C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER I—NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD › PART 101—STATEMENTS OF PROCEDURES › Subpart B—Unfair Labor Practice Cases Under Section 10 (a) to (i) of the Act and Telegraph Merger Act Cases

29 C.F.R. § 101.10

Hearings

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Except in extraordinary situations the hearing is open to the public and usually conducted in the Region where the charge originated. A duly designated administrative law judge presides over the hearing. The Government's case is conducted by an attorney attached to the Board's Regional Office, who has the responsibility of presenting the evidence in support of the complaint. The rules of evidence applicable in the district courts of the United States under the Rules of Civil Procedure adopted by the Supreme Court are, so far as practicable, controlling. Counsel for the General Counsel, all parties to the proceeding, and the administrative law judge have the power to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence into the record. They may also submit briefs, engage in oral argument, and submit proposed findings and conclusions to the administrative law judge. The attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of evidence material to any matter under investigation may be compelled by subpoena.

(b) The functions of all administrative law judges and other Board agents or employees participating in decisions in conformity with section 8 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 557) are conducted in an impartial manner and any such administrative law judge, agent, or employee may at any time withdraw if he or she deems himself or herself disqualified because of bias or prejudice. The Board's attorney has the burden of proof of violations of section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act and section 222(f) of the Telegraph Merger Act. In connection with hearings subject to the provisions of section 7 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 556):

(1) No sanction is imposed or rule or order issued except upon consideration of the whole record or such portions thereof as may be cited by any party and as supported by and in accordance with the preponderance of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.

(2) Every party has the right to present its case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.

(3) Where any decision rests on official notice of a material fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, any party is on timely request afforded a reasonable opportunity to show the contrary.

(4) Subject to the approval of the administrative law judge, all parties to the proceeding voluntarily may enter into a stipulation dispensing with a verbatim written transcript of record of the oral testimony adduced at the hearing and providing for the waiver by the respective parties of their right to file with the Board exceptions to the findings of fact (but not to conclusions of law or recommended orders) in the administrative law judge's decision.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339 (2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339 (2024). “§§ 160 (b), (c); 29 CFR §§ 101.10 to 101.12. A federal court of appeals may review the Board's fnal order, if an aggrieved party seeks judicial review or if the Board seeks enforce- ment of its order.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wright Line, a Div. of Wright Line, Inc., 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981). “29 C.F.R. § 101.10 (b) provides in part: The Board’s attorney has the burden of proof of violations of section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act.”
Inova Health Sys. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 795 F.3d 68 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “If the Regional Director determines that the charge has merit, then that Director can file a formal complaint against the employer. 29 U.S.C. § 160 (b); 29 C.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Jacob E. Decker & Sons, 569 F.2d 357 (5th Cir. 1978). “See also 29 C.F.R. §§ 101.10 (a), 102.39 (1976). Whether the Board may deviate from either the eviden-tiary or the procedural rules depends upon the extent to which the Board’s proceedings are comparable to the proceedings in federal courts.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. First Termite Control Co., Inc., 646 F.2d 424 (1st Cir. 1981). “” See 29 CFR §§ 101.10 (a), 102.39 (1980). The parties do not contend that the use of the rules of evidence was not practicable in this case.”
Fdrlst Media LLC v. Nlrb, 35 F.4th 108 (3rd Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “It may have been preferable for the Board to have transferred the charge or relocated the hearings to a Region with a connection to the Employer, but absent any request for transfer or relocation from the Employer, we cannot say that conducting the hearing “in the Region where…”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dorothy Shamrock Coal Co., 833 F.2d 1263 (7th Cir. 1987). “” The ALT found that the General Counsel established a prima facie case that the Company’s decision was in retaliation for its employees’ recent pro-union activities, and rejected the Company’s economic justifications for the terminations as unsupported by the record.”
Overnite Transp. Co. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., AFL-CIO, 773 N.E.2d 26 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “After the hearing, the administrative law judge prepares a decision, making findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommends what action should be taken in the case. 29 C.F.R. § 101.11 (1999). The NLRB then reviews the entire record and issues its decision, either…”
Behring Int'l, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 675 F.2d 83 (3rd Cir. 1982). “” 29 C.F.R. § 101.10 (b) (1981). Moreover, § 7(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.”
Tschiggfrie Props., Ltd. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 896 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2018). “Contrary to the standard the Board applied here, the General Counsel must prove a connection or nexus between the animus and the firing- i.”
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339 (2024). “§§160 (b), (c); 29 CFR §§101.10 to 101.12. A federal court of appeals may review the Board’s final order, if an aggrieved party seeks judicial review or if the Board seeks enforcement of its order.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., & Leigh Benin, Faustino Vargas, & Laszlo Berkovits, Intervenors v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 702 F.2d 284 (2d Cir. 1983). “” 29 C.F.R. § 101.10 (b) (1982). 8 In the face of § 10(c)’s seemingly clear directive, the Board, backed by several courts of appeal, argues that shifting the burden does not affect the ultimate burden of proof.”
Show all 37 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.