XPO Logistics Freight, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

May 25, 2017

12-CA-179859 (N.L.R.B. May. 25, 2017)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
XPO LOGISTICS FREIGHT, INC.
and Case 12-CA-179859
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 769
ORDER
The Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is denied. The Respondent has
not demonstrated that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Further, the Respondent has failed to establish that there are no genuine issues of fact
and that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.1
Dated, Washington, D.C., May 25, 2017
PHILIP A. MISCIMARRA, CHAIRMAN
MARK GASTON PEARCE, MEMBER
LAUREN McFERRAN, MEMBER

1 In its motion, the Respondent argues that if the complaint is not dismissed, the
Regional Director should be ordered to provide a bill of particulars regarding the complaint
allegations. However, on April 24, 2017, Deputy Chief Administrative Law Judge Arthur J.
Amchan granted the request and ordered the General Counsel to clarify certain aspects of
the complaint, and the Board has not received a request for special permission to appeal
the judge’s order. Accordingly, the Respondent’s request for a bill of particulars is not
before the Board.
Chairman Miscimarra agrees with the denial of the Respondent’s motion as stated
in the Board’s Order. As he stated in L’Hoist North America of Tennessee, Inc., 362 NLRB
No. 110, slip op. at 3 (2015) (concurring), “[I]n response to a motion for summary
judgment, I believe that the General Counsel at least must explain in reasonably concrete
terms why a hearing is required. Under the standard that governs summary judgment
determinations, this will normally require the General Counsel to identify material facts that
are genuinely in dispute.” See also Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, 363 NLRB No. 124,
slip op. at 2 (2016) (then-Member Miscimarra, dissenting). In the instant case, the General
Counsel has described, in reasonably concrete terms, why, based on material facts that
are genuinely in dispute, a hearing is required.