh. 6, page 18; GC Exh. 7, page 11).
[…]
In Purple Communications, 361 NLRB No. 126, slip op. at 14 (2014), the Board 15
explained the right of employees to use an employer’s email system. The Board explained,
“[W]e will presume that employees who have rightful access to their employer’s system in the
course of their work have a right to use the email system to engage in Section 7-protected
communications on nonworking time. An employer may rebut the presumption by
demonstrating that special circumstances necessary to maintain production or discipline justify 20
restricting its employees’ rights.” Id.
Applying the principles of Purple Communications to Respondent’s rule regarding
soliciting emails, described at complaint paragraph 3(g), leads me to conclude that this rule is
unlawful. Also in Purple Communications, the Board held that email communications should 25
not be treated as only solicitation or distribution but rather as a form of communication which
may constitute solicitation, information distribution, or simply communications which may be
protected activity. 361 NLRB No. 16, slip op. at 13. Respondent’s rule is reasonably read by
employees to disallow employees to communicate Section 7 activity such as union organizing
with fellow employees at any time, even during nonwork time. I find that Respondent’s rule is 30
sufficiently vague to leave a reasonable employee uncertain as to whether they are permitted to
use Respondent’s email system to engage in protected concerted activities during nonwork time.
Furthermore, Respondent failed to provide any justification for special circumstances to maintain
its rule to restrict employees’ rights which the Board noted in Purple Communications will be a
“rare case.” Id. Thus, Respondent’s rule described in complaint paragraph 3(g) is unlawful and 35
violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
40

10 The General Counsel cited Costco Wholesale Corp., 358 NLRB 1100, 1101–1102 (2012) (rule
prohibiting any electronic communications which defame any person or damage any person’s reputation
is unlawful as it encompasses protected communication and fails to provide any clarifying examples) (GC
Br. at 17). This decision was subsequently invalidated by the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Noel
Canning, a Division of the Noel Corp., 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014), and has no precedential value. However, I
do find its analysis persuasive, and cite to the Board decisions referenced within.
JD(SF)-02–17
15
Complaint Paragraph 3(h): Other Inappropriate Uses of Internet/Intranet
Other inappropriate uses of Internet/Intranet or network resources that may be
identified by the network administrator.
(GC Exh. 6, page 18).5
[…]
Likewise, the rule alleged in complaint paragraph 3(h) is unlawful, insofar as Respondent
failed to define the term, “inappropriate.” In the context of this portion of Respondent’s internet 10
use policy, an employee reasonably would not know whether Section 7 activity is permitted
when using the internet/intranet during nonwork time. Furthermore, Respondent failed to
provide any context or examples to indicate that the rule does not encompass protected concerted
activity. Thus, Respondent’s rule regarding inappropriate use of internet/intranet, described at
complaint paragraph 3(h), is unlawful and violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.15
Complaint Paragraph 3(i): Solicitation of an Employee by Another Employee
Solicitation of an employee by another employee is prohibited while either the
person doing the soliciting or the one being solicited is on his or her working 20
time. Furthermore, the distribution of any material of any kind shall not be
permitted in the workplace.
(GC Exh. 6, page 18–19).
25
Regarding the prohibition of distribution of any kind, the rule refers to using the internet
or email to distribute material. Distribution is considered handing out material. Stoddard-Quick
Mfg., supra at 617–618. This portion of the rule is also overly broad as Respondent may not
prohibit the distribution of material during nonwork time in nonwork areas. Trus Joist
MacMillan, 354 NLRB 367, 372 (2004) (rule prohibiting distribution of literature in all working 30
areas and all areas of the employer was unlawful). Respondent’s rule provides no exceptions to
this rule. I also note that in Purple Communications the Board explained that employees have a
right under Section 7 to communicate with one another regarding union organizing or other
protected activity at work. 361 NLRB No. 126, slip op. at 11. Email is a form of
communication, and email communication is not simply solicitation but rather a form of 35
communication including solicitation and distribution of material or information. Purple
Communications, supra, slip op. at 13; see also UPMC, 362 NLRB No. 191, slip op. at 4–5
(2015). Applying this analysis to the solicitation rule, described at complaint paragraph 3(i), I
find Respondent’s rule overbroad in that it prohibits employees from communicating via email
or internet while either employee is on worktime. It is unreasonable for an employee to know 40
when the employee to whom he or she is communicating is in nonwork status, and for the
receiving employee to know whether the contents of the communication permit him or her to
open the message. Thus, Respondent’s rule described in complaint paragraph 3(i) is unlawful
and violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
45
JD(SF)-02–17
16
Complaint Paragraph 3(j): Media Rule
Media Requests for Company Information: It is the policy of the Hertz
Corporation, and all of its global subsidiaries, to cooperate with the media and to
assist them by providing information about Company activities and subjects 5
related to company business. However, employees are not authorized to speak to
or otherwise engage with the media and the following guidelines must be adhered
to:
 When the media contacts the company, the employee must explain that 10
he/she wishes to be cooperative but is not authorized to disclose
information. The employee must either contact Public Affairs and explain
the request, or direct the media representative to contact the Public Affairs
directly. Local management should also be notified.
