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. § 102.54

Issuance of compliance specification; consolidation of complaint and compliance specification

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

(a) If it appears that controversy exists with respect to compliance with a Board order which cannot be resolved without a formal proceeding, the Regional Director may issue and serve on all parties a compliance specification in the name of the Board. The specification will contain or be accompanied by a Notice of Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge at a specific place and at a time not less than 21 days after the service of the specification.

(b) Whenever the Regional Director deems it necessary to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act or to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, the Regional Director may issue a compliance specification, with or without a notice of hearing, based on an outstanding complaint.

(c) Whenever the Regional Director deems it necessary to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act or to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, the Regional Director may consolidate with a complaint and Notice of Hearing issued pursuant to § 102.15 a compliance specification based on that complaint. After opening of the hearing, the Board or the Administrative Law Judge, as appropriate, must approve consolidation. Issuance of a compliance specification is not a prerequisite or bar to Board initiation of proceedings in any administrative or judicial forum which the Board or the Regional Director determines to be appropriate for obtaining compliance with a Board order.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1967–2023 · 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).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
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). “54 (a) [i]f it appears that controversy exists with respect to compliance with an order of the Board which cannot be resolved without a formal proceeding, the Regional Director may issue and serve on all parties a compliance specification in the name of the Board.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Buffalo, Inc., 55 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 1995). “See 29 C.F.R. § 102.54 (a). Coca-Cola moved to set aside Cocar-Cola I and dismiss the pending compliance specification, 2 invoking Gitano.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. St. George Warehouse, Inc., 645 F.3d 666 (3rd Cir. 2011). “” 29 C.F.R. § 102.54 (a) & (b). "With respect to allegations concerning the amount of backpay due,” the compliance specification must "specifically and in detail show, for each employee, the backpay periods broken down by calendar quarters, the specific figures and basis of…”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 138, Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Afl-Cio, 380 F.2d 244 (2d Cir. 1967). · cites it 3× “54(b), 29 C.F.R. § 102.54 (b), 7 for judgment on the pleadings and for issuance of a recommended order.”
Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. NLRB, 86 F.4th 909 (D.C. Cir. 2023). “883, 902 (1984); see 29 C.F.R. § 102.54 (a). *** 18 The Board’s determination that Rite Aid was not entitled to implement its own proposal was supported by substantial evidence.”
Anderson Enter. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 2 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2001). “…Further, issues relating to how the remedial order is to be implemented are for the compliance hearing. See, e.g., 29 C.F.R. § 102.54 (1999)”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dbm, Inc., 987 F.2d 540 (8th Cir. 1993). “55 (a); 1 and afford DBM an opportunity to rebut these claims, see 29 C.F.R. § 102.54 (a). See also Woodline Motor Freight, Inc.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Katz's Delicatessen of Houston Street, Inc., 80 F.3d 755 (2d Cir. 1996). “We therefore remand this case to the NLRB, with instructions to initiate formal compliance proceedings in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 102.54 to resolve the remaining questions.”
Father & Sons Lumber & Bldg. Supplies, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 931 F.2d 1093 (6th Cir. 1991). “29 C.F.R. §§ 102.54 , 102.55. Under Board rules the respondents named in the compliance specification have 21 days from the service of the specification to file an answer.”
Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. NLRB (D.C. Cir. 2023). “883, 902 (1984); see 29 C.F.R. § 102.54 (a). *** The Board’s determination that Rite Aid was not entitled to implement its own proposal was supported by substantial evidence.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Watt Elec. Co. & Its Alter Ego, Watt Plumbing, Air Conditioning & Elec., Inc., & John O. Watt, 813 F.2d 1049 (10th Cir. 1987). “The respondents filed an answer to the specification on September 10, 1985, whereupon the general counsel moved for summary judgment on the basis that respondents’ answer failed to satisfy the specificity requirements of the NLRB’s rules and regulations, 29 C.F.R. §§ 102.54 (b)…”
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.