Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 168/Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations 54037 Board rejects both contentions because, measures supported by extensive Board addition to the proposed enforcement as explained in the NPRM, the Board and court precedent. scheme, the rule state that an does not have the authority to impose In addition, in a number of places the — employer’s knowing failure to post the fines. 75 FR 80414, citing Republic Steel] NPRM used the term “sanctions” in a notice of employee rights during the Corp. v. NLRB, 311 U.S. 7, 10-12 (1940). very loose sense to refer to aspects of the critical period before a representation Another comment argues that the Board proposed enforcement scheme, election shall be grounds for setting the should not provide remedies for failing inadvertently suggesting that this election aside on the filing of proper to post the notice because such scheme was punitive. The term objections. The Board finds that this is remedies are not provided under other = “sanctions” was an inapt choice of unnecessary, because the Board’s notice statutes. In fact, both remedies and descriptor for the enforcement scheme: of election, which must be posted by an sanctions are imposed under some the classic 8(a)(1) remedial order has employer three working days before an statutes; see, e.g., 29 CFR 1601.30 (fine — long been upheld as nonpunitive; election takes place, contains a of $110 per offense for failing to post equitable tolling is concerned with summary of employee NLRA rights and notice under Title VII); 29 CFR fairness to employees, not punishment a list of several kinds of unfair labor 825.300(a)(1) (same sanction for failing of misconduct, and is fully consistent practices, and failure to post that notice to post notice under FMLA); cases cited — with current Board doctrine; and the already constitutes grounds for setting above for tolling of limitation periods animus provision is little more than the an election aside.171 In any