15
[…]
 No further conversation of any kind or media interview should occur
without prior knowledge and guidance of the Public Affairs Department.
20
[…]
Public Statements and Published Articles
 Public Statements refer to speeches, news releases, press conferences, 25
interviews, postings on public web sites/message boards and news media
inquiry responses concerning any aspect of Company's operations,
business or policies. All Employees must adhere to the following policy:
 Only Public Affairs may release or authorize the release of information to 30
the media. All inquiries from the media must be referred to Public Affairs.
Whether the media contacts Company or Company wishes to publicize its
activities, all news releases must be authorized, in advance, by Public
Affairs.
35
 Under no circumstances may a Company employee approach the media to
generate publicity about Company without the prior approval of Public
Affairs. This includes news articles written by an employee where the
employee's association with Company is disclosed or may be ascertained
from the article. 40
 When an employee receives approval to prepare an article for outside
publication and if his/her affiliation with Company is disclosed or can be
ascertainable or the subject relates to Company or its fields of interest, the
article must be reviewed and approved by Public Affairs prior to 45
submission.
JD(SF)-02–17
17
 All threats by current or former employees, their families and customers or
other third parties to involve the media in any matter pertaining to
Company should be communicated to Public Affairs and local
management, with complete details about the surrounding circumstances.
5
(GC Exh. 6, page 25–26, in relevant part).
Respondent argues that the General Counsel intentionally excluded language from the
rule which provides context to the rule thereby making it lawful. The rule also states, “Film
crews on company property without permission should be directed to Public affairs. If an 10
employee is caught off guard by a film crew, they should respond with “I am not authorized to
speak on Company’s behalf, our corporate headquarters handles all media inquiries. I would be
happy to refer you to our Public Affairs Department” (GC Exh. 6, page 25–26). Also as a note
under “public statements and published articles,” the rule states, “Third parties (vendors,
business partners, etc.) are not permitted to speak on Company’s behalf nor are they permitted to 15
issue press statements involving Company without Public Affairs’ prior approval and
involvement.” Respondent asserts that the rule only applies when the employee speaks to the
media on behalf of Respondent rather than as an individual (R. Br. at 21).
Despite the additional context, the rule described at complaint paragraph 3(j) is 20
overbroad. Like the employee handbook rule alleged at complaint paragraph 3(r), Respondent’s
rule at complaint paragraph 3(j) creates a blanket prohibition against all contact with the media
which is unlawful. Burndy, supra. In addition, this rule specifically prohibits a wide array of
media contact including speeches, news articles, and postings on public websites, which would
reasonably be understood by employees to forbid any contact with the media, including 25
employee speech on his or her own behalf, which is unlawful. Trump Marina Associates, supra.
Although Respondent claims that the prohibition on media contact applies only when an
employee seeks to speak to the media on behalf of Respondent rather than him or herself, this
distinction is not explained satisfactorily in the rule, which states only that it applies when the
media seeks “information about Company activities and subjects related to company business.” 30
It is reasonable for an employee to conclude that the ban on speaking to the media would include
voicing his or her own protected Section 7 views on matters such as working conditions.
Furthermore, the rule requires employees to obtain permission from Respondent to speak to the
media, in violation of the Board’s prohibition against such “preapproval” requirements. See
DirecTV, supra. Thus, the rule described at complaint paragraph 3(j) is unlawful and violates 35
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
C. Rules Signed and Maintained in Workneh’s Personnel File: Company Information
Security Statement and Confidentiality Agreement for Company Employees
40
The General Counsel alleges that since about November 1, 2014, Respondent has
maintained the following rules which are unlawful. These rules, under the headings of Company
Information Security Statement and Confidentiality Agreement for Company Employees, were
provided to the Union after its information request in March 2016. Respondent defines
confidential information to include personally identifiable data on employees as well as 45
compensation data and personnel data.
JD(SF)-02–17
18
Company Information Security Statement and Confidentiality Agreement
for Company Employees: “Company Confidential Information” means each of
the following types of information: (i) information that is labeled, or that other
Company policies and procedures specifically classify as “secret”, “confidential”,
or “proprietary” including, but not limited to, marketing data, financial results and 5
operating data; (ii) information that the Company is legally or contractually
required to keep confidential, including without limitation, information that is
subject to confidentiality agreements or protective orders; (iii) personally
identifiable data (“PID”) recorded in any form about identified or identifiable
individuals, including, but not limited to, prospective, current, or former 10
employees, customers, vendors, business partners, or any other natural persons in
connection with the rental business or car sales business of Company, or acquired
by the Company as part of its claims management activities or any other business
which the Company, any Company employee, consultant, contractor, Licensee,
agent, and other party obtains in the course of Company business; and (iv) 15
information that could have a competitive impact on the Company or its
organizational, technical, or financial position or which could cause damage to the
Company or its prospective, current, or former customers, employees, or
reputation if disclosed either internally or outside the Company. For avoidance of
doubt, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, it shall not be a 20
violation of this Agreement for employees to discuss or communicate with others
regarding matters related to their wages, house, and other terms and conditions of
employment, provided they do not divulge private or confidential information that
they accessed or obtained solely by virtue of the duties they perform for the
Company.25
(GC Exh. 7, page 8).
