Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 168/Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations 54031 institutions should be excluded from requirements. Those alternatives, not all requirement may affect other Board coverage if they are nonprofit and hold —_ of which are mutually exclusive, were proceedings.137 rel. ee Fequired notices io be an unfair labor gq 122 Board received several hundred ; 1 5 , Bl a : ; t d h The Board examines jurisdictional practice; (2) tolling the statute of penne er cacti © proposed’ issues on a case-by-case basis, and the limitations for fili fair lab . 2 P 5 Bo EY EN ; ; Ming untar ‘abor requirement. Those that favor Board’s jurisdiction jurisprudence is practice charges against employers that yyy], tine the rule also f th highly complex. The Board has asserted fail h ices; ideri Te ee ee een fev We ighly p ail to post the notices; (3) considering : 138 ne 2 " : ; . proposed enforcement mechanisms. jurisdiction over some religiously the willful failure to post the notices as ‘Those opposing the rule eencrall affiliated employers in the past, but has evidence of unlawful motive in unfair annose A three enforcement = declined to assert jurisdiction over other Jabor practice cases; (4) voluntary ech ten religiously-affiliated employers. See, compliance. 75 FR 80413-80414. ane. e.g., Ecclesiastical Maintenance Service, _As explained in the NPRM, the Board —_A. Noncompliance as an Unfair Labor 320 NLRB 70 (1995), and Si. Edmund’s considered but tentatively rejected Practice High School, 337 NLRB 1260 (2002). In _ relying solely on voluntary compliance. ; ; Ukiah Valley Medical Center, the Board This option logically would appear tobe —_ The rule requires employers to inform found that neither the First Amendment _ the least conducive to an effective employees of their NLRA rights because nor the Religious Restoration Act enforcement of the notice-posting the Board believes that employees must precludes the Board from asserting requirement, and the Boa