29 C.F.R. § 102.33

Transfer of charge and proceeding from Region to Region; consolidation of proceedings in same Region; severance

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

(a) Whenever the General Counsel deems it necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act or to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, a charge may be filed with the General Counsel in Washington, DC, or, at any time after a charge has been filed with a Regional Director, the General Counsel may order that such charge and any proceeding regarding the charge be:

(1) Transferred to and continued before the General Counsel for investigation or consolidation with any other proceeding which may have been instituted in a Regional Office or with the General Counsel; or

(2) Consolidated with any other proceeding which may have been instituted in the same region; or

(3) Transferred to and continued in any other Region for the purpose of investigation or consolidation with any proceeding which may have been instituted in or transferred to such other region; or

(4) Severed from any other proceeding with which it may have been consolidated pursuant to this section.

(b) The provisions of §§ 102.9 through 102.32 will, insofar as applicable, govern proceedings before the General Counsel, pursuant to this section, and the powers granted to Regional Directors in such provisions will, for the purpose of this section, be reserved to and exercised by the General Counsel. After the transfer of any charge and any proceeding which may have been instituted with respect thereto from one Region to another pursuant to this section, the provisions of this subpart will, insofar as possible, govern such charge and such proceeding as if the charge had originally been filed in the Region to which the transfer is made.

(c) The Regional Director may, prior to hearing, exercise the powers in paragraphs (a)(2) and (4) of this section with respect to proceedings pending in the Director's Region.

(d) Motions to consolidate or sever proceedings after issuance of complaint must be filed as provided in § 102.24 and ruled upon as provided in § 102.25, except that the Regional Director may consolidate or sever proceedings prior to hearing upon the Director's own motion. Rulings by the Administrative Law Judge upon motions to consolidate or sever may be appealed to the Board as provided in § 102.26.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2022 · leading case: Barrus Constr. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 483 F.2d 191 (4th Cir. 1973).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Barrus Constr. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 483 F.2d 191 (4th Cir. 1973). · cites it 4× “” 2 The company filed a motion to sever the proceedings, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 102.33 (d) (1972), alleging a conflict' of interest in that the same attorney represented the Board in both cases.”

Salem Hosp. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 808 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “The rules authorize the RD to sever a previously consolidated case, 29 C.F.R. § 102.33 (a)(4), (c), and, presumably, assign the representation hearing to an HO and the ULP proceeding to an ALJ.”

Fdrlst Media LLC v. Nlrb, 35 F.4th 108 (3rd Cir. 2022). “Even more fundamentally, the Employer never requested a transfer (as permitted by 29 C.F.R. § 102.33 (a)) or a relocation (as permitted by 29 C.”

Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 658 F.2d 968 (4th Cir. 1981). · cites it 3× “Thus, the paragraph 15 allegations clearly are grounded in the viable charges, Procter & Gamble had ample notice of these charges against it, and, therefore, the Board properly considered the merits of these claims. VI The unions filed eleven viable unfair labor practice charges…”

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Washington Heights-West Harlem-Inwood Mental Health Council, Inc., 897 F.2d 1238 (2d Cir. 1990). “See 29 C.F.R. § 102.33 (a)(2) & (c) (1989); NLRB v.”

— 29 C.F.R. § 102.33(a)(2) — 1 case

Barrus Constr. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 483 F.2d 191 (4th Cir. 1973). “” 2 The company filed a motion to sever the proceedings, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 102.33 (d) (1972), alleging a conflict' of interest in that the same attorney represented the Board in both 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.