[…]
30
Complaint Paragraph 3(k): Divulging Information-Rule #3
3. I will not divulge Company Confidential Information to anyone, including
without limitation Company employees, customers, contracted temporary workers
or service providers, unless he or she requires the information to perform his or 35
her services for the Company or as part of his or her contractual relationship with
the Company. Communications of a sensitive or confidential nature (e.g.,
Company Confidential Information) or of any "Company Information" (as
defined in Company Procedure W1-113, Acquisition and Disclosure of Company
Information) should not be sent unless first reviewed and approved as required in 40
Company Procedure W1-113, Acquisition and Disclosure of Company
Information, and encrypted when necessary.
(GC Exh. 7, page 9).
45
[…]
JD(SF)-02–17
19
Complaint Paragraph 3(l): Specific Authorization-Rule #4
4. Unless I have specific authorization, I will not attempt to gain access to
Company Confidential Information, Company facilities or Company computing
resources and I understand that such access is expressly prohibited5
(GC Exh. 7, page 9).
[…]
10
Respondent’s rules #3 and #4, described in complaint paragraph 3(k) and 3(l), are
overbroad for reasons similar to those I have found with respect to other of Respondent’s rules so
found herein. These rules preclude employees from discussing company confidential
information with anyone. Again, in its employee handbook, Respondent defines “confidential”
information to include compensation data, or employee wages. Thus, the rule prohibits 15
employees from learning about and discussing wages with one another and with third-parties,
including union representatives. The Board has consistently held that provisions similar to
Respondent’s above-rule are unlawfully overbroad as employees would reasonably believe that
they are precluded from discussing wages and other working conditions with nonemployees such
as union representatives. See Flex Frac Logistics; IRIS U.S.A., Inc., 336 NLRB 1013, 1013 fn. 20
1, 1015, 1018 (2001) (finding rule unlawful that stated all information about “employees is
strictly confidential” and defined “personnel records” as confidential). Thus, rules #3 and #4,
described at complaint paragraph 3(k) and 3(l), are unlawful and violate Section 8(a)(1).
Complaint Paragraph 3(m): Intentionally Seeking Information-Rule #725
7. I will respect the privacy of other individuals. Except as required in the
performance of the responsibilities of my position for the Company, I will not
intentionally seek information on, obtain copies of, or modify files, other data, or
passwords belonging to other individuals. I will not intentionally represent 30
myself as another individual unless explicitly authorized to do so by that
individual.
(GC Exh. 7, page 9).
35
[…]
Rule #7, described at complaint paragraph 3(m), prohibits employees from seeking
information or data on other individuals. Read in conjunction with the confidentiality
introduction, this rule reasonably would be read by employees to include information on co-40
workers’ wage data. Furthermore, the term “individual” is defined in this introduction as
including former, current and prospective employees. Thus, employees would reasonably be
hindered from seeking information on other employees such as wage data, which violates their
Section 7 rights to discuss working conditions. A precursor to discussing working conditions,
such as wages, is an ability to learn of such information. As rule #7, described at complaint 45
paragraph 3(m), limits employees’ Section 7 rights, I find that it violates Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
JD(SF)-02–17
20
By way of example but not limitation, I acknowledge the following to be
unacceptable practices:
Complaint Paragraph 3(n): Other Inappropriate Use5
Other inappropriate uses of computing resources.
(GC Exh. 7, page 11).
10
With regard to the rule described at complaint paragraph 3(n), like the rule described at
complaint paragraph 3(h), this rule is also vague and overbroad. The rule gives a blanket
prohibition on “other inappropriate uses of computing resources.” Insofar as any ambiguity in a
rule is read against the drafter of the rule, and employees should not have to decide at their peril
whether an activity is prohibited by a rule, such a broad prohibition is unlawfully overbroad. See 15
Lafayette Park Hotel, supra at 828; Flex Frac Logistics, supra at 1132. Thus, the rule described
at complaint paragraph 3(n) violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Complaint Paragraph 3(e): Obligation to Protect Confidential Information-Rule
#2320
23. I understand my obligation to protect Company Confidential Information and
will comply with all of the Company policies and procedures regarding the
handling of Company Confidential Information. In particular, if I become aware
of any unauthorized access to or use of Company Confidential Information or any 25
violations of Company information security policies and procedures, I will
immediately notify the Help Desk, my immediate supervisor, or the Computer
Emergency Response Team (CERT) […].
