29 C.F.R. § 102.16

Hearing; change of date or place

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

(a) Upon the Regional Director's own motion or upon proper cause shown by any other party, the Regional Director issuing the complaint may extend the hearing date or change the hearing place, except that the Regional Director's authority to extend the hearing date is limited to the following circumstances:

(1) Where all parties agree or no party objects to extension of the hearing date;

(2) Where a new charge or charges have been filed which, if meritorious, might be appropriate for consolidation with the pending complaint;

(3) Where negotiations which could lead to settlement of all or a portion of the complaint are in progress;

(4) Where issues related to the complaint are pending before the General Counsel's Division of Advice or Office of Appeals; or

(5) Where more than 21 days remain before the scheduled hearing date.

(b) In circumstances other than those set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, motions to reschedule the hearing may be filed with the Division of Judges in accordance with § 102.24(a). When a motion to reschedule has been granted, the Regional Director issuing the complaint retains the authority to order a new hearing date and the responsibility to make the necessary arrangements for conducting the hearing, including its location and the transcription of the proceedings.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2022 · leading case: Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Zeno Table Co., Inc., 610 F.2d 567 (9th Cir. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Zeno Table Co., Inc., 610 F.2d 567 (9th Cir. 1980). “29 C.F.R. § 102.16 (1978). The possibility of prejudice arising from a consideration of Zeno’s answer, therefore, appears minimal.”

Fdrlst Media LLC v. Nlrb, 35 F.4th 108 (3rd Cir. 2022). “33 (a)) or a relocation (as permitted by 29 C.F.R. § 102.16 (a)). Instead, the Employer expressly “t[ook] no position .”

Centra, Inc. v. Hirsch, 606 F. Supp. 530 (E.D. Pa. 1985). “29 C.F.R. § 102.16 . So that even if a duty to provide a hearing is constitutionally required, see Mattern, there is no correlative duty to hold the hearing at the convenience of the petitioner.”

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.