29 C.F.R. § 103.3
Horseracing and dogracing industries
The Board will not assert its jurisdiction in any proceeding under sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act involving the horseracing and dogracing industries.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases, 1977–2009 · leading case: Pari Mutuel Clerks Union of Louisiana, Local 328 Affiliated With the Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Afl-Cio v. Fair Grounds Corp., 703 F.2d 913 (5th Cir. 1983).
Pari Mutuel Clerks Union of Louisiana, Local 328 Affiliated With the Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Afl-Cio v. Fair Grounds Corp., 703 F.2d 913 (5th Cir. 1983). “§ 164 (c)(1) (1976); 29 C.F.R. § 103.3 (1982). Persuaded that it should defer to the NLRB’s expertise, the district court refused to exercise its own jurisdiction over the action and granted summary judgment for Fair Grounds.”
Nicholas C. Richards v. Local 134, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers & Arlington Park Race Track Corp., 790 F.2d 633 (7th Cir. 1986). “) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 103.3 (1982)), cert. denied, 464 U.”
United Steelworkers of Am. v. Tri-State Greyhound Park, 364 S.E.2d 257 (W. Va. 1987). “§ 164 (c)(1) (1982)). Pursuant to this grant, the NLRB promulgated a rule in 1973 which provides that, “The Board will not assert jurisdiction in any proceeding under sections 8, 9, and 10 of the act involving horseracing and dogracing industries.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. The Anthony Co. D/B/A Eldorado Club, 557 F.2d 692 (9th Cir. 1977). “See 29 CFR § 103.3 (1976); Walter A. Kelley, 139 NLRB 744 (1962); Meadow Stud, Inc.”
Robert Stein v. Mutuel Clerks' Guild of Massachusetts, Inc., 560 F.2d 486 (1st Cir. 1977). “§ 164 , has declined to exercise its jurisdiction over the horse racing industry, see 29 C.F.R. § 103.3 , the Guild is thereby exempt from the provisions of the LMRDA.”
The New York Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. & New York State Labor Relations Bd., 708 F.2d 46 (2d Cir. 1983). “9507 (1973), codified at 29 C.F.R. § 103.3 (1982). The Board noted in an accompanying explanatory statement that the states exercised extensive control over the horse racing and dog racing industries, including some aspects of labor relations.”
Serv. Employees Int'l Union v. Hollywood Park, Inc., 149 Cal. App. 3d 745 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983). “( 29 C.F.R. § 103.3 .) Instead of comprehensive state regulation, California has basically followed a policy in the labor field “of laissez-faire, a posture which has generally left the resolution of labor disputes to ‘the free interaction of economic forces.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. California Horse Racing Bd., & Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union 1501, 940 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1991). “When United Tote filed its unfair labor practices charge with the Board, the Board made an administrative determination that United Tote was not sufficiently involved with the horse racing industry to fall within the Board’s categorical declination of jurisdiction over that…”
Farrie v. Charles Town Races, Inc., 901 F. Supp. 1101 (N.D.W. Va. 1995). “” 29 C.F.R. § 103.3 . The defendants responded, in a letter, that the regulation means that the proper forum for the unfair labor practice charge in this racetrack case lies with the state, not the NLRB.”
Retail, Wholesale & Dep't Store Union, Afl-Cio, Local 310 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. & Scioto Downs, Inc., 745 F.2d 358 (6th Cir. 1984). “9507 (1973), codified at 29 C.F.R. § 103.3 (1982). This rule was promulgated under rule making authority granted by Congress in 29 U.”
San Juan Racing Ass'n v. Labor Relations, Etc., 532 F. Supp. 51 (D.P.R. 1982). “3, 29 C.F.R. 103.3, has especifically declined not to assert its jurisdiction in any proceeding under Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the National Relations Board Act (hereinafter “the Act”) concerning the horseracing and the dogracing industries.”
Hazel Park Racing Ass'n v. Trs. of the SEIU Nat'l Indus. Pension Fund, 543 F. Supp. 2d 741 (E.D. Mich. 2008). “29 C.F.R. § 103.3 . The Michigan Employment Relations Commission (“MERC”) regulates collective bargaining in the Michigan horse racing industry.”
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.