29 C.F.R. § 102.9
Who may file; withdrawal and dismissal
Any person may file a charge alleging that any person has engaged in or is engaging in any unfair labor practice affecting commerce. The charge may be withdrawn, prior to the hearing, only with the consent of the Regional Director with whom such charge was filed; at the hearing and until the case has been transferred to the Board pursuant to § 102.45, upon motion, with the consent of the Administrative Law Judge designated to conduct the hearing; and after the case has been transferred to the Board pursuant to § 102.45, upon motion, with the consent of the Board. Upon withdrawal of any charge, any complaint based thereon will be dismissed by the Regional Director issuing the complaint, the Administrative Law Judge designated to conduct the hearing, or the Board.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1951–2022 · leading case: Local Union No. 12004, United Steelworkers v. Massachusetts, 377 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2004).
Local Union No. 12004, United Steelworkers v. Massachusetts, 377 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2004). “" 29 C.F.R. § 102.9 (emphasis added). The regulations provide that the term “person” has the meaning set forth in section 2 of the NLRA.”
SW Gen., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 796 F.3d 67 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “He is primarily responsible for prosecuting ULP cases before the Board.”
Gulf States Mfrs., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 598 F.2d 896 (5th Cir. 1979). “2d 465, 468 (CA9, 1954); 29 C.F.R. § 102.9 , which is consistent with the duty of the Board to enforce public rights rather than private rights.”
Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers, Local 283 v. Scofield, 382 U.S. 205 (1965). “9102 (1959), 29 CFR § 102.9 (1965). When the General Counsel issues a complaint and the proceeding reaches the adjudicative stage, the course the hearing will take is in the agency’s control, but the charging party is accorded formal recognition: he participates in the hearings…”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wemyss, 212 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1954). “Respondent contends that this was error, relying upon a procedural regulation of the Board, 29 CFR § 102.9 , quoted in the margin. 1 The argument of respondent is that the original charge of Local 439 was “withdrawn” and that there was therefore no charge of employer…”
Bell & Howell Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Local 399, Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, Afl-Cio, Intervenor, 598 F.2d 136 (D.C. Cir. 1979). “1975 (“Tests for granting or denying intervention”) provides, inter alia: “Motions to intervene made by ‘employees’ or ‘employees’ committees’ not purporting to be labor organizations, should be denied.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Kobritz, 193 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1951). “The Board’s rules and regulations provide that any charge “may be withdrawn, prior to the hearing, only with the consent of the Regional Director with whom such charge was filed” ( 29 C.F.R. § 102.9 , 1949 ed.). It does not appear in the record that the Regional Director…”
Raymond Interior Sys., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 812 F.3d 168 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “29 C.F.R. § 102.9 . If the allegations appear to have merit, the Regional Director issues a complaint.”
Richards v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 702 F.3d 1010 (7th Cir. 2012). “So they contend that kicking them out at this stage because they no longer need a remedy for themselves would be tantamount to improperly kicking a class representative out simply because the representative’s claims become moot.”
Ashley v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 454 F. Supp. 2d 441 (M.D.N.C. 2006). “Though the NLRB does not allow individual employees to participate in the representation proceedings as an intervenor, it allows “any person” to file an unfair labor practice claim.”
Vane v. Nocella, 494 A.2d 181 (Md. 1985). “” See 29 C.F.R. § 102.9 (1984) (emphasis supplied).”
Fdrlst Media LLC v. Nlrb, 35 F.4th 108 (3rd Cir. 2022). “29 C.F.R. § 102.9 (“Any person may file a charge alleging that any person has engaged in or is engaging in any unfair labor practice affecting commerce.”
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.