Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 2004

343 N.L.R.B. 579 (N.L.R.B. 2004)

WAL-MART STORES, INC.
343 NLRB No. 71
579
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and United Food and Com-
mercial Workers International Union. Cases
28–CA–18255, et al.
November 15, 2004
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN AND
MEISBURG
The Charging Party United Food and Commercial
Workers International Union’s motion to strike pages
51–82 of Wal-Mart’s answer to the Charging Party’s
Brief on Exceptions is granted to the extent noted herein.
Following the administrative law judge’s April 26,
2004 decision in this matter, the Charging Party timely
requested to exceed the 50-page limit for its brief in sup-
port of exceptions. On May 7, 2004, the Associate Ex-
ecutive Secretary notified the parties that the “Charging
Party’s request for permission to exceed page limitation
on Brief in Support of Exceptions is granted not to ex-
ceed 85 pages.” Thereafter, the Charging Party filed
exceptions and a 70-page brief in support. In response,
the Respondent filed an 82-page answering brief to
which the Charging Party filed a 10-page reply brief.
The Charging Party motion to strike is premised on
Respondent’s failure to obtain permission to exceed the
50-page limit on briefs. Respondent admits it did not
seek permission, but asserts that it telephoned an em-
ployee in the Executive Secretary’s Office, whose name
it could not recall, who allegedly verified that, like ex-
tensions of time to file documents, page enlargements
granted at one party’s request are shared by all parties.
Further, Respondent claims that even if it misinterpreted
the foregoing discussion, the rationale for sharing an
extension in a due date, noted in P & M Cedar Products,
282 NLRB 772 (1987), also applies to the sharing by all
parties of a page enlargement.
Section 102.46(j) of the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions provides in pertinent part that “any brief . . . shall
not exceed 50 pages in length . . . unless permission to
exceed that limit is obtained from the Board by motion,
setting forth the reasons therefore, filed not less than 10
days prior to the date the brief is due.” The Rule indi-
cates that any party that desires additional pages beyond
the 50-page limit must request its own permission from
the Board, and that has been the Board’s policy since
1982, the date the rule was established. The grant to one
party of permission to enlarge a document does not
automatically extend to documents of another party. To
the extent that the Respondent was told otherwise by a
Board representative, that advice was erroneous. Ac-
cordingly, we will grant the motion to strike.
However, we shall grant the Respondent permission to
file a responsive brief that conforms to the 50-page
limit.1 Such a responsive brief is due in Washington,
D.C., by close of business on November 29, 2004. The
Charging Party may refile a reply to the resubmitted re-
sponsive brief by close of business on December 13,
2004.

1 In granting permission, Chairman Battista relies in part on the Re-
spondent counsel’s assertion as to the telephone conversation that he
allegedly had with the Board’s offices. Inasmuch as there is no
counter-assertion and there is no basis for discrediting the assertion
made by counsel, Chairman Battista will assume arguendo that the
assertion is correct.