Koons Ford

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1992

308 N.L.R.B. 1067 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

1067
308 NLRB No. 155
KOONS FORD
1 For the reasons stated in Public Storage, 295 NLRB 1034 (1989),
we do not agree with the dissent that the Union’s late-tendered evi-
dence should be accepted because the Union failed to receive a cour-
tesy reminder of the due date for submission of that evidence.
Koons Ford of Annapolis, Inc. and John R. Law-
rence, Petitioner and District No. 65, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, AFL–CIO. Case 5–
RD–1046
September 29, 1992
ORDER DENYING REVIEW
BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel, which has considered the Union’s request for re-
view of the Regional Director’s supplemental decision
(the relevant portion of which is attached). The request
for review is denied as it raises no substantial issues
warranting review.1
MEMBER DEVANEY, dissenting.
Contrary to my colleagues, I would direct that the
Regional Director receive and consider the Union’s
evidence in support of its objections. Although it is the
Region’s usual practice to notify objecting parties of
the receipt of their objections and their obligation to
present supporting evidence within the 14-day period
prescribed by Section 102.69(a) of the Board’s Rules,
the Region gave no such notification in the instant
case. In addition, the Union, prior to the Region’s
mailing of the instant supplemental decision, requested
that the Region receive and consider its evidence. In
these circumstances, I would order that the Regional
Director consider the Union’s objections on their mer-
its. See my dissent in Public Storage, 295 NLRB at
1035.
APPENDIX
On July 13, the Union filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election. Under the provisions of
Section 102.69(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, ob-
jections are due within 7 days after the preparation of the
tally of ballots and the objecting party is required to furnish
its supporting evidence to the Region within fourteen days
after the issuance of the tally of ballots. Thus, the Intervenor
was required to submit its supporting evidence by July 21.
Craftmatic Comfort Mfg. Corp., 299 NLRB 514 (1990). The
undersigned neither granted nor was requested to grant addi-
tional time to the Intervenor to tender its supporting evi-
dence. The Board noted in Star Video Entertainment L.P.,
290 NLRB 1010, that the time limits set forth in the Rules
and Regulations concerning the submission of evidence in
support of objections to an election are to be strictly applied.
More recently, the Board decided in Public Storage. Inc.,
295 NLRB 1034, that it was in error to accept evidence in
support of objections received after the time period provided
for in the Rules and Regulations, and in the absence of a
timely request for an extension previously having been grant-
ed.
In light of the Intervenor’s failure to submit evidence in
support of its objections by July 21, I overrule the Union’s
Objections in their entirety and issues the following Certifi-
cation of Results of Election.