National Labor Relations Bd. v. Monsanto Chemical Co.

Decision Date14 July 1953
Docket NumberNo. 14686.,14686.
Citation205 F.2d 763
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

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 complaining party. National Labor Relations Board v. Grace Co., 8 Cir., 184 F.2d 126, 129; National Labor Relations Board v. J. S. Popper, Inc., 3 Cir., 113 F.2d 602, 603-604; Board of Tax Appeals v. United States ex rel. Shults Bread Co., 59 App.D.C. 161, 37 F.2d 442, 443; Washburn Wire Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1 Cir., 67 F.2d 658, 662; National Labor Relations Board v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 9 Cir., 118 F.2d 780, 788. The rule stated applies with especial force in cases before the National Labor Relations Board. The Board acts in the public interest and not in vindication of private rights. National Labor Relations Board...

To continue reading

Request your trial
69 cases
  • GP, Matter of
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1984
    ...binding the Board 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 So......
  • Papago Tribal Utility Authority v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • June 23, 1980
    ...of either 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......
  • Lovelace Medical Center v. Mendez
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • January 7, 1991
    ...except upon a showing of substantial prejudice to the complaining party. Id. at 539, 90 S.Ct. at 1292 (quoting NLRB v. Monsanto Chem. Co., 205 F.2d 763, 764 (8th Cir.1953)). This principle was cited and relied on by our court of appeals in James v. Brumlop, 94 N.M. 291, 294, 609 P.2d 1247, ......
  • Jantzen, Application of
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • February 4, 1994
    ...1465, 59 L.Ed.2d 733 (1979); Modern Plastics Corporation v. McCulloch, 400 F.2d 14 (6th Cir.1968); National Labor Relations Bd. v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 205 F.2d 763 (8th Cir.1953). It has been held that it is within the discretion of an administrative agency to relax or modify its procedu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Self-Imposed Agency Deadlines.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 75 No. 3, March 2023
    • March 1, 2023
    ...354 U.S. 363,372-73 (1957). (185.) 397 U.S. 532,538-39 (1970). (186.) See id. (187.) Id. at 539 (quoting NLRB v. Monsanto Chem. Co., 205 F.2d 763,764 (8th Cir. 1953)). The doctrine was expanded again in Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199. See Merrill, supra note 113, at 583-84 (noting that Ruiz seemed to c......

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