Opinion ID: 385886
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Critical Period Doctrine

Text: 20 Finally, the Company argues that under the Board's critical period doctrine, interrogations occurring before the filing of the election petition should not be considered unfair labor practices and should not be considered in determining if the results of the election should be set aside and the Company ordered to bargain. It relies upon Ideal Electric and Manufacturing Co., 134 N.L.R.B. 1275, 1278 (1961), wherein the Board 21 concludes, in all the circumstances, that the date of filing of the petition ... should be the cutoff time in considering alleged objectionable conduct in contested cases. From that time, when the Board's processes have been invoked and a prompt election may be anticipated pursuant to present procedures, we believe that conduct thereafter which tends to prevent a free election should appropriately be considered as a postelection objection. 22 To the extent that the Company is arguing that the critical period doctrine is a variety of statute of limitations imposed by the Board on unfair labor practices, it is clearly wrong. The only statute of limitations upon unfair labor practice charges is that found in Section 10(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(b), which provides that the Board cannot issue a complaint based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such charge is made .... See Local Lodge No. 1424 v. NLRB, 362 U.S. 411, 80 S.Ct. 822, 4 L.Ed.2d 832 (1960). As long as this requirement is satisfied, the Board is free to find that unfair labor practices have been committed regardless of the date of the filing of an election petition. Indeed, an employer can commit an unfair labor practice in some instances even if there is never an election petition filed. 23 To the extent that the Company is arguing that the critical period doctrine prevents these pre-filing interrogations from being considered in issuing a bargaining order, it is also incorrect. It is not clear whether the Board considers the critical period doctrine expressed in Ideal Electric to be a rule of evidence or a rule of substantive law. See Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc. v. NLRB, 589 F.2d 1166, 1170-74 (2d Cir. 1978). This Court, however, has considered the Ideal Electric critical period doctrine and found that it 24 is simply an evidentiary device calculated to render irrelevant upon a post election contest, conduct too remote to have interfered with the employees' exercise of the free choice guaranteed by Sec. 7 of the Act. 25 NLRB v. R. Dakin & Co., 477 F.2d 492, 494 (9th Cir. 1973). The Court concluded that we were 26 not prepared to give our approval to a rule which flatly bars the consideration of all pre-petition misconduct, particularly where, as here, the Regional Director concluded, and the Board affirmed, that such alleged misconduct raised a substantial and material issue of fact regarding the validity of the election. 27 Id. Accord, NLRB v. Lawrence Typographical Union No. 570, 376 F.2d 643, 652 (10th Cir. 1967). 8 Here, the Board considered that the events that occurred before the petition was filed were relevant to the fairness of the election. All of the incidents found to be unfair labor practices by the Board were within a month and a half of the filing of the petition, and all arose out of the Company's concern about the organization drive that led to the petition and, ultimately, to the election. This Court cannot say, as a matter of law, that these events were too remote to have had an effect on the election outcome. Nor will the Court require the Board to enforce an inflexible per se rule to disregard incidents before the filing of the election petition. Therefore, the Company's objections based upon the critical period doctrine are rejected. 28 The Court has considered the other objections raised to the Board's finding that these interrogations constituted unfair labor practices and finds them without merit.