29 C.F.R. § 102.48

No exceptions filed; exceptions filed; motions for reconsideration, rehearing, or reopening the record

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

(a) No exceptions filed. If no timely or proper exceptions are filed, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the Administrative Law Judge's decision will, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, automatically become the decision and order of the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections and exceptions must be deemed waived for all purposes.

(b) Exceptions filed. (1) Upon the filing of timely and proper exceptions, and any cross-exceptions or answering briefs, as provided in § 102.46, the Board may decide the matter upon the record, or after oral argument, or may reopen the record and receive further evidence before a Board Member or other Board agent or agency, or otherwise dispose of the case.

(2) Where exception is taken to a factual finding of the Administrative Law Judge, the Board, in determining whether the finding is contrary to a preponderance of the evidence, may limit its consideration to such portions of the record as are specified in the exceptions, the supporting brief, and the answering brief.

(c) Motions for reconsideration, rehearing, or reopening the record. A party to a proceeding before the Board may, because of extraordinary circumstances, move for reconsideration, rehearing, or reopening of the record after the Board decision or order.

(1) A motion for reconsideration must state with particularity the material error claimed and with respect to any finding of material fact, must specify the page of the record relied on. A motion for rehearing must specify the error alleged to require a hearing de novo and the prejudice to the movant from the error. A motion to reopen the record must state briefly the additional evidence sought to be adduced, why it was not presented previously, and that, if adduced and credited, it would require a different result. Only newly discovered evidence, evidence which has become available only since the close of the hearing, or evidence which the Board believes may have been taken at the hearing will be taken at any further hearing.

(2) Any motion pursuant to this section must be filed within 28 days, or such further period as the Board may allow, after the service of the Board's decision or order, except that a motion to reopen the record must be filed promptly on discovery of the evidence to be adduced.

(3) The filing and pendency of a motion under this provision will not stay the effectiveness of the action of the Board unless so ordered. A motion for reconsideration or rehearing need not be filed to exhaust administrative remedies.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 110 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. U.S.A. Polymer Corp., 272 F.3d 289 (5th Cir. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. U.S.A. Polymer Corp., 272 F.3d 289 (5th Cir. 2001). · cites it 5× “” 29 C.F.R. § 102.48 (b). Section 102.48(b) grants the NLRB wide discretion in the manner in which it deals with appeals from decisions of the ALJ and permits the Board to entertain motions to reopen the record in order to receive evidence of changed eir-cumstances.”

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Goya Foods, 525 F.3d 1117 (11th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “” The Board might have a legitimate question as to why Goya should not have been responsible for evaluating the changes as they occurred, and moving the Board to reopen the record at such time as Goya, in its judgment, deemed the changes of such significance to influence the…”

Roundy's Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 674 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “Although a party before the Board can, "because of extraordinary circumstances,” file for reconsideration and state "with particularity the material error claimed,” 29 C.F.R. § 102.48 (d)(1), a motion for reconsideration need not be filed to exhaust administrative remedies, see…”

HealthBridge Mgmt., LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 798 F.3d 1059 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “But HealthBridge never sought reconsideration in this case. HealthBridge failed to put this issue before the Board, and we consequently lack jurisdiction over this aspect of its petition.”

Veritas Health Servs., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 895 F.3d 69 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “In Chino’s view, the unchallenged “proclivity” finding is equivalent to the “repeated unlawful conduct” finding that it had already challenged, such that Chino’s earlier objection gave the Board notice that it opposed the similar, later finding as well.”

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Colonial Haven Nursing Home, Inc., 542 F.2d 691 (7th Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 102.48 (b) provides: Upon the filing of timely and proper exceptions, and any cross-exceptions, or answering briefs, as provided in § 102.”

St. George Warehouse, Inc., in No. 04-2893 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., in No. 04-3363, 420 F.3d 294 (3rd Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “§ 160 (e) and 29 C.F.R. § 102.48 (d), the Board argues that, because St.”

Cogburn Health Ctr., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 437 F.3d 1266 (D.C. Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “11, 2004 WL 1413262 , at *2 (June 21, 2004) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 102.48 (d)(1)) (alteration in Board’s order).”

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mercy Hospitals of Sacramento, Inc., 589 F.2d 968 (9th Cir. 1979). · cites it 2× “The regulations, 29 C.F.R. §§ 102.48 (d)(1) and 102.-65(e)(1) 2 speak in discretionary, not manda *974 tory terms.”

Indep. Elec. Contractors v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 720 F.3d 543 (5th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “See also Bath Marine Draftsmen’s Ass’n v.”

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Allied Prods. Corp., Richard Bros. Div., 548 F.2d 644 (6th Cir. 1977). “Extraordinary circumstances for these purposes exist only if there has been some occurrence or decision that prevented a matter which should have been presented to the Board from having been presented at the proper time.”

Cobb Mech. Contractors, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 295 F.3d 1370 (D.C. Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “See Board’s Rules and Regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 102.48 (a) (“[I]f no exceptions are filed .”

Show all 110 citing cases →

— 29 C.F.R. § 102.48(a) — 1 case

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).

— 29 C.F.R. § 102.48(d)(1) — 3 cases

Cobb Mech. Contractors, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 295 F.3d 1370 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “See Board’s Rules and Regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 102.48 (a) (“[I]f no exceptions are filed .”

Gen. Steel Prods., Inc. & Crown Flex of North Carolina, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 445 F.2d 1350 (4th Cir. 1971).

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 944 F.2d 909 (9th Cir. 1991).

— 29 C.F.R. § 102.48(d)(2) — 1 case

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Konig, 79 F.3d 354 (3rd Cir. 1996).

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.