U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1975

Jacqueline Tensing v. National Labor Relations Board

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Decided July 28, 1975 · Celebrezze, Peck, McCree

519 F.2d 365; 89 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3152 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Helen M. Gradison, Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner., Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Abigail Cooley, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Coles v. National Labor Relations Board (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2014)
Rieth-Riley Construction Co. v. Elizabeth Kerwin (6th Cir. 2025)
Baker v. International Alliance Of Theatrical Stage Employees And Moving Picture Operators Of The United States And Canada (9th Cir. 1982)
Baker v. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees & Moving Picture Operators (9th Cir. 1982)
Rockford Redi-Mix Co., Inc. v. Glen Zipp (7th Cir. 1980)
Rockford Redi-Mix Co. v. Zipp (7th Cir. 1980)
Rockford Redi-Mix Co., Inc. v. Zipp (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1979)
State v. Council of NJ State College Locals (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976)
Marvin Echols v. National Labor Relations Board (6th Cir. 1975)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.