C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER I—NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD › PART 102—RULES AND REGULATIONS, SERIES 8 › Subpart P—Ex Parte Communications

29 C.F.R. § 102.126

Unauthorized communications

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

(a) No interested person outside this Agency may, in an on-the-record proceeding of the types defined in § 102.128, make or knowingly cause to be made any prohibited ex parte communication to Board agents of the categories designated in that Section relevant to the merits of the proceeding.

(b) No Board agent of the categories defined in § 102.128, participating in a particular proceeding as defined in that section, may:

(i) Request any prohibited ex parte communications; or

(ii) Make or knowingly cause to be made any prohibited ex parte communications about the proceeding to any interested person outside this Agency relevant to the merits of the proceeding.

[82 FR 11778, Feb. 24, 2017]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1975–2017 · leading case: Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. New Vista Nursing & Rehab., 870 F.3d 113 (3rd Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. New Vista Nursing & Rehab., 870 F.3d 113 (3rd Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “6 Here, 6 See 29 C.F.R. § 102.126 (a) (2016) (“No interested person outside this agency shall, in an on-the-record proceeding of the types defined in § 102.”
Salem Hosp. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 808 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “29 C.F.R. § 102.126 (b) (“No Board agent .”
Pioneer Hotel, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 182 F.3d 939 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “” 29 C.F.R. § 102.126 (1998). Third, we reject Pioneer’s assertion that comments the ALJ made in his decision rejecting its motion for reconsideration evidenced prejudicial hostility toward one of Pioneer’s counsel.”
Regency Elec., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 523 F.2d 522 (7th Cir. 1975). “In its brief before this court, the Company advanced a third argument that the proceedings before the Board were “tainted” by the receipt of ex parte communications in the form of letters from the Union’s counsel and a United States Senator in violation of the Board’s own rules,…”
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.