(GC Exh. 7, pages 11–12).30
With regard to the rule #23, described at complaint paragraph 3(e), Respondent’s
requirement that employees report unauthorized access to or use of confidential information,
when read along with Respondent’s definition of confidential information to include
compensation data, is overly broad and unlawful. The Board has routinely found unlawful rules 35
prohibiting disclosure of confidential information without any exemption of protected activity
under Section 7. Moreover, as Respondent’s rule clearly defines confidential information to
include compensation data, this rule explicitly restricts employees’ Section 7 rights. See Flex
Frac Logistics, supra at 1132. By requiring employees to report if another employee engages in
protected concerted activity, this rule creates a chilling effect on employees’ Section 7 right to 40
communicate employment related complaints to third parties. Because the rule is unlawful, the
requirement to immediately notify a supervisor or specialist is unlawful. See UPMC, 362 NLRB
No. 191, slip op. at 5 (2015). In sum, the rule described at complaint paragraph 3(e) is unlawful
and violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
45
JD(SF)-02–17
21
D. Respondent’s Defenses Lack Merit
As its general defense, Respondent contends that it may preclude employees from using
information regarding others they obtained in the course of employment (R. Br. at 22).
Respondent argues that its employees have access to “highly confidential and potentially harmful 5
information about coworkers” which employees should not be able to use for their own purposes
(R. Br. at 22–23). Respondent failed to show “special circumstances.” Republic Aviation,
Corp., 324 U.S. 793, 797-798 (1945) (holding that employees’ right to communicate in the
workplace is not unlimited, and employee access to the workplace for the purpose of self-
organization must on occasion give way to employers’ need to maintain productivity and 10
discipline). Respondent’s broad defense fails to ameliorate the unlawful rules it has maintained.
As a defense to the above rules described at complaint paragraphs 3(e), 3(k), 3(l), 3(m),
and 3(n), Respondent argues that its information security statement and confidentiality
agreement explicitly permits protected concerted activity.11 As for Respondent’s exception for 15
protected concerted activity, I find that this “savings clause” does not adequately clarify to
employees that protected activity is permitted. The Board has routinely found insufficient
language claiming to exempt employees’ Section 7 rights from restrictions on their conduct.
Solarcity Corporation, 363 NLRB No. 83, slip op. at 6 (2015). These decisions rely upon the
premise that “absent language more clearly informing employees about the precise nature of the 20
rights supposedly preserved, the rule remains vague and likely to leave employees unwilling to
risk violating the rule by exercising Section 7 rights,” as employees lack the expertise to legally
analyze their employers’ rules and policies. Id. (citing McDonnell Douglas, 240 NLRB 794, 802
(1979); Chrysler Corporation, 227 NLRB 1256, 1259 (1977)); Ingram Book Co., 315 NLRB
515, 516 fn. 2 (1994). Here, Respondent’s exception is internally consistent. Although the first 25
clause of the exception purports to allow employees to discuss or communicate with others about
working conditions including wages and hours, the second clause of the exception warns
employees that they may not divulge private or confidential information that they have learned
solely due to their work at Respondent. As repeated throughout this decision, Respondent’s
employee handbook defines confidential information as compensation data and “key personnel 30
data” (GC Exh. 4, page 28). Furthermore, it is by working at Respondent that employees learn
of this information that is actually protected concerted activity but also defined by Respondent,
confusingly, as “private or confidential.” As the judge stated in Solarcity Corporation, supra,
employees placed under such circumstances would require “specialized legal knowledge” and
would therefore likely refrain from exercising their Section 7 rights. Thus, Respondent’s 35
defenses fail.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 40
2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

11 Respondent also claims that this exemption applies to complaint paragraph 3(d), 3(f), and 3(g), but
this exemption language is not found in the documents containing these rules.
JD(SF)-02–17
22
3. Respondent maintained the following rules and policies that are facially unlawful or
overly broad, which could be understood to prohibit employees from engaging in activities
protected under Section 7 of the Act, and therefore, violate Section 8(a)(1):
a. In the 2003 DTG Employee Handbook, the electronic communication policy which states, in 5
part: “Any Internet access to content or materials which are of an offensive nature, including
pornographic or obscene materials and materials that otherwise may reasonably be considered
inappropriate […] Transmitting materials which are defamatory, discriminatory, threatening,
profane, slanderous, libelous, harassing or otherwise offensive.”
10
b. In the 2003 DTG Employee Handbook, the nondisclosure and confidentiality policy which
states, in part: “Each employee is prohibited from disclosing, directly or indirectly, to any
unauthorized person (including other employees), business or other entity, or using, for the
employee’s own purposes, any confidential information […] Such confidential information
includes, but is not limited to, the following examples: compensation data.”15
c. In the 2003 DTG Employee Handbook, the pay policies rule which states, in part: “We
encourage your pay a confidential matter and encourage you to do the same.”
d. In the 2003 DTG Employee Handbook, the media relations policy which states, in part: “[…] 20
Because the image we portray to this critical audience is very important to our Company,
Corporate Communications and Investor Relations must approve any interviews, speeches or
articles requested by the media with respect to the Company and its business to assure that the
views expressed are accurate, consistent and reflect well in the marketplace.”
