dismissing for lack of jurisdiction because “district courts may not review the refusal of the -7- No. 24-1690, Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc. v. Kerwin, et al. Board’s General Counsel to investigate or to file a complaint concerning unfair labor practice charges”
How later courts described this case
- dismissing for lack of jurisdiction because “district courts may not review the refusal of the -7- No. 24-1690, Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc. v. Kerwin, et al. Board’s General Counsel to investigate or to file a complaint concerning unfair labor practice charges”
- “[District [C]ourts may not review the refusal of the Board’s General Counsel to investigate or to file a complaint concerning unfair labor practice charges”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners seek review of the refusal of the NLRB’s General Counsel to issue a complaint on charges filed before the Board. The Board has moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
We have held previously that district courts may not review the refusal of the Board’s General Counsel to investigate or to file a complaint concerning unfair labor practice charges,
Mayer v. Ordman,
391 F.2d 889 (6th Cir.),
cert. denied,
393 U.S. 925 , 89 S.Ct. 257 , 21 L.Ed.2d 261 (1968), adhering to the teaching of Vaca
v. Sipes,
386 U.S. 171, 182 , 87 S.Ct. 903, 913 , 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967), that “the Board’s General Counsel has unreviewable discretion to refuse to institute an unfair labor practice complaint.”
This principle does not change because an aggrieved party files a petition for review in this Court rather than an action in District Court. We have no jurisdiction of the petition .for review, and it must be dismissed.
Hernandez v. N. L. R. B.,
505 F.2d 119 (5th Cir. 1974).
The petition for review is hereby dismissed.