P & M Cedar Products, Inc.

772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD P & M Cedar Products, Inc. and International Woodworkers of America, Local 3-433, AFL- CIO. Case 20-CA-2013,2 15 January 1987 ORDER DENYING MOTION On 11 September 1986 Administrative Law Judge James M. Kennedy of the National Labor Relations Board issued his decision in the above-en- titled proceeding and, on the same date, the pro- ceeding was transferred to and continued before the Board in Washington, D.C. The judge found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and recommended that it take cer- tain affirmative action to remedy such unfair labor practices. On 27 October 1986 the Respondent filed exceptions to the judge's decision and a brief in support. By letter dated 27 October 1986 the Charging Party requested an extension of time to file an answering brief. By mailgram, dated 31 Oc- tober 1986, the time to file an answering brief was extended to 19 November 1986. On 17 November 1986 the Board received answering briefs from the Charging Party and the General Counsel. On that same date the General Counsel filed cross-excep- tions to the judge's decision. On 15 December 1986 the Respondent filed a "Motion to Strike Cross-Exceptions and Answering Brief' of the General Counsel, submitting that the cross-exceptions and answering brief were untimely because the General Counsel "neither requested nor was granted an extension of time, as required by the Board's Rules and Regulations." The Re- spondent further submits that the Charging Party requested and received an extension of time to file an answering brief, that the General Counsel's cross-exceptions and answering brief were due on 9 November, and that since they were not mailed until 14 November 1986, the General Counsel's cross-exceptions and answering brief were untime- ly. The Respondent contends that there are no un- usual circumstances which would warrant an ex- ception to the Board's Rules requiring strict com- pliance with respect to timely filing. The General Counsel filed an opposition to Respondent's motion, contending that he believed that the exten- sion of time granted to the Charging Party to file an answering brief also applied to the General Counsel and also enlarged the time to file cross-ex- ceptions. The Board having duly considered the matter, IT IS ORDERED that the Respondent's motion to strike is denied. Section 102.46(e) of the Board's Rules and Regulations provides in pertinent part that "[a]ny party who has not previously filed ex- ceptions may, within 14 days, or such further 282 NLRB No. 108 period as the Board may allow, from the last date on which exceptions and any supporting brief may be filed, file cross-exceptions . . -.." The only limi- tation on the right to file cross-exceptions is that the party who wishes to file cross-exceptions may not already have filed exceptions. With respect to extensions of time, the Board's longstanding policy and practice is that a request for an extension of time filed by" one party is applicable to all parties, provided, of course, that the party is otherwise eli- gible to file the document for which the extension is sought. Thus, if one party files a request for an extension of time to file an answering brief to an- other party's exceptions, any extension of time granted applies to all parties without regard to whether the request for an extension was a joint re- quest. Any other practice would result in the anomalous situation in which a party who may not have needed additional time to file the document for which the extension was granted must either file its own request for an extension or put itself at a disadvantage by filing the document in question by the earlier due date. As an alternative, requiring all parties to join in a request for an extension of time would not be practicable from an administra- tive standpoint. Because the filing of cross-exceptions usually, but not invariably, is accompanied by the filing of an answering brief, a request for an extension of time to file cross-exceptions has been construed to enlarge the time to file an answering brief even if the extension-of-time request does not specifically allude to an answering brief. The reverse is not true, however; i.e., a request for an extension of time to file an answering brief does not enlarge the time to file cross-exceptions. However, as is the case with respect to whether a request for an ex- tension of time is applicable to all the parties, the Board's Rules are silent with respect to whether an extension of time to file an answering brief also en- larges the time to file cross-exceptions. Although the General Counsel would have been better advised to have filed a specific request to en- large the time to file cross-exceptions, in the cir- cumstances present here, and given the ambiguity in the Rules, the General Counsel's cross-excep- tions are accepted' and will be considered by the Board.2 1 Acceptance of the General Counsel's cross-exceptions is in accord with our longstanding policy that the Board's Rules should be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes and provisions of the Act. See Sec. 102.121. Henceforth, however, an extension of time to file an answering brief will not enlarge the time to file cross-exceptions Further, to avoid any prejudice to the Respondent, the time to file an answering brief to the General Counsel's cross-exceptions is extended to 29 January 1987. 2 Member Johansen concurs in the denial of the Respondent's motion to strike the General Counsel's answering brief, but would grant the motion to strike the General Counsel's cross-exceptions P & M CEDAR PRODUCTS 773 By direction of the Board: Joseph E. Moore, Deputy Executive Secretary.