(a) At the conclusion of the hearing the administrative law judge prepares a decision stating findings of fact and conclusions, as well as the reasons for the determinations on all material issues, and making recommendations as to action which should be taken in the case. The administrative law judge may recommend dismissal or sustain the complaint, in whole or in part, and recommend that the respondent cease and desist from the unlawful acts found and take action to remedy their effects.
(b) The administrative law judge's decision is filed with the Board in Washington, DC, and copies are simultaneously served on each of the parties. At the same time the Board, through its Executive Secretary, issues and serves on each of the parties an order transferring the case to the Board. The parties may accept and comply with the administrative law judge's recommended order, which, in the absence of exceptions, shall become the order of the Board. Or, the parties or counsel for the Board may file exceptions to the administrative law judge's decision with the Board. Whenever any party files exceptions, any other party may file an answering brief limited to questions raised in the exceptions and/or may file cross-exceptions relating to any portion of the administrative law judge's decision. Cross-exceptions may be filed only by a party who has not previously filed exceptions. Whenever any party files cross-exceptions, any other party may file an answering brief to the cross-exceptions. The parties may request permission to appear and argue orally before the Board in Washington, DC. They may also submit proposed findings and conclusions to the Board.
Notes of Decisions
Inova Health Sys. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 795 F.3d 68 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
“An administrative law judge (“ALF”) will hear the case and issue a decision that makes factual findings, credibility determinations, legal conclusions, and a remedial recommendation.”
Kobell v. United Paperworkers Int'l Union, 965 F.2d 1401 (6th Cir. 1992).
· cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 101.11 (b). On March 16, 1992, the Union filed a motion to dismiss the Director’s appeal on the grounds that it had been rendered moot by the Union’s February 18, 1992, voluntary discontinuation of the pooled voting ratification procedure.”
AMERCO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 458 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2006).
“The ALJ reached a decision on September 30, 2005, and both parties have filed exceptions to the decision, 29 C.F.R. § 101.11 , on which the NLRB has yet to rule.”
Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC v. NLRB (6th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. §§ 101.11 , 101.12. The Board “reviews the entire record, including the administrative law judge’s decision and recommendations, the exceptions thereto, the complete transcript of evidence, and the exhibits, briefs, and arguments” and “then issues its decision and…”
Eric Taylor v. ADT, LLC (6th Cir. 2023).
“§ 160 (c); 29 C.F.R. § 101.11 (b), so the Regional Director continues to maintain an interest in securing interim relief in these § 10(j) proceedings.”
Wilcox v. Trump (D.D.C. 2025).
“; 29 C.F.R. §§ 101.11 -.12. If the parties file exceptions requesting the Board’s review, the Board will consider the ALJ’s recommendation, gather additional facts as necessary, and issue a decision.”
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.