Danone North America PBC

372 NLRB No. 103 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex- ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. Danone North America PBC and Alex Botello, Peti- tioner and United Food and Commercial Work- ers, Local 540. Cases 16–RD–302294 and 16– RD–308922 July 5, 2023 ORDER BY MEMBERS KAPLAN, WILCOX, AND PROUTY The Petitioner’s Requests for Review of the Regional Director’s dismissal of the Petitioner’s petitions in cases 16–RD–302294 and 16–RD–308922 are granted as they raise substantial issues warranting review. The cases are remanded to the Regional Director to provide a fuller explanation as to why the petitions should be dismissed under the contract-bar doctrine and to address the Peti- tioner’s arguments as to why the contract bar should not apply.1 Dated, Washington, D.C. July 5, 2023 ______________________________________ Marvin E. Kaplan Member ______________________________________ Gwynne A. Wilcox, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD MEMBER PROUTY, dissenting. I would deny review. Section 102.71(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations sets forth a demanding standard providing that review will be granted only on certain enumerated grounds, none of which are met here. More- over, the Regional Director properly applied the Board’s longstanding contract-bar doctrine to dismiss the Peti- tioner’s petitions and adequately explained his reasons for doing so in his dismissal letters to the Petitioner. The dismissal letters notified the Petitioner that his petitions were barred by collective-bargaining agreements be- tween the Employer and the Union, cited the Board’s case law governing the calculation of the window period for timely filing a petition, and informed the Petitioner of 1 In granting review to provide the Regional Director an opportunity to address the Petitioner’s arguments more fully, we do not pass on the substance of the Petitioner’s arguments. the proper dates for a timely-filed petition. As such, the Regional Director’s dismissal letters satisfy the require- ment under Section 102.71(a) that, in administratively dismissing a petition, the Regional Director “advise the petitioner in writing, setting forth a simple statement of the procedural or other grounds for the dismissal . . . .” See also NLRB Case Handling Manual, Representation Proceedings, Section 11100.2 (“The petitioner should be notified in writing of the dismissal and the reason there- for.”). In addition, nothing in the Board’s Rules and Regulations requires the Regional Director to respond to every argument raised in a petitioner’s response to a no- tice to show cause. So long as the grounds for the dis- missal are stated in the dismissal letter—as the Regional Director did here—the Board should not demand any- thing more of a Regional Director. Accordingly, because the Regional Director’s dismissals of the petitions were consistent with both Section 102.71(a) and the Board’s contract-bar doctrine, and the Petitioner has failed to establish grounds for granting review under Section 102.71(a), the Board should deny review. Dated, Washington, D.C. July 5, 2023 _____________________________________ David M. Prouty, Member NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD