Citation. NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co. Div. of Textron, Inc., 416 U.S. 267, 94 S. Ct. 1757, 40 L. Ed. 2d 134, 73 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P14,465, 85 L.R.R.M. 2945 (U.S. Apr. 23, 1974)
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here
Brief Fact Summary.
This is the Supreme Court’s review of Bell Aerospace Co. v. NLRB, 475 F.2d 485.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
An agency may reverse itself so long as “adverse consequences ensuing from [the] reliance [by a party on that precedence] are so substantial that the [agency] should be precluded from reconsidering the issue in an adjudicative proceeding.”
The Supreme Court heard NLRB’s appeal, and reