29 C.F.R. § 102.60

Petitions

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

(a) Petition for certification or decertification. A petition for investigation of a question concerning representation of employees under paragraphs (1)(A)(i) and (1)(B) of Section 9(c) of the Act (hereinafter called a petition for certification) may be filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf or by an employer. A petition under paragraph (1)(A)(ii) of Section 9(c) of the Act, alleging that the individual or labor organization which has been certified or is being currently recognized as the bargaining representative is no longer such representative (hereinafter called a petition for decertification), may be filed by any employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf. Petitions under this section shall be in writing and signed, and either shall be sworn to before a notary public, Board agent, or other person duly authorized by law to administer oaths and take acknowledgments or shall contain a declaration by the person signing it, under the penalty of perjury, that its contents are true and correct (see 28 U.S.C. 1746). One original of the petition shall be filed, and a copy served on all parties named in the petition. A person filing a petition by facsimile pursuant to § 102.5(e) shall also file an original for the Agency's records, but failure to do so shall not affect the validity of the filing by facsimile, if otherwise proper. A person filing a petition electronically pursuant to § 102.5(c) need not file an original. Except as provided in § 102.72, such petitions shall be filed with the Regional Director for the Region wherein the bargaining unit exists, or, if the bargaining unit exists in two or more Regions, with the Regional Director for any of such Regions. A certificate of service on all parties named in the petition shall also be filed with the Regional Director when the petition is filed. Along with the petition, the petitioner shall serve the Agency's description of the procedures in representation cases and the Agency's Statement of Position form on all parties named in the petition. Prior to the transfer of the record to the Board, the petition may be withdrawn only with the consent of the Regional Director with whom such petition was filed. After the transfer of the record to the Board, the petition may be withdrawn only with the consent of the Board. Whenever the Regional Director or the Board, as the case may be, approves the withdrawal of any petition, the case shall be closed.

(b) Petition for clarification of bargaining unit or petition for amendment of certification. A petition for clarification of an existing bargaining unit or a petition for amendment of certification, in the absence of a question of representation, may be filed by a labor organization or by an employer. Where applicable the same procedures set forth in paragraph (a) of this section shall be followed.

[84 FR 69588, Dec. 18, 2019]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases, 1969–2020 · leading case: Stanley Spencer v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 712 F.2d 539 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stanley Spencer v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 712 F.2d 539 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “29 C.F.R. § 102.60 (b) (1978) (revised as of July 1, 1978).”

Frank W. McCulloch Etc. v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co., 403 F.2d 916 (D.C. Cir. 1969). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 102.60 (b). The Board admits that there is no representation issue and that its action is novel but claimis the requisite authority under § 9(b) of the National Labor Relations Act.”

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Winnebago Television Corp. D/B/A Wtvo-Tv, 75 F.3d 1208 (7th Cir. 1996). “The current Code of Federal Regulations provides for such petitions at 29 C.F.R. §§ 102.60 -.61 (1995). 2 . Such requests for review are authorized under 29 C.”

Int'l House, Petitioner-Cross-Respondent v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Respondent-Cross-Petitioner, 676 F.2d 906 (2d Cir. 1982). “A separate but related element of this due process challenge involves the Board’s own regulations for certification proceedings, 29 C.F.R. §§ 102.60 et seq. (1981). As the Ninth Circuit stated in NLRB v.”

Parkwood Developmental Ctr., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 521 F.3d 404 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “§ 159 (c)(1)(B); 29 C.F.R. § 102.60 (a). Parkwood was under no duly to file an RM petition, but had it done so the company could have secured a Board-administered, secret-ballot election to determine whether it had an obligation to bargain with the Union.”

Piggly Wiggly, Tuscaloosa Div. Commodores Point Terminal Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 705 F.2d 1537 (11th Cir. 1983). “Under the Board’s regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 102.60 (a) (1982), four copies of the petition must be filed with the Regional Director.”

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Int'l Molders & Allied Workers Union, Local No. 125, Afl-Cio, 442 F.2d 92 (7th Cir. 1971). “60(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations (Series 8), 29 C.F.R. § 102.60 , provides that a petition for decertification under § 9 “may be filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf or by an employer.”

Glen Manor Home for the Jewish Aged v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 474 F.2d 1145 (6th Cir. 1973). “29 CFR § 102.60 (b). It should be noted that their inclusion or exclusion will not affect the Union’s majority status within the unit because of the 19-15 vote in the representation election.”

Carpenters Local Union No. 1846 of the United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am. v. Pratt-Farnsworth, Inc., 690 F.2d 489 (5th Cir. 1982). “Obviously, the Board will not make an alter ego finding in a unit clarification proceeding, since the alter ego theory does not raise a unit determination issue (except for the limited determination of whether the unit is repugnant to the policies of the NLRA).”

Warren Unilube, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 690 F.3d 969 (8th Cir. 2012). “§ 159 (c)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 102.60 (a) (2010). 1 The labor organization and employer may, with the approval of the Board’s regional director, enter into an agreement setting a representation election to be conducted under the director’s supervision.”

Kelly v. Pearce, 178 F. Supp. 3d 172 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). “” See 29 C.F.R. § 102.60 (b). Typically, district courts do not have jurisdiction to review Board decisions in representation proceedings.”

Int'l Union of the United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus., Local Unions Nos. 141, 229, 681, & 706 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 675 F.2d 1257 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “Such petitions must be filed by employees or a “labor organization acting in their behalf,” 29 C.F.R. § 102.60 (1977), and this has been interpreted as a filing “by unit employees or by an organization other than the currently recognized or certified organization representing…”

Show all 24 citing cases →

— 29 C.F.R. § 102.60(b) — 4 cases

Frank W. McCulloch Etc. v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co., 403 F.2d 916 (D.C. Cir. 1969). “29 C.F.R. § 102.60 (b). The Board admits that there is no representation issue and that its action is novel but claimis the requisite authority under § 9(b) of the National Labor Relations Act.”

Smith Steel Workers v. A. O. Smith Corp., 420 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1969).

Smith Steel Workers, Directly Affiliated Local Union 19806, Afl-Cio v. A. O. Smith Corp., & Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee. Smith Steel Workers, Directly Affiliated Local Union 19806, Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., & A. O. Smith Corp., Intervenor-Respondent, 420 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1969).

Boise Cascade Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 860 F.2d 471 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

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.