29 C.F.R. § 102.19

Appeal to the General Counsel from refusal to issue or reissue

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

(a) If, after the charge has been filed, the Regional Director declines to issue a complaint or, having withdrawn a complaint pursuant to § 102.18, refuses to reissue it, the Director will so advise the parties in writing, accompanied by a simple statement of the procedural or other grounds for that action. The Charging Party may obtain a review of such action by filing the “Appeal Form” with the General Counsel in Washington, DC, and filing a copy of the “Appeal Form” with the Regional Director, within 14 days from the service of the notice of such refusal to issue or reissue by the Regional Director, except where a shorter period is provided by § 102.81. The Charging Party may also file a statement setting forth the facts and reasons upon which the appeal is based. If such a statement is timely filed, the separate “Appeal Form” need not be served. A request for extension of time to file an appeal must be in writing and be received by the General Counsel, and a copy of such request filed with the Regional Director, prior to the expiration of the filing period. Copies of the acknowledgment of the filing of an appeal and of any ruling on a request for an extension of time for filing of the appeal must be served on all parties. Consideration of an appeal untimely filed is within the discretion of the General Counsel upon good cause shown.

(b) Oral presentation in Washington, DC, of the appeal issues may be permitted by a party on written request made within 4 days after service of acknowledgement of the filing of an appeal. In the event such request is granted, the other parties must be notified and afforded, without additional request, a like opportunity at another appropriate time.

(c) The General Counsel may sustain the Regional Director's refusal to issue or reissue a complaint, stating the grounds of the affirmance, or may direct the Regional Director to take further action; the General Counsel's decision must be served on all the parties. A motion for reconsideration of the decision must be filed within 14 days of service of the decision, except as hereinafter provided, and must state with particularity the error requiring reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration based upon newly discovered evidence which has become available only since the decision on appeal must be filed promptly on discovery of such evidence. Motions for reconsideration of a decision previously reconsidered will not be entertained, except in unusual situations where the moving party can establish that new evidence has been discovered which could not have been discovered by diligent inquiry prior to the first reconsideration.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 29 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1962–2025 · leading case: Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Davis, 476 U.S. 380 (1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Davis, 476 U.S. 380 (1986). · cites it 2× “See 29 CFR § 102.19 (1985). Shortly thereafter, Davis was also discharged *385 by Ryan-Walsh, apparently for his continued efforts to organize the ship superintendents and to join the Union.”

Local 926, Int'l Union of Operating Engineers v. Jones, 460 U.S. 669 (1983). · cites it 2× “[5] Appeal to the General Counsel is provided by 29 CFR § 102.19 (1982). Respondent said he "didn't see much point" in taking such an appeal.”

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975). “29 CFR § 102.19 . If an oral presentation is allowed, the subject of the unfair labor practice charge is notified and allowed a similar but separate opportunity to make an oral presentation.”

United Nat. Foods v. NLRB, 66 F.4th 536 (5th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “” 4 See 29 C.F.R. § 102.19 (providing that a Regional Director’s decision to withdraw a complaint may be appealed to the General Counsel).”

Conair Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Local 222, Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Afl-Cio, Intervenor, 721 F.2d 1355 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “29 C.F.R. § 102.19 (1983). . This exception first appeared in the record in the Counsel for the General Counsel’s Memorandum in Opposition to the Proposed Settlement Agreement at 5, dated October 18, 1979.”

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., & United Food & Com. Workers Union, Local No. 126, Intervenor v. Edwin R. O'neill, an Individual O'neill, Ltd., 965 F.2d 1522 (9th Cir. 1992). “29 C.F.R. § 102.19 (a) and (c) give the unions a right to appeal or move for reconsideration.”

St. Luke's Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Arthur Burdick & Ellen Kovac, Party, 623 F.2d 1173 (7th Cir. 1980). “19(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations (Series 8 as amended) provides that “[consideration of an appeal untimely filed is within the discretion of the general counsel upon good cause shown” ( 29 C.F.R. § 102.19 (a)). Ko-vac’s lawyer had given the General Counsel sufficient…”

Vane v. Nocella, 494 A.2d 181 (Md. 1985). “” The Regional Director would not issue a complaint, and Jones did not appeal to the General Counsel in accordance with then 29 C.F.R. § 102.19 (1982). Instead, Jones sued both the Union and the Company in state court, alleging that the Union had interfered with the contract…”

Overstreet v. El Paso Disposal, L.P., 668 F. Supp. 2d 988 (W.D. Tex. 2009). “29 C.F.R. § 102.19 (a) (2009); Terminal Freight Handling Co.”

Armand A. Mayer v. Arnold Ordman, as Gen. Couns. of the Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 391 F.2d 889 (6th Cir. 1968). “§ 153 (d)] provides that: “the General Counsel * * * shall have final authority, on behalf of the Board, in respect of the investigation of charges and issuance of complaints under section 160 of this title, and in respect of the prosecution of such complaints before the Board *…”

Carver v. Casey, 669 F. Supp. 412 (S.D. Fla. 1987). “The regional director declined to issue a complaint in the matter, and plaintiff did not appeal the decision. To the extent that he seeks review of that decision here, he is barred by the NLRB statutory scheme.”

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. S. Materials Co., Inc., 447 F.2d 15 (4th Cir. 1971). “29 C.F.R. § 102.19 . Significantly, the union elected to take no appeal in this case, so that we infer that it did not dispute the Regional Director’s implied finding that the complaint was lacking in evidentiary support.”

Show all 29 citing cases →

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.