Excel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 1993

311 N.L.R.B. 710 (N.L.R.B. 1993)

710
311 NLRB No. 70
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 Chairman Stephens agrees that flexibility is warranted on the
facts of this case but would caution that, under normal cir-
cumstances, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing an ade-
quate showing of interest during the window period.
Excel Corporation and Gloria J. Rhoads and Fran-
cisco Acosta and United Food and Commercial
Workers Union, Local 540. Case 16–RD–1300
May 28, 1993
RULING ON ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
AND ORDER REMANDING
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND OVIATT
On March 17, 1993, the Regional Director dismissed
the instant RD petition on the ground that it was not
supported by a sufficient showing of interest. The
Board has delegated its authority in this case to a
three-member panel. The Board grants Petitioner’s re-
quest for review. Having considered the matter, the
Board concludes that the petition should be reinstated.
The record shows that the Employer and the Union
were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement
which was to expire April 25, 1993. Thus, the window
period during which other parties could file petitions
expired February 24, 1993. Petitioners timely filed
their petition 13 days before the close of the window
period, supported by a large number of signatures
which the Regional Office ultimately determined were
valid. However, because of the unusually large number
of employees in the unit, the apparent high turnover of
employees, and delays in the transmission of docu-
ments mailed between the Regional Office and the
Employer, the Regional Office was unable to verify
the number of employees in the unit and the number
of valid signatures submitted until after the window
period closed. By letter of March 17, 1993, the Re-
gional Director advised Petitioners that the petition
was being dismissed because they had failed to submit
a showing of interest sufficient to support the petition.
Section 11024.1 of the Casehandling Manual pro-
vides that a petitioner must supply evidence within 48
hours of filing a petition and in no event later than the
last day on which the petition could be filed. It further
provides that the Regional Director at his discretion
may give reasonable time to cure a defect in the show-
ing of interest, but in no event will the time be later
than the last day on which the petition could be filed.
Relying on the foregoing section, the Regional Direc-
tor administratively dismissed the instant petition.
We find, however, that in the circumstances of this
case application of the rule cited by the Regional Di-
rector is unduly harsh. We find that the purposes and
provisions of the Act are best effectuated by allowing
the Petitioners a reasonable, additional period of time
to provide the requisite showing of interest, as shall be
determined by the Regional Director. The Petitioners
have acted diligently and have promptly complied with
all requests from the Regional Office. Their petition,
with a substantial showing of interest, was filed well
in advance of the close of the window period. We find
that they should not be penalized because of cir-
cumstances beyond their control arising from the ex-
traordinarily large unit, the difficulties in ascertaining
the correct number of employees in the unit, problems
in verifying validity of signatures, and mail delays be-
tween the Regional Office and the Employer which
were in no way attributable to them.1 Accordingly, the
petition is reinstated and this case is remanded to the
Regional Director for Region 16 for further action con-
sistent with this decision.