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. § 101.14

Judicial review of Board decision and order

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

If the respondent does not comply with the Board's order, or the Board deems it desirable to implement the order with a court judgment, the Board may petition the appropriate Federal court for enforcement. Or, the respondent or any person aggrieved by a final order of the Board may petition the circuit court of appeals to review and set aside the Board's order. If a petition for review is filed, the respondent or aggrieved person must ensure that the Board receives, by service upon its Deputy Associate General Counsel of the Appellate Court Branch, a court-stamped copy of the petition with the date of filing. Upon such review or enforcement proceedings, the court reviews the record and the Board's findings and order and sustains them if they are in accordance with the requirements of law. The court may enforce, modify, or set aside in whole or in part the Board's findings and order, or it may remand the case to the Board for further proceedings as directed by the court. Following the court's judgment, either the Government or the private party may petition the Supreme Court for review upon writ of certiorari. Such applications for review to the Supreme Court are handled by the Board through the Solicitor General of the United States.

[53 FR 24440, June 29, 1988]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · 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 (e), (f); 29 CFR § 101.14 . B Crucially for present purposes, Congress recognized that delay in vindicating labor rights “during the `notoriously gla- cial' course of NLRB proceedings” can lead to their defeat.”
Inova Health Sys. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 795 F.3d 68 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “§ 160 (f); 29 C.F.R. § 101.14 . Factual Background This case arises from Inova’s discipline or discharge of three nurses in the ambu *75 latory surgery center of Inova’s Fairfax, Virginia campus.”
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). “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 appropriate federal court.”
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339 (2024). “§§160 (e), (f ); 29 CFR §101.14 . B Crucially for present purposes, Congress recognized that delay in vindicating labor rights “during the ‘notoriously glacial’ course of NLRB proceedings” can lead to their de- feat.”
Magnesium Casting Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 401 U.S. 137 (1971). “11 29 CFR § 101.14 . 12 There is no different standard of review prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act.”
Gould, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 750 F.2d 608 (7th Cir. 1984). “” 15 . Gould argues that the Wisconsin legislation inhibits an employer's engaging in "gray area” activities out of the fear of incurring an NLRB violation, thereby circumventing the NLRB’s determination of which such activities are permissible under the NLRA, and thus affecting…”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Magnesium Casting Co., United Steelworkers of Am., Intervenor, 427 F.2d 114 (1st Cir. 1970). “29 C.F.R. § 101.14 ; 29 U.S.C. § 10 (d). In the case presently before us, the Regional Director’s findings of fact which had been adopted by the trial examiner and by the Board were as complete and “reviewable” as any we have received from the Board.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 85, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., 454 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1972). “14 reiterates the same theme: “If the respondent does not comply with the Board’s order, or the Board deems it desirable to implement the order with a court decree, the Board may petition the appropriate Federal Court for enforcement.” The contention lacks merit and is rejected.”
Dir. Eric A. Taylor, Reg'l Dir. of the Ninth Region of the Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., For & On Behalf (E.D. Ky. 2026). “§ 160 (e); 29 C.F.R. § 101.14 . The Board’s administrative proceedings often take years to come to a final result, particularly where a case reaches the full Board.”
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.