29 C.F.R. § 102.52
Compliance with Board order; notification of compliance determination
After entry of a Board order directing remedial action, or the entry of a court judgment enforcing such order, the Regional Director will seek compliance from all persons having obligations under the order. As appropriate, the Regional Director will make a compliance determination and notify the parties of that determination. A Charging Party adversely affected by a monetary, make-whole, reinstatement, or other compliance determination will be provided, on request, with a written statement of the basis for that determination.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases, 1965–2020 · leading case: Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. G&t Terminal Packaging Co., Inc., Mr. Sprout, Inc., Chain Trucking, Inc., Tray Wrap, Inc., & Slow Pack, Inc., 246 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2001).
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. G&t Terminal Packaging Co., Inc., Mr. Sprout, Inc., Chain Trucking, Inc., Tray Wrap, Inc., & Slow Pack, Inc., 246 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2001). “22 We note that we are not deferring the resolution of these issues to the Board’s so-called compliance proceedings — which are by regulation committed in the first instance to the Regional Director, see 29 C.F.R. §§ 102.52 , 102.54; 23 see also Sure-Tan, 467 U.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Buffalo, Inc., 55 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 1995). “Compliance determinations are made as a matter of course “[a]fter entry of a Board order directing remedial action, or the entry of a court judgment enforcing such [an] order,” 29 C.F.R. § 102.52 , and formal compliance proceedings ensue when necessary to resolve compliance…”
Deering Milliken, Inc. v. Irving, 548 F.2d 1131 (4th Cir. 1977). “When it became clear that the amount of back pay was in dispute and that a formal hearing was necessary, the General Counsel issued a back pay specification and notice of hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 102.52 , which alleged the amount due to each claimant.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Goya Foods, 525 F.3d 1117 (11th Cir. 2008). “See 29 C.F.R. §§ 102.52 , 102.54 (2007); see also NLRB v.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mercy Peninsula Ambulance Serv., Inc., 589 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir. 1979). “§§ 151-169 , and 29 C.F.R. § 102.52 , applies to this court for enforcement of a supplemental order issued against Mercy Peninsula Ambulance Service, Inc.”
D. M. Barber, Inc. v. Valverde (In Re D. M. Barber, Inc.), 13 B.R. 962 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1981). “As the Board’s authority to fix liability for violation is incident to the exercise of its police and regulatory power, the Board’s “compliance” stage in the proceedings against the debtor also falls within the § 362(b)(4) exception.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union 112, Afl-Cio, 992 F.2d 990 (9th Cir. 1993). “Because the parties were unable to agree upon the amount of back pay owed by the Union to the discriminatees, the Board instituted a backpay proceeding pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 102.52 to determine the backpay due.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Melrose Processing Co., 351 F.2d 693 (8th Cir. 1965). “Thereafter, a “back pay hearing” was conducted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 102.52. The Board then issued a second and supplemental order dated April 13, 1965, requiring Melrose to pay $1,961.”
Fox Painting Co. & Fox Painting & Decorating, Inc., & v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., & Cross-Applicant, 919 F.2d 53 (6th Cir. 1990). “One of the Board’s regional directors eventually instituted a compliance proceeding pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §§ 102.52 et seq. (The compliance specification named both of the parties that are now the petitioners before this court: Fox Painting and its successor in interest, Fox…”
Dupuy v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 806 F.3d 556 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “After “the entry of a court judgment enforcing” Board-ordered remedial action, 29 C.F.R. § 102.52 , “the Board has the responsibility [for] obtaining compliance with that judgment,” id.”
United Indus. Workers of the Seafarers Int'l Union of North Am., Atl., Gulf, Lakes & Inland Waters Dist., Marine Allied Workers Div., Afl-Cio v. Bd. of Trs. of Galveston Wharves & the City of Galveston, Texas, Bd. of Trs. of Galveston Wharves & the City of Galveston, Texas v. United Indus. Workers of the Seafarers Int'l Union of North Am., Atl., Gulf, Lakes & Inland Waters Dist., Marine Allied Workers Div., Afl-Cio, 400 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1968). “29 C.F.R. 102.52, suggesting that the amount of backpay due pursuant to a court decree or Board order under the National Labor Relations Act should 'be resolved without a formal proceeding,' that is, through settlement 27 See Part IA above 28 But note that the items in…”
Rochester Sch. Bd. v. Pub. Emp. Labor Relations Bd., 398 A.2d 823 (N.H. 1979). “See 29 C.F.R. § 102.52 (1977). The REA complied with the request within 30 days; the school board did not, and has not complied to the present time.”
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.