U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 7— LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— CONCILIATION OF LABOR DISPUTES; NATIONAL EMERGENCIES

29 U.S.C. § 177

Board of inquiry

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Composition

A board of inquiry shall be composed of a chairman and such other members as the President shall determine, and shall have power to sit and act in any place within the United States and to conduct such hearings either in public or in private, as it may deem necessary or proper, to ascertain the facts with respect to the causes and circumstances of the dispute.

(b) Compensation

Members of a board of inquiry shall receive compensation at the rate of $50 for each day actually spent by them in the work of the board, together with necessary travel and subsistence expenses.

(c) Powers of discovery

For the purpose of any hearing or inquiry conducted by any board appointed under this title, the provisions of sections 49 and 50 of title 15 (relating to the attendance of witnesses and the production of books, papers, and documents) are made applicable to the powers and duties of such board.

(June 23, 1947, ch. 120, title II, § 207, 61 Stat. 155.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1959–1982 · leading case: United States v. Andrew E. Hill & J.E. Pinkerton, United States of Am. v. Dennis Juren, United States of Am. v. Edward W. Cromey, 694 F.2d 258 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Andrew E. Hill & J.E. Pinkerton, United States of Am. v. Dennis Juren, United States of Am. v. Edward W. Cromey, 694 F.2d 258 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “§ 202 (c) (1976) (Federal Alcohol Administration Act); 29 U.S.C. § 177 (c) (1976) (Labor Management Relations Act of 1947); 29 U.”
Associated Gen. Contractors v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 637 F.2d 556 (8th Cir. 1980). “” Unlike the present case, however, the court of appeals specifically found that “the specific-performance aspect of that lawsuit was intended to restrain employees’ exercise of what was a 29 U.S.C. § 177 right not to become full-fledged Union members.”
United States v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R.R., 276 F.2d 525 (D.C. Cir. 1959). “155 , 29 U.S. C.A. §§ 177(c), 178(c). Moreover, and more significant, precedents show full awareness by Congress of language suitable to make an intention to include not only existing but future amendments entirely plain.”
— 29 U.S.C. § 177(c) — 1 case
United States v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R.R., 276 F.2d 525 (D.C. Cir. 1959). “155 , 29 U.S. C.A. §§ 177(c), 178(c). Moreover, and more significant, precedents show full awareness by Congress of language suitable to make an intention to include not only existing but future amendments entirely plain.”
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.