25
e. In Lawson’s personnel file, employee rules and regulations, the solicitation rule which states:
“Soliciting, direct/indirect sale of any item, distributing and collecting any papers, materials or
contributions on company premises or posting literature or other materials without Management
authorization.”
30
f. In Lawson’s personnel file, employee rules and regulations, the action to disrupt harmony rule
which states: “Action on the part of any individual or group of employees to disrupt harmony,
intimidate fellow employees, or to interfere with normal and efficient operations.”
g. In Lawson’s personnel file, employee rules and regulations, the leading or participating rule 35
which states: “Leading or participating in any activity that would interfere with the Employer's
operation including, but not limited to, any unlawful strike.”
h. In Lawson’s personnel file, Respondent’s information and security statement and
confidentiality agreement, the personally identifiable data rule which states, in part: “ ‘Hertz 40
Confidential Information’ means each of the following types of information: (i) information that
is labeled, or that other Company policies and procedures specifically classify as “secret,”
“confidential,” or “proprietary,” including, but not limited to, marketing data, financial results
and operating data; […] (iii) personally identifiable data (“PID”) recorded in any form about
identified or identifiable individuals, including, but not limited to, prospective, current, or former 45
employees, customers, vendors, business partners, or any other natural persons in connection
with the rental business or car sales business of Hertz, or acquired by Hertz as part of its claims
JD(SF)-02–17
23
management activities or any other business which Hertz, any Hertz employee, consultant,
contractor, Licensee, agent, and other party obtains in the course of Hertz business.
i. In Lawson’s personnel file, Respondent’s internet acceptable use policy, the internet websites
rule which states: “Visiting Internet sites which contain obscene, sexually explicit, hateful or 5
otherwise objectionable materials; sending or receiving, via the internet or e-mail, any material
that is obscene, sexually explicit or defamatory, or which is intended to annoy, offend, harass or
intimidate another person or language including disparagement of others based on their race,
national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, religious or political belief.”
10
j. In Lawson’s personnel file, Respondent’s internet acceptable use policy, the soliciting emails
rule which states: “Soliciting emails that are unrelated to business activities, or soliciting non-
company business for personal gains or profit.”
k. In Lawson’s personnel file, Respondent’s internet acceptable use policy, the other 15
inappropriate uses of internet/intranet rule which states: “Other inappropriate uses of
Internet/Intranet or network resources that may be identified by the network administrator.”
l. In Lawson’s personnel file, Respondent’s internet acceptable use policy, the solicitation of an
employee by another employee rule which states: “Solicitation of an employee by another 20
employee is prohibited while either the person doing the soliciting or the one being solicited is
on his or her working time. Furthermore, the distribution of any material of any kind shall not be
permitted in the workplace.”
m. In Lawson’s personnel file, Respondent’s media requests for company information, the 25
media rule which states, in part: “[…] Employees are not authorized to speak to or otherwise
engage with the media and the following guidelines must be adhered to: When the media
contacts the company, the employee must explain that he/she wishes to be cooperative but is not
authorized to disclose information. The employee must either contact Public Affairs and explain
the request, or direct the media representative to contact the Public Affairs directly. Local 30
management should also be notified; No further conversation of any kind or media interview
should occur without prior knowledge and guidance of the Public Affairs Department; Only
Public Affairs may release or authorize the release of information to the media. All inquiries
from the media must be referred to Public Affairs. Whether the media contacts Company or
Company wishes to publicize its activities, all news releases must be authorized, in advance, by 35
Public Affairs; Under no circumstances may a Company employee approach the media to
generate publicity about Company without the prior approval of Public Affairs.”
n. In Workneh’s personnel file, Respondent’s information security statement and confidentiality
agreement, the divulging information rule which states, in part: “I will not divulge Company 40
Confidential Information to anyone, including without limitation Company employees,
customers, contracted temporary workers or service providers, unless he or she requires the
information to perform his or her services for the Company […].”
o. In Workneh’s personnel file, Respondent’s information security statement and confidentiality 45
agreement, the specific authorization rule which states, in part: “Unless I have specific
authorization, I will not attempt to gain access to Company Confidential Information […].”
JD(SF)-02–17
24
p. In Workneh’s personnel file, Respondent’s information security statement and confidentiality
agreement, the intentionally seeking information rule which states, in part: “[…] Except as
required in the performance of the responsibilities of my position for the Company, I will not
intentionally seek information on, obtain copies of, or modify files, other data, or passwords 5
belonging to other individuals.”
q. In Workneh’s personnel file, the other inappropriate uses rule which states: “Other
inappropriate uses of computing resources.”
10
r. In Workneh’s personnel file, the obligation to protect confidential information rule which
states, in part: “I understand my obligation to protect Company Confidential Information and
will comply with all of the Company policies and procedures regarding the handling of Company
Confidential Information. In particular, if I become aware of any unauthorized access to or use of
Company Confidential Information or any violations of Company information security policies 15
and procedures, I will immediately notify the Help Desk, my immediate supervisor, or the
Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) […].”
4. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.20
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate 25
the policies of the Act. Moreover, these rules and policies have been determined to be overly
broad or facially unlawful and violate Section 8(a)(1), a nationwide posting by Respondent is
appropriate as the record established that the unlawful rules and policies are maintained on in
effect at all of Respondent’s facilities within the United States. See Mastec Advance
Technologies, 357 NLRB 103 (2011), enfd. sub nom. DirectTV v. NLRB, 837 F.3d 25 (2016); 30
Guardsmark, LLC, 344 NLRB 809, 812 (2005).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended12
35
ORDER
Respondent Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Denver, Colorado, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
40
1. Cease and desist from
a. Maintaining the following unlawful rules:

12 If 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)-02–17
25
i. In the 2003 DTG Employee Handbook, the electronic communication
policy which states, in part: “Any Internet access to content or
materials which are of an offensive nature, including pornographic or
obscene materials and materials that otherwise may reasonably be 5
considered inappropriate […] Transmitting materials which are
defamatory, discriminatory, threatening, profane, slanderous, libelous,
harassing or otherwise offensive.”
ii. In the 2003 DTG Employee Handbook, the nondisclosure and 10
confidentiality policy which states, in part: “Each employee is
prohibited from disclosing, directly or indirectly, to any unauthorized
person (including other employees), business or other entity, or using,
for the employee’s own purposes, any confidential information […]
Such confidential information includes, but is not limited to, the 15
following examples: compensation data.”
iii. In the 2003 DTG Employee Handbook, the pay policies rule which
states, in part: “We encourage your pay a confidential matter and
encourage you to do the same.”20
iv. In the 2003 DTG Employee Handbook, the media relations policy
which states, in part: “[…] Because the image we portray to this
critical audience is very important to our Company, Corporate
Communications and Investor Relations must approve any interviews, 25
speeches or articles requested by the media with respect to the
Company and its business to assure that the views expressed are
accurate, consistent and reflect well in the marketplace.”
v. In Lawson’s personnel file, employee rules and regulations, the 30
solicitation rule which states: “Soliciting, direct/indirect sale of any
item, distributing and collecting any papers, materials or contributions
on company premises or posting literature or other materials without
Management authorization.”
35
vi. In Lawson’s personnel file, employee rules and regulations, the action
to disrupt harmony rule which states: “Action on the part of any
individual or group of employees to disrupt harmony, intimidate
fellow employees, or to interfere with normal and efficient
operations.” 40
vii. In Lawson’s personnel file, employee rules and regulations, the
leading or participating rule which states: “Leading or participating in
any activity that would interfere with the Employer's operation
including, but not limited to, any unlawful strike.”45
JD(SF)-02–17
26
viii. In Lawson’s personnel file, Respondent’s information and security
statement and confidentiality agreement, the personally identifiable
data rule which states, in part: “ ‘Hertz Confidential Information’
means each of the following types of information: (i) information that
is labeled, or that other Company policies and procedures specifically 5
classify as “secret,” “confidential,” or “proprietary,” including, but not
limited to, marketing data, financial results and operating data; […]
(iii) personally identifiable data (“PID”) recorded in any form about
identified or identifiable individuals, including, but not limited to,
prospective, current, or former employees, customers, vendors, 10
business partners, or any other natural persons in connection with the
rental business or car sales business of Hertz, or acquired by Hertz as
part of its claims management activities or any other business which
Hertz, any Hertz employee, consultant, contractor, Licensee, agent,
and other party obtains in the course of Hertz business.15
ix. In Lawson’s personnel file, Respondent’s internet acceptable use
policy, the internet websites rule which states: “Visiting Internet sites
which contain obscene, sexually explicit, hateful or otherwise
objectionable materials; sending or receiving, via the internet or e-20
mail, any material that is obscene, sexually explicit or defamatory, or
which is intended to annoy, offend, harass or intimidate another person
or language including disparagement of others based on their race,
national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, religious or
political belief.”25
x. In Lawson’s personnel file, Respondent’s internet acceptable use
policy, the soliciting emails rule which states: “Soliciting emails that
are unrelated to business activities, or soliciting non-company business
for personal gains or profit.”30
xi. In Lawson’s personnel file, Respondent’s internet acceptable use
policy, the other inappropriate uses of internet/intranet rule which
states: “Other inappropriate uses of Internet/Intranet or network
resources that may be identified by the network administrator.”35
xii. In Lawson’s personnel file, Respondent’s internet acceptable use
policy, the solicitation of an employee by another employee rule which
states: “Solicitation of an employee by another employee is prohibited
while either the person doing the soliciting or the one being solicited is 40
on his or her working time. Furthermore, the distribution of any
material of any kind shall not be permitted in the workplace.”
xiii. In Lawson’s personnel file, Respondent’s media requests for company
information, the media rule which states, in part: “[…] Employees are 45
not authorized to speak to or otherwise engage with the media and the
following guidelines must be adhered to: When the media contacts the
JD(SF)-02–17
27
company, the employee must explain that he/she wishes to be
cooperative but is not authorized to disclose information. The
employee must either contact Public Affairs and explain the request, or
direct the media representative to contact the Public Affairs directly.
