[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 247 (Monday, December 23, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 67578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-32504]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD


National Labor Relations Board Advisory Committee on Agency 
Procedure; Meetings

AGENCY: National Labor Relations Board.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. app. 2 (1972), and 29 C.F.R. Sec. 
102.136 (1993), the National Labor Relations Board has established a 
National Labor Relations Board Advisory Committee on Agency Procedure, 
the purpose of which is to provide input and advice to the Board and 
General Counsel on changes in Agency procedures that will expedite case 
processing and improve Agency service to the public. Notices of the 
establishment and renewal of the Advisory Committee were published in 
the Federal Register on May 13, 1994 (59 FR 25128) and November 27, 
1996 (61 FR 60311), respectively.
    As indicated in the notice establishing the Advisory Committee, the 
Committee consists of two Panels which will meet separately, one 
composed of Union-side representatives and the other of Management-side 
representatives. Pursuant to Section 10(a) of FACA, the Agency hereby 
announces that the next meetings of the Advisory Committee Panels will 
be held on January 28, 1997 (Management-side) and January 30, 1997 
(Union-side)
    Time and Place: The meeting of the Management-side Panel of the 
Advisory Committee will be held at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 28, 
1997, at the National Labor Relations Board, 1099 14th Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C., in the Board Hearing Room, Rm 11000. The meeting of 
the Union-side Panel of the Advisory Committee will be held at 10:00 
a.m. on Thursday, January 30, 1997, at the same location.
    Agenda: The agenda at the meetings of both Advisory Committee 
Panels will focus on the following issues and questions:
    I. As is generally known, the Agency's challenged ballot procedure 
has for years included an informal practice which is commonly referred 
to as the ``ten percent rule''. Pursuant to this practice, the ``rule'' 
provided that normally a Regional Director would not approve a 
stipulated election agreement if more than 10% of the proposed 
bargaining unit was in dispute regarding eligibility and accordingly 
would necessitate at least 10% of the votes being subject to challenge. 
Further, in a Decision and Direction of Election, a Regional Director 
would not direct an election in a unit if the eligibility of more than 
10% of the employees remained at issue. Finally, the Board, in Requests 
for Reviews, would not direct elections if more than 10% of the 
employees would vote subject to challenge. Notwithstanding this general 
practice, the Board in fact, however, in recent years has departed from 
the 10% rule on a case by case basis, occasionally directing elections 
in cases in which the eligibility of substantially more than 10% of the 
employees remained at issue. In some of these situations determinative 
election results were obtained, thereby obviating the need to address 
or decide the eligibility issues.
    What would be the implications and ramifications if the Board 
expanded the so-called ``10% rule'' to as much as 30% or more? What 
should the upper limit be? Would such an expansion have any impact on 
the percentage of representation cases resolved by stipulated election 
agreement? Should Regional Directors be encouraged or authorized to 
approve stipulated election agreements which provide that in excess of 
10% of the employees will vote subject to challenge? Generally, would 
this approach expedite the processing of Representation cases or would 
it create additional delay?
    II. In a recent decision, Cross Pointe Paper Corp. v. NLRB, 89 F.3d 
447, 152 LRRM 2812 (July 15, 1996), the 7th Circuit directed that the 
Board conduct a hearing with regard to certain objections.
    As a result of the decision in Cross Pointe, should the Agency 
adopt a different approach in regard to investigating and conducting 
hearings regarding objections? For example, should the Board amend its 
rules and cease conducting investigations on objections issues and 
simply direct a hearing on the objections, providing, of course, that 
the objecting party has proffered evidence establishing a prima facie 
case? What should be required to establish a prima facie case? (e.g., 
authenticated documents, affidavits, specific offers of proof, lists of 
witnesses with a description of what they would testify to)? If a 
hearing is not held, should affidavits secured in the investigation be 
reviewed by the Board?
    Public Participation: The meetings will be open to the public. As 
indicated in the Agency's prior notice, within 30 days of adjournment 
of the later of the Advisory Committee Panel meetings, any member of 
the public may present written comments to the Committee on matters 
considered during the meetings. Written comments should be submitted to 
the Committee's Management Officer and Designated Federal Official, 
Enid W. Weber, Associate Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations 
Board, 1099 14th Street, N.W., Suite 11600, Washington, D.C. 20570-
0001; telephone: (202) 273-1937.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Advisory Committee Management Officer 
and Designated Federal Official, Enid W. Weber, Associate Executive 
Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1099 14th Street, N.W., 
Suite 11600, Washington, D.C. 20570-0001; telephone: (202) 273-1937.

    Dated, December 17, 1996.

    By direction of the Board:
John J. Toner,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-32504 Filed 12-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7545-01-P