National Labor Relations Board v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 23, AFL-CIO

PETITIONER: National Labor Relations Board
RESPONDENT: United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 23, AFL-CIO
LOCATION: Office of Chief Judge Southern District of Texas McAllen Division

DOCKET NO.: 86-594
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

CITATION: 484 US 112 (1987)
ARGUED: Oct 05, 1987
DECIDED: Dec 14, 1987

ADVOCATES:
Laurence E. Gold - on behalf of the Respondent
Norton J. Come - on behalf of the Petitioners

Facts of the case

Question

Media for National Labor Relations Board v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 23, AFL-CIO

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 05, 1987 in National Labor Relations Board v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 23, AFL-CIO

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - December 14, 1987 in National Labor Relations Board v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 23, AFL-CIO

William H. Rehnquist:

The opinion of the Court in No. 86-594, National Labor Relations Board versus United Food & Commercial Workers will be announced by Justice Brennan.

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

This case is here on certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The question to be decided is whether a federal court has authority to review a decision of the General Counsel in National Labor Relations Board dismissing an unfair labor practice complaint pursuant to an informal settlement.

We hold that such a dismissal is not subject to judicial review on either the amended National Labor Relations Act or the Administrative Procedure Act because the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the action under either Act.

We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit concluding that it had jurisdiction and amend with instructions to dismiss the cause for the want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Justice Scalia joins the Court opinion and has also filed a concurring opinion in which he was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices White and O'Connor.