National Labor Relations Bd. v. Monsanto Chemical Co., No. 14686.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtSANBORN, RIDDICK, and COLLET, Circuit
Citation205 F.2d 763
Docket NumberNo. 14686.
Decision Date14 July 1953
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY et al.

205 F.2d 763 (1953)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
v.
MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY et al.

No. 14686.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

July 14, 1953.


205 F.2d 764

Floyd D. Stewart, St. Louis, Mo. (Stanley R. Schuchat, St. Louis, Mo., was on the brief), for respondent Union.

Elton L. French, St. Louis, Mo., for respondent Company.

Ruth C. Goldman, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. (George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Samuel M. Singer, Atty., Washington, D. C., were with her on the brief), for petitioner.

Before SANBORN, RIDDICK, and COLLET, Circuit Judges.

RIDDICK, Circuit Judge.

Respondents, Monsanto Chemical Company and International Chemical Workers Union, Local No. 16, A.F.L., resist this petition of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order entered in a proceeding in which the Board found that the company had discharged its employee, Henry McClellan, and that the union had caused McClellan's discharge in violation of his rights under the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. The validity of the Board's order on the evidence before it is not questioned by either respondent. They resist the petition for enforcement on the sole ground that the Board was without power to entertain the proceeding in which the order was entered because the General Counsel of the Board sustained McClellan's application for a review of an order of the Board's Regional Director, made six days after the time fixed by the rules of the Board for filing an application for review. No claim is made and no proof is offered to show that either respondent suffered any prejudice as a result of the extension of time granted McClellan, and none can be discovered from anything in the record. No question is raised concerning the applicable rules of the Board. The bald argument on behalf of respondents is that the Board is powerless in the public interest to relax the time provisions of its procedural rules in any case before it. This contention is not worthy of serious consideration.

It is always within the discretion of a court or an administrative agency to relax or modify its procedural rules adopted for the orderly transaction of business before it when in a given case the ends of justice require it. The action of either in such a case is not reviewable except upon a showing of substantial prejudice to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
69 practice notes
  • Papago Tribal Utility Authority v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, No. 79-1562
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 23, 1980
    ...in such a case is not reviewable except upon a showing of substantial prejudice to the complaining party." NLRB v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 205 F.2d 763, 764. * * Id. at 538-539, 90 S.Ct. at 1292. And even if the long-standing precedent in this court and the Supreme Court were not sufficientl......
  • Nsk Ltd. v. U.S., SLIP OP. 04-105.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • August 20, 2004
    ...upon a showing of substantial prejudice to the complaining party." 397 U.S. at 539, 90 S.Ct. 1288 (citing NLRB v. Monsanto Chem. Co., 205 F.2d 763, 764 (8th Cir.1953)). The regulatory notice requirement at issue is procedural, which is highlighted by the title of the regulation itself: "Fil......
  • Economic Opportunity Commission of Nassau County, Inc. v. Weinberger, No. 759
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • August 6, 1975
    ...interference in the absence of a showing of injury or substantial prejudice." (Citations omitted) See also NLRB v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 205 F.2d 763, 764 (8th Cir. 1953) cited with approval in American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Service, 397 U.S. 532, 539, 90 S.Ct. 1288, 25 L.Ed.2d ......
  • GP, Matter of, No. C-83-5
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 22, 1984
    ...to a particular form of prehearing investigation in every case." See also National Labor Relations Board v. Monsanto Chemical Company, 205 F.2d 763, 764 (8th Cir.1953). We hold, then, that Natrona County DPASS was not bound by the interpretative rule or guideline in the Social Services Manu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
69 cases
  • Papago Tribal Utility Authority v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, No. 79-1562
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 23, 1980
    ...in such a case is not reviewable except upon a showing of substantial prejudice to the complaining party." NLRB v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 205 F.2d 763, 764. * * Id. at 538-539, 90 S.Ct. at 1292. And even if the long-standing precedent in this court and the Supreme Court were not sufficientl......
  • Nsk Ltd. v. U.S., SLIP OP. 04-105.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • August 20, 2004
    ...upon a showing of substantial prejudice to the complaining party." 397 U.S. at 539, 90 S.Ct. 1288 (citing NLRB v. Monsanto Chem. Co., 205 F.2d 763, 764 (8th Cir.1953)). The regulatory notice requirement at issue is procedural, which is highlighted by the title of the regulation itself: "Fil......
  • Economic Opportunity Commission of Nassau County, Inc. v. Weinberger, No. 759
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • August 6, 1975
    ...interference in the absence of a showing of injury or substantial prejudice." (Citations omitted) See also NLRB v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 205 F.2d 763, 764 (8th Cir. 1953) cited with approval in American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Service, 397 U.S. 532, 539, 90 S.Ct. 1288, 25 L.Ed.2d ......
  • GP, Matter of, No. C-83-5
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 22, 1984
    ...to a particular form of prehearing investigation in every case." See also National Labor Relations Board v. Monsanto Chemical Company, 205 F.2d 763, 764 (8th Cir.1953). We hold, then, that Natrona County DPASS was not bound by the interpretative rule or guideline in the Social Services Manu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT