WILLIAM F. BANDLOW AND KARL SORENSON, APPELLANTS,
v.
STUART ROTHMAN ET AL., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GENERAL COUNSEL, CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY, OF AND CONSTITUTING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
Appellants asked the District Court to require the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board to issue a complaint charging unfair labor practices. They also sought to compel the Board to set aside the General Counsel’s refusal. This appeal is from an order dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the District Court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter and that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court was clearly right. It “has no power to order the General Counsel to issue a complaint and no power to require the Board to issue an order in a matter which is not before the Board.” Hourihan v. National Labor Relations Board, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 316, 317, 201 F. 2d 187, 188, certiorari denied 345 U.S. 930, 73 S.Ct. 792, 97 L.Ed. 1359.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Int'l Union of Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers, Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 289 F.2d 757 (D.C. Cir. 1960)
-
Retail Store Emps. Union Local 954, Retail Clerks Int'l Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. Rothman, 298 F.2d 330 (D.C. Cir. 1962)
-
Rockford Redi-Mix Co., Inc. v. Zipp, 632 F.2d 30 (7th Cir. 1980)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hourihan v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 201 F.2d 187 (D.C. Cir. 1952)
- Strzep v. Jackson, 345 U.S. 930 (U.S. 1953)
- Brink v. Pennsylvania, 345 U.S. 930 (U.S. 1953)