ANTHONY
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks our order permitting him to file and prosecute in forma pauperis a petition for review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board, which petitioner alleges “deprives him of re-employment and back wages due.” The National Labor Relations Act gives this court no jurisdiction of such a controversy. To invoke our jurisdiction under § 10 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160, the petitioner must be a “person aggrieved” by the order. A workman has no personal claim for back pay or reinstatement in employment en-forcible in this court. Hence he is not a “person aggrieved” within the meaning of that Act. National Licorice Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 309 U.S. 350, 363, 60 S.Ct. 569, 84 L.Ed. 799; National Labor Relations Board v. American Potash & Chemical Corp., 9 Cir., 113 F. 2d 232, 235, 129 A.L.R. 874; National Labor Relations Board v. Sunshine Mining Co., 9 Cir., 125 F. 2d 757, 761.
The petition is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kovach v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 229 F.2d 138 (7th Cir. 1956)
-
Albrecht v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. (carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp., 181 F.2d 652 (7th Cir. 1950)
Authorities Cited
- Nat'l Licorice Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 309 U.S. 350 (U.S. 1940)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sunshine Mining Co., 125 F.2d 757 (9th Cir. 1942)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Am. Potash & Chem. Corp. (independent Chem. Workers Union, 113 F.2d 232 (9th Cir. 1940)