C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER I—NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD › PART 102—RULES AND REGULATIONS, SERIES 8 › Subpart C—Procedure Under Section 10(A) to (I) of the Act for the Prevention of Unfair Labor Practices

29 C.F.R. § 102.17

Amendment

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

A complaint may be amended upon such terms as may be deemed just, prior to the hearing, by the Regional Director issuing the complaint; at the hearing and until the case has been transferred to the Board pursuant to § 102.45, upon motion, by the Administrative Law Judge designated to conduct the hearing; and after the case has been transferred to the Board pursuant to § 102.45, at any time prior to the issuance of an order based thereon, upon motion, by the Board.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1969–2013 · leading case: Local Union 36, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 706 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Local Union 36, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 706 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 102.17 . 14 We decline to question the considered judgment of the General Counsel, and affirm the Board’s determination that the General Counsel withdrew the initial allegation that Rochester Gas had breached its obligation to bargain over the decision to…”
M & M Backhoe Serv., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 469 F.3d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “See 29 C.F.R. § 102.17 . For the foregoing reasons the petitions for judicial review are denied and the cross-application for enforcement is granted.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 419 F.2d 1080 (1st Cir. 1970). · cites it 2× “General Counsel filed no exceptions or motions to amend its complaint even at this stage, see 29 C.F.R. § 102.17 , but rather in its brief urged the Board to find domination.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. E. L. Clark, Owner, Jim H. Pierce, Lessee of the Ashville-Whitney Nursing Home, 468 F.2d 459 (5th Cir. 1972). “17 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, 29 CFR § 102.17 . Hercules Powder Company v.”
Title Guarantee Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 407 F. Supp. 498 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). “(the Board’s own Freedom of Information Act procedures, 29 C.F.R. § 102.17 , Title Guarantee) is of the opinion that the statements referred to in its Notice to Produce have been improperly withheld by the Board’s General Counsel under the Freedom of Information Act, its…”
A. H. Belo Corp. (Afaa-Tv) v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Local Union 1257, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. A. H. Belo Corp. (Wfaa-Tv), 411 F.2d 959 (5th Cir. 1969). “It would have been all too easy for the Board to amend its complaint to include this allegation 29 C.F.R. 102.17. 38 The company does not allege, nor do we see how it could, that it was prejudiced in any way by the omission from the complaint.”
Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North Am., Afl-Cio, & Food Handlers Local 425 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 420 F.2d 148 (D.C. Cir. 1969). “The Board’s Rules and Regulations provide as follows ( 29 C.F.R. § 102.17 ) : Any such complaint may be amended upon such terms as may be deemed just, prior to the hearing, bv the regional director issuing the complaint; at the hearing and until the case has been transferred to…”
Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 658 F.2d 968 (4th Cir. 1981). “,” 29 C.F.R. § 102.17 (1980), even failure to amend does not preclude finding an unfair labor practice where an issue is fully and fairly litigated.”
LONE STAR STEEL Co. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 691 F. Supp. 1280 (E.D. Okla. 1986). “29 C.F.R. § 102.17 (1985). The practical effect of this scheme is to reduce the charging party’s power to frame the issues in contention to a much lower level than that of a plaintiff instituting civil litigation in the courts.”
A. H. Belo Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 411 F.2d 959 (5th Cir. 1969). “29 C.F.R. § 102.17 . The company does not allege, nor do we see how it could, that it was prejudiced in any way by the omission from the complaint.”
Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. (2d Cir. 2013). “14 29 C.F.R. § 102.17 provides that a complaint in a case before the 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.