Court Opinion

ID: 9470599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:10:41.961799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:00.248071
License: Public Domain

ROSENN, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I agree with the majority that because the Board improperly allocated the burden of proof in determining that the discharges of Bowlds and Perkins were discriminatory, the case must be remanded for further consideration of this charge. But I believe that the majority has erred in its separate holding that United Parcel Service (UPS) violated section 8(a)(1) of the Act by its overly broad rule against the distribution of union literature. The Company has raised an important statute of limitations challenge to the Board’s finding of this unfair labor practice, and I think this challenge also warrants further consideration on remand.
The Board determined that UPS violated section 8(a)(1) of the Act entirely on the basis of the incident in which Supervisor Mouser told employee Perkins that “I’d rather you didn’t” distribute literature on company property. The testimony indicated that this statement was made sometime in February or March 1979. Since the Administrative Law Judge had found a violation of section 8(a)(1) under a different theory, he made no finding as to precisely when Mouser’s statement was made. Yet the date of the statement became a crucial item of information under the Board’s theory of the case. Section 10(b) of the Act precludes the Board from issuing a complaint unless formal charges were filed with the Board within six months of the alleged unfair labor practice. 29 U.S.C. § 160(b). Because Perkins filed his charge on September 12, 1979, the General Counsel could only issue a complaint concerning events taking place after March 12, 1979. Thus, section 10(b) would require the Board to ascertain precisely when the Mouser-Perkins conversation occurred before the conversation could serve as the basis of an unfair labor practice finding. The Board did not consider this problem in making its decision.
The majority disposes of this statute of limitations defense on the ground that it was not adequately raised before the Board, *984and that therefore this court may not consider it now. Under section 10(e) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(e), the court of appeals may not consider any argument that an employer failed to raise before the Board unless “extraordinary circumstances” exist. See Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB, 456 U.S. 645, 665, 102 S.Ct. 2071, 2083, 72 L.Ed.2d 398 (1982). The Company argues that it adequately raised the issue before the Board because in its brief to the Board filed in support of its exceptions to the Regional Director’s report, it clearly stated that “the section 10(b) limitations preclude any ... finding” that Mouser’s statement violated the Act. The majority does not consider this adequate to raise the defense because the argument was not made in the Company’s formal exceptions but only in its supporting brief. See maj. op., supra, at 979 n. 16.
To my mind, this is an unduly technical and unreasonable disposition of this issue. The majority refers to regulations of the Board requiring parties to include in their exceptions all matters that are to be argued before the Board, and limiting the brief to matters within the scope of the exceptions. See 29 C.F.R. § 102.46. It is undeniable, however, that the Board was informed of the statute of limitations issue.
We have previously held that a technical failure to comply with the Board’s procedural rules governing objections will not bar an employer from making his argument to the court of appeals so long as the Board was “adequately appraised” of the employer’s position. NLRB v. Capital Bakers, Inc., 351 F.2d 45, 48 (3d Cir.1965). See also NLRB v. Blake Construction Co., 663 F.2d 272, 283-84 (D.C.Cir.1981) (“We do not think section 10(e) requires such a triumph of technical pleading over fundamental fairness.”). Especially in the instant case, where the Board itself saw fit to reformulate the section 8(a)(1) issue at the last minute,1 I am very reluctant to adopt the excessively technical approach to section 10(e) that the majority does. As we recently have observed, “The purpose of § 10(e) is to ensure against piecemeal appeals to the courts by requiring that the parties first give the Board an opportunity to rule upon all material issues in a case.” NLRB v. Cardox Division of Chemetron Corp., 699 F.2d 148, 153 n. 10 (3d Cir.1983). In the instant case, the Board had such an opportunity. I cannot conceive of any purpose that would be served by foreclosing the Company from arguing its statute of limitations defense on the ground that, though it made the argument to the Board in very explicit terms, it did so on the wrong page.
I therefore think that the statute of limitations issue was adequately raised below and may be considered by the court on appeal.2 The record suggests that this defense quite possibly has merit, since Mouser’s statement may have been made in February or the first few days of March. Accordingly, upon remand of the case, the Board should also be. directed to ascertain whether Mouser’s statement took place within the statutory six-month period of section 10(b).3 I therefore dissent on this statute of limitations issue.

. The Administrative Law Judge found a continuing violation of section 8(a)(1) arising out of a posted work rule pertaining to distribution of literature in the plant, and apparently viewed Mouser’s statement as simply one instance of the implementation of this work rule. The Board, however, relied solely on Mouser’s statement to Perkins as the basis for the unfair labor practice finding.

. The Company maintains that, assuming it did not adequately meet the requirement of section 10(e) that the statute of limitations issue be specifically raised before the Board, it should be excused for not having done so, because it was only when the Board reformulated the position of the ALJ that the statute of limitations issue became crucial. This argument might have had some merit, were it not for the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB, 456 U.S. 645, 665, 102 S.Ct. 2071, 2083, 72 L.Ed.2d 398 (1982), where the Court suggested that the section 10(e) bar applies even where an issue is injected into the proceedings by the Board’s decision, since the opposing party still has the option of filing a motion for reconsideration with the Board. But, as noted above, I believe that the Company adequately urged its statute of limitations objection before the Board.

. Since the case is being remanded to the Board on the discriminatory discharge issue, no further delay or inconvenience to the parties would be caused by remanding on the 8(a)(1) issue as well.