Temple Inland Forest Products

302 301 NLRB No. 51 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1 See Secs. 102.69(a) and 102.111(b) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. 2 In a letter from the customer service manager of UPS’s Metro Dallas loca- tion, UPS accepts full responsibility for nondelivery of the objections. 3 The Board’s remand Order was issued, in unpublished form, on December 23, 1990. Temple Inland Forest Products and United Paper- workers International Union, AFL–CIO, CLC, Petitioner. Case 16–RC–9314 January 24, 1991 DECISION AND ORDER REMANDING BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND RAUDABAUGH Pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agreement exe- cuted by the parties, an election by secret ballot was conducted in the above-entitled proceeding on July 13, 1990, under the direction and supervision of the Re- gional Director. On July 30, 1990, the Petitioner’s election objections were received by the Regional Of- fice. On August 3, 1990, the Regional Director re- jected the Petitioner’s objections as untimely filed.1 On August 16, 1990, the Petitioner filed a request for re- view contending that there are extenuating cir- cumstances in this case that warrant the Board’s ac- cepting the objections out of time. The record shows that the Petitioner sent the elec- tion objections by United Parcel Service (UPS) on July 18, 1990, 2 days in advance of the filing due date. The objections were delivered to the UPS facility in Nash- ville, Tennessee, on July 18, 1990, and forwarded to UPS’s Fort Worth, Texas location where they were re- ceived on July 19, 1990, and then lost.2 In rejecting the Petitioner’s objections, the Regional Director relied on Section 102.111(b) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations and the Board’s decision in Drum Lithographers, 287 NLRB 22 (1987). ORDER For the reasons discussed in John I. Haas, Inc., 301 NLRB 300 (1991), the Board has decided to overrule Drum Lithographers, and revise its Rules and Regula- tions at Section 102.111(b) to remove election objec- tions from the documents excluded from the ‘‘post- mark’’ rule. Because the Petitioner’s objections were timely filed under the ‘‘postmark’’ rule, we have re- manded this case to the Regional Director to process them.3