Macdonald'S Industrial Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1986

281 N.L.R.B. 577 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

MACDONALD'S INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS
MacDonald's Industrial Products, Inc. and Debbie
Gritter. Case 7-CA-24960
29 September 1986
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
REMANDING PROCEEDING TO
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN, BABSON, AND
STEPHENS
On 30 October 1985 the Regional Director for
Region 7 of the National Labor Relations Board
issued a complaint and notice of hearing in the
above-entitled proceeding, alleging that the Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act
by terminating its employee Debbie Gritter, the
Charging Party, because she engaged in activities
on behalf of the Union . Subsequently , the Respond-
ent filed an answer, admitting in part and denying
in part the allegations of the complaint , submitting
an affirmative defense, and requesting that the
complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
Thereafter, on 19 February 1986, the Respondent
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and brief in
support, with exhibits attached . The Respondent
contends that the Charging Party failed to file the
charge within 6 months of the alleged violation.
Specifically, the Respondent asserts that the 6-
month limitation period set forth in Section 10(b)
includes the day of the alleged offense and that
since the alleged offense occurred 4 March 1985,
and the charge was filed 4 September 1985 the
charge was untimely filed and this complaint there-
fore should be dismissed.
On 21 February 1986 the General Counsel filed
an opposition to the Respondent 's Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment arguing , inter alia, that the Board
577
has long held 1 that the day of the alleged unfair
labor practice is not counted in computing the 6-
month 10(b) limitation period . Laborers Local 264
(D & G Construction), 216 NLRB 40 fn. 1, 43
(1975); Glacier Lincoln-Mercury, 189 NLRB 640,
643 (1971); Luzerne Hide & Tallow Co., 89 NLRB
989, 990 (1950).
On 25 February 1986 the Board issued an order
transferring the proceeding to the Board and
Notice to Show Cause why the Respondent's
Motion for Summary Judgment should not be
granted . Thereafter, the General Counsel filed a re-
sponse.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
We fmd Laborers Local 264, supra, Glacier Lin-
coln-Mercury, supra, and Luzerne Hide & Tallow
Co., supra, controlling . Consequently, computation
of Section 10(b) of the Act's 6-month limitation
period properly begins the day following the com-
mission of the alleged unfair labor practice, in this
case 5 March 1985 , and thus the charge here was
timely filed.2
Accordingly, it is ordered that the Respondent's
Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proceeding is
remanded to the Regional Director for Region 7
for further appropriate action.
' The Board , as to matters controlled by its Rules and Regulations,
does not count the day of an act toward the relevant time period, Sec.
102.114 of the Board 's Rules and Regulations states in pertinent part:
In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these
rules, the day of the act, event, or default after which the designated
period of time begins to run is not to be counted.
a The Respondent contends that Sa John Medical Center, 252 NLRB
514 (1980), and Philips Medical Systems, 243 NLRB 944, 949 (1979), sup-
port its position that the day of the alleged unfair labor practice should
be counted in computing the limitation period . In SL John Medical
Center, however, the Board addressed a different issue, i.e., the tolling of
the 10(b) period. The Board held that the date of service of the charge is
the date of mailing . The Board's statement at fn . 2 of that decision identi-
fying the last day of the 10(b) period simply describes the respondent's
position in that case . In Philips Medical Systems, no exceptions were filed
by the General Counsel to the judge 's ruling on the 10 (b) issue and thus
the matter was not considered by the Board.
281 NLRB No. 91