SCOVT affirms denial of motion to enlarge the time to file a notice of appeal; Board did not abuse its discretion in holding that attorney’s failure to notify the Board of his new address was not excusable neglect.

In re Grievance of Edward Von Turkovich, 2018 VT 57 [filed 5/25/2018]

REIBER, C.J. Grievant Edward von Turkovich appeals the decision of the Vermont Labor Relations Board denying his motion to enlarge the time for him to file a notice of appeal. We affirm.

After filing a grievance with the Board on behalf of employee and opposing the employer’s motion to dismiss, employee’s attorney moved his office, notifying the Post Office of his new address —but not the Board, required by Board rules. The Board sent its decision dismissing the grievance to the attorney, return-receipt-requested. The Post Office sent it back to the Board with the attorney’s new address. By the time the attorney got the decision, more than 30 days had passed since the dismissal.

Because the attorney failed to update his mailing address with the Board in a timely manner, grievant did not receive notice of the Board’s order within the thirty-day appeals window. Applying the Pioneer test articulated by the United States Supreme Court, we agree with the Board that the factors of delay, prejudice, and good faith weigh in favor of grievant. But our primary focus must be the reason for the delay. The delayed notice was within attorney’s control and is analogous to a breakdown in internal office procedures, which we repeatedly have found is not excusable neglect.