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, 278 F.2d 866 (D.C. Cir. 1960)
Annotate this CaseDecided March 31, 1960
Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied June 29, 1960
Mr. Karl M. Dollak, Bethesda, Md., for appellants.
Mr. Duane B. Beeson, Atty., N. L. R. B., of the bar of the Supreme Court of California, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Messrs. Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., were on the brief, for appellees.
Mr. Richard J. Scupi, Atty., N. L. R. B., also entered an appearance for appellees.
Before EDGERTON, BAZELON and BURGER, Circuit Judges.
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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
