Jacqueline Tensing v. National Labor Relations Board
Jacqueline TENSING Et Al., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners seek review of the refusal of the NLRB’s General Counsel to issue a complaint on charges filed before the Board. The Board has moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
We have held previously that district courts may not review the refusal of the Board’s General Counsel to investigate or to file a complaint concerning unfair labor practice charges, Mayer v. Ordman, 391 F.2d 889 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 925 , 89 S.Ct. 257 , 21 L.Ed.2d 261 (1968), adhering to the teaching of Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 182 , 87 S.Ct. 903, 913 , 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967), that “the Board’s General Counsel has unreviewable discretion to refuse to institute an unfair labor practice complaint.”
This principle does not change because an aggrieved party files a petition for review in this Court rather than an action in District Court. We have no jurisdiction of the petition .for review, and it must be dismissed.
Hernandez v. N. L. R. B., 505 F.2d 119 (5th Cir. 1974).
The petition for review is hereby dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Coles v. National Labor Relations Board
- Marvin Echols v. National Labor Relations Board
- Rockford Redi-Mix Co., Inc. v. Zipp
- State v. Council of NJ State College Locals
- Baker v. International Alliance Of Theatrical Stage Employees And Moving Picture Operators Of The United States And Canada
- Rockford Redi-Mix Co. v. Zipp
Most recent
- Rieth-Riley Construction Co. v. Elizabeth Kerwin
- Coles v. National Labor Relations Board
- Baker v. International Alliance Of Theatrical Stage Employees And Moving Picture Operators Of The United States And Canada
- Rockford Redi-Mix Co. v. Zipp
- Rockford Redi-Mix Co., Inc. v. Zipp
- State v. Council of NJ State College Locals
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.