NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,443, CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. and OCSEA/AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 11., (Sep. 19, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Sep 19, 1994)

CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. and OCSEA/AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 11.

314 NLRB No. 201.Case No. 8-RC-14988. September 19, 1994

Before Gould, Stephens and Devaney.

Election Objections--Filing--Holiday Didn’t Toll Time Limit.--An NLRB regional director properly rejected union representation election objections filed by an employer because they were untimely under Board Rules and Regulations. Although a legal holiday fell within an applicable seven-day period for filing objections, that period was not extended because the last day for filing the objections did not fall upon a weekend or holiday. Section 9(c).

Back reference: ¶2790.9371.

From Text of Board’s Decision

The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-member panel, has considered objections to an election held January 14, 1994, and the Regional Director’s report recommending disposition of them. The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agreement. The tally of ballots shows 10 for and 6 against the Petitioner, with 2 challenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect the result.

The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and briefs, has adopted the Regional Director’s findings and recommendations, [1] and finds that a certification of representative should be issued.

[Concurrence and Dissent]

Member Devaney, concurring and dissenting: Contrary to the Regional Director, I would accept the Employer’s objection as timely filed, As I indicated in Goody’s Family Clothing, 308 NLRB 181, 182, (1992), I believe when a holiday occurs during the first 6 days of a 7-day filing period, parties should be accorded the full time period, as they are when the holiday falls on the seventh day. The Regional Director’s approach fails to accord the parties that full time period and accordingly it is an approach I reject. See also John I. Haas, Inc., [1991-92 CCH NLRB ¶16,436] 301 NLRB 300, 301, fn. 6 (second par.) 1991).

However, I agree with the Regional Director’s recommended overruling of the Employer’s objection on its merits. As employee Yannerella’s discharge was the subject of a pending charge alleging that the discharge violated the Act, he was eligible to serve as an observer in the election. Kellwood Co.., [1989-90 CCH NLRB ¶16,282] 299 NLRB 1026 (1990). Contrary to the Employer’s argument, the fact that the election was pursuant to a stipulated agreement, rather than as a directed election, does not call for a different result. See Kellwood, supra at 1029, 1933.