29 C.F.R. § 101.12

Board decision and order

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

(a) If any party files exceptions to the administrative law judge's decision, the Board, with the assistance of the staff counsel to each Board Member who function in much the same manner as law clerks do for judges, 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. The Board does not consult with members of the administrative law judge's staff of the division of judges or with any agent of the General Counsel in its deliberations. It then issues its decision and order in which it may adopt, modify, or reject the findings and recommendations of the administrative law judge. The decision and order contains detailed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and basic reasons for decision on all material issues raised, and an order either dismissing the complaint in whole or in part or requiring the respondent to cease and desist from its unlawful practices and to take appropriate affirmative action.

(b) If no exceptions are filed, the administrative law judge's decision and recommended order automatically become the decision and order of the Board pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act. All objections and exceptions, whether or not previously made during or after the hearing, are deemed waived for all purposes.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1951–2026 · leading case: Inova Health System v. National Labor Relations Board

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Inova Health System v. National Labor Relations Board (2015) cadc “29 C.F.R. § 101.12 (a). In doing so, the Board’s longstanding policy is not to overrule an ALJ’s credibility judgments unless “the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces” the panel that the determination is incorrect.”

Overnite Transportation Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AF (2002) illappct “29 C.F.R. § 101.12 (1999). In the event that the NLRB's order is not complied with, or the NLRB determines that it is advisable to implement the order with a court judgment or a party wishes to challenge the NLRB's decision, petition for such relief may be made to the…”

Arthur N. Stephenson v. National Labor Relations Board (1980) ca9 “It is a close question whether substantial evidence would still exist to support the Board if all the contradicted evidence were resolved favorably to Stephenson. Board regulations require that a Board decision contain findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the reasons for…”

Jess Aylett and Barbara Aylett v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, on Behalf of Bobbie Burris, and Bobbie Bur (1995) ca10 “481 (in disputes arising under the Federal Coal Mine Health & Safety Act, parties may appeal ALJ decision to Benefits Review Board); 29 C.F.R. § 101.12 (in labor disputes, the National Labor Relations Board reviews decisions of the ALJ).”

The Riverside Press, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (1969) ca5 “§ 160 (c) and the Board’s regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 101.12 and 102.48, the Board automatically adopted the trial examiner’s report because the employer did not file exceptions to the report.”

National Labor Relations Board v. Beth E. Richards D/B/A Freightlines Equipment Company (1959) ca3 “, 29 C.F.R. § 101.12 . Neither the National Labor Relations Act nor the Board’s rules require that a question of law created by the Board’s order be raised initially before the Board by a proceeding analogous to a petition for rehearing in an appellate court or a motion to amend…”

District Lodge 64, International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. National Labor Relations Board (1991) cadc “See 29 CFR § 101.12 (a). Here there were no findings on the merits, as the AU had dismissed the case under Ducane.”

National Labor Relations Board v. Red Spot Electric Co. (1951) ca9 · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. §§ 101.12 ,102.48. . 29 U.S.C.A.”

Eric Taylor v. ADT, LLC (2023) ca6 “§ 160 (b), (c); 29 C.F.R. § 101.12 . That courts of appeals enforce Board-issued “pick and choose” orders in appropriate circumstances does not mean that this remedy is required as a matter of course, particularly in a preliminary § 10(j) proceeding.”

Wilcox v. Trump (2025) dcd “§ 160 (c); 29 C.F.R. § 101.12 . The Board may craft relief, such as a cease-and-desist order to halt unfair labor practices or an order requiring reinstatement of terminated employees.”

Cathy Harris v. Scott Bessent (2025) cadc “The Board may issue a cease- and-desist order to halt unfair labor practices, or it may issue an order requiring reinstatement of terminated employees, with or without backpay, and similar equitable remedies. 29 U.”

Director Eric A. Taylor, Regional Director of the Ninth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, For and On Behalf (2026) kyed “29 C.F.R. § 101.12 . On March 9, 2026, Taylor petitioned this Court for a temporary injunction pursuant to Section 10(j).”

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.