NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,561, JAMB, INC. dba BI-LO FOODS and LOCAL 427, HOTEL EMPLOYEES AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO., (Nov. 30, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Nov 30, 1994)

JAMB, INC. dba BI-LO FOODS and LOCAL 427, HOTEL EMPLOYEES AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO.

315 NLRB No. 98.Case No. 19-RC-12874. November 30, 1994

Before Gould, Stephens and Devaney.

Board Procedure--Time Limits--Filing Answer by Mail.--An employer’s evidence in support of election objections, sent to an NLRB regional director by certified mail on the day before the filing deadline but arriving after the due date, was considered timely by the Board. Although the regional director rejected the evidence as untimely, the NLRB’s rules and regulations provided that evidence submitted in support of election objections postmarked no later than the day before the due date would be timely. Section 10(c).

Back reference: ¶5560.82.

From Text of Board’s Decision

After an election held on July 14, 1994, [1] pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agreement, the Employer filed timely objections that were received by the Regional Office on Jyly 22. The Regional Office then wrote the Employer to advise him that evidence in support of his objections was due in the Regional Office by close of business on July 29 under the provisions of Section 102.69(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. On July 28, the Employer mailed evidence in support of his objections to the Regional Office. That mailing, however, did not arrive in the Regional Office until August 1. Noting that the Employer had neither requested nor received an extension of time for submitting the evidence, the Regional Director recommended overruling the Employer’s objections for lack of timeliness. He relied on Craftmatic Comfort Mfg. Corp., [2] and a line of cases holding that time limits in the Board’s Rules and Regulations are to be strictly applied. [3]

The Employer filed an exception to the Regional Director’s report and recommendation. The exception stressed that the Employer had sent evidence supporting its objections by certified mail the day before the due date. The Petitioner filed a response in support of the Regional Director’s report and recommendation.

We find that the Employer’s exception has merit. [4] The Regional Director failed to consider that the Board, as announced in its decision in John I. Haas, Inc., [5] revised Section 102.111(b) of the Rules and Regulations to provide that evidence submitted in support of election objections postmarked no later than the day before the due date will be considered timely. See generally Goody’s Family Clothing, [1992-93 CCH NLRB ¶17,419] 308 NLRB 181 (1992), applying Section 102.111 to the submission of evidence in support of objections. Thus, because the Employer’s submission of evidence in support of his objections was timely, even under a strict application of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, we remand this case to the Regional Director to consider the merits of the Employer’s objections. [6]