Local management should also be notified; No further conversation of 5
any kind or media interview should occur without prior knowledge and
guidance of the Public Affairs Department; Only Public Affairs may
release or authorize the release of information to the media. All
inquiries from the media must be referred to Public Affairs. Whether
the media contacts Company or Company wishes to publicize its 10
activities, all news releases must be authorized, in advance, by Public
Affairs; Under no circumstances may a Company employee approach
the media to generate publicity about Company without the prior
approval of Public Affairs.”
15
xiv. In Workneh’s personnel file, Respondent’s information security
statement and confidentiality agreement, the divulging information
rule which states, in part: “I will not divulge Company Confidential
Information to anyone, including without limitation Company
employees, customers, contracted temporary workers or service 20
providers, unless he or she requires the information to perform his or
her services for the Company […].”
xv. In Workneh’s personnel file, Respondent’s information security
statement and confidentiality agreement, the specific authorization rule25
which states, in part: “Unless I have specific authorization, I will not
attempt to gain access to Company Confidential Information […].”
xvi. In Workneh’s personnel file, Respondent’s information security
statement and confidentiality agreement, the intentionally seeking 30
information rule which states, in part: “[…] Except as required in the
performance of the responsibilities of my position for the Company, I
will not intentionally seek information on, obtain copies of, or modify
files, other data, or passwords belonging to other individuals.”
35
xvii. In Workneh’s personnel file, the other inappropriate uses rule which
states: “Other inappropriate uses of computing resources.”
xviii. In Workneh’s personnel file, the obligation to protect confidential
information rule which states, in part: “I understand my obligation to 40
protect Company Confidential Information and will comply with all of
the Company policies and procedures regarding the handling of
Company Confidential Information. In particular, if I become aware of
any unauthorized access to or use of Company Confidential
Information or any violations of Company information security 45
policies and procedures, I will immediately notify the Help Desk, my
JD(SF)-02–17
28
immediate supervisor, or the Computer Emergency Response Team
(CERT) […].”
b. 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 5
Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
a. Rescind the unlawful rules as set forth above. 10
b. Furnish employees with inserts for the employee handbook and other rules
and policies that (1) advise that the unlawful provisions have been rescinded,
or (2) provide lawfully worded provisions.
15
c. Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities nationwide,
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”13 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 27, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all 20
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition to
physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site,
and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates
with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the 25
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 30
employees employed by the Respondent at any time since October 1, 2015.
d. 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.35
Dated, Washington, D.C. January 27, 2017
____________________
Amita Baman Tracy40
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

13 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a 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)-02–17
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
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 maintain the following work rules and policies in the 2003 Employee Handbook
which could be understood to prohibit you from engaging in activities protected under Section 7
of the Act:
Electronic Communication Policy: Certain employees of DTG are granted the privilege of
accessing email, voice mail and Internet via the Company’s computers. When it becomes
necessary to utilize email, voice mail or Internet via the Company’s computers for occasional
and infrequent nonbusiness, good judgment must be exercised. Any inappropriate or prohibited
Internet, voice mail or email access or use may result in discipline up to and including
termination from employment. DTG is dedicated to providing a work environment that is free
from unlawful harassment. Any Internet access to content or materials which are of an offensive
nature, including pornographic or obscene materials and materials that otherwise may reasonably
be considered inappropriate, will be considered willful misconduct and will result in disciplinary
action up to and including termination. Transmitting materials which are defamatory,
discriminatory, threatening, profane, slanderous, libelous, harassing or otherwise offensive
through the Company’s email or voice mail systems is also prohibited and will be cause for
discipline, up to and including termination from employment. Materials covered by this
restriction including documents, messages, jokes, images, cartoons, programs and software. All
email messages and attachments, and voice mail messages whether business or personal in
nature, are the property of the Company. Employees should expect that anything in an electronic
file is always available for and subject to review by the Company.
Non-Disclosure and Confidentiality: In your job, you may have access to or be exposed to
information regarding the Company. Each employee is prohibited from disclosing, directly or
indirectly, to any unauthorized person (including other employees), business or other entity, or
using, for the employee’s own purposes, any confidential information. The protection of
confidential business information and trade secrets is vital to the interests and the success of
DTG. Such confidential information includes, but is not limited to, the following examples:
JD(SF)-02–17
 Compensation data
Media Relations: Employee participation in public and community activities is encouraged.
However, Corporate Communications and Investor Relations have established excellent relations
with the news media on a local, national and international basis. Because the image we portray
to this critical audience is very important to our Company, Corporate Communications and
Investor Relations must approve any interviews, speeches or articles requested by the media with
respect to the Company and its business to assure that the views expressed are accurate,
consistent and reflect well in the marketplace. If a member of the news media contacts you for
information, always refer them to a member of Corporate Communications or Investor Relations.
Pay Policies: Formal pay policies have been developed for all pay actions within the Company.
Questions regarding these policies should be forwarded to your supervisor or Human Resources.
DTG strives to pay salaries and wages competitive with those in our community and industry.
We consider your pay a confidential matter and encourage you to do the same. For more
information on DTG’s compensation program, please contact Human Resources.
WE WILL NOT maintain the following work rules and policies in Employee Rules and
Regulations; Hertz Information Security Statement and Confidentiality Agreement for Hertz
Employees; Employee Internet Acceptable Use Policy (IUAP) and Access Disclosure Statement;
Media Requests for Company Information:
4. Soliciting, direct/indirect sale of any item, distributing and collecting any papers, materials or
contributions on company premises or posting literature or other materials without Management
authorization.
9. Action on the part of any individual or group of employees to disrupt harmony, intimidate
fellow employees, or to interfere with normal and efficient operations.
26. Leading or participating in any activity that would interfere with the Employer's operation
including, but not limited to, any unlawful strike.
Hertz Confidential Information” means each of the following types of information: (i)
information that is labeled, or that other Company policies and procedures specifically classify as
“secret,” “confidential,” or “proprietary,” including, but not limited to, marketing data, financial
results and operating data; (ii) information that the Company is legally or contractually required
to keep confidential, including without limitation, information that is subject to confidentiality
agreements or protective orders; (iii) personally identifiable data (“PID”) recorded in any form
about identified or identifiable individuals, including, but not limited to, prospective, current, or
former employees, customers, vendors, business partners, or any other natural persons in
connection with the rental business or car sales business of Hertz, or acquired by Hertz as part of
its claims management activities or any other business which Hertz, any Hertz employee,
consultant, contractor, Licensee, agent, and other party obtains in the course of Hertz business;
and (iv) information that could have a competitive impact on the Company or its organizational,
technical, or financial position or which could cause damage to the Company or its prospective,
current, or former customers, employees, or reputation if disclosed either internally or outside the
Company.
JD(SF)-02–17
Internet Websites: Visiting Internet sites which contain obscene, sexually explicit, hateful or
otherwise objectionable materials; sending or receiving, via the internet or email, any material
that is obscene, sexually explicit or defamatory, or which is intended to annoy, offend, harass or
intimidate another person or language including disparagement of others based on their race,
national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, religious or political belief.
Soliciting Emails: Soliciting emails that are unrelated to business activities, or soliciting
noncompany business for personal gain or profit.
Other Inappropriate Uses of Internet/Intranet: Other inappropriate uses of Internet/Intranet or
network resources that may be identified by the network administrator.
Solicitation of an Employee by Another Employee: Solicitation of an employee by another
employee is prohibited while either the person doing the soliciting or the one being solicited is
on his or her working time. Furthermore, the distribution of any material of any kind shall not be
permitted in the workplace.
Media Rule: [E]mployees are not authorized to speak to or otherwise engage with the media and
the following guidelines must be adhered to: When the media contacts the company, the
employee must explain that he/she wishes to be cooperative but is not authorized to disclose
information. […] No further conversation of any kind or media interview should occur without
prior knowledge and guidance of the Public Affairs Department. […] Only Public Affairs may
release or authorize the release of information to the media. All inquiries from the media must
be referred to Public Affairs. Whether the media contacts Company or Company wishes to
publicize its activities, all news releases must be authorized, in advance, by Public Affairs.
Under no circumstances may a Company employee approach the media to generate publicity
about Company without the prior approval of Public Affairs. This includes news articles written
by an employee where the employee's association with Company is disclosed or may be
ascertained from the article.
WE WILL NOT maintain the following work rules and policies in Company Information Security
Statement and Confidentiality Agreement for Company Employees:
3. I will not divulge Company Confidential Information to anyone, including without limitation
Company employees, customers, contracted temporary workers or service providers, unless he or
she requires the information to perform his or her services for the Company or as part of his or
her contractual relationship with the Company.
4. Unless I have specific authorization, I will not attempt to gain access to Company
Confidential Information, Company facilities or Company computing resources and I understand
that such access is expressly prohibited
7. I will respect the privacy of other individuals. Except as required in the performance of the
responsibilities of my position for the Company, I will not intentionally seek information on,
obtain copies of, or modify files, other data, or passwords belonging to other individuals. I will
JD(SF)-02–17
not intentionally represent myself as another individual unless explicitly authorized to do so by
that individual.
Other Inappropriate Use: Other inappropriate uses of computing resources.
23. I understand my obligation to protect Company Confidential Information and will comply
with all of the Company policies and procedures regarding the handling of Company
Confidential Information. In particular, if I become aware of any unauthorized access to or use
of Company Confidential Information or any violations of Company information security
policies and procedures, I will immediately notify the Help Desk, my immediate supervisor, or
the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) […].
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind/revise the unlawful rules and policies as stated above.
WE WILL furnish you with inserts for the employee handbook and other rules and policies that (1)
advise that the unlawful provisions have been rescinded, or (2) provide lawfully worded
provisions.
DOLLAR THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP
(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.
600 17th Street, 7th Floor, North Tower, Denver, CO 80202-5433
(303) 844-3551, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/27-CA-173054 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
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, (303) 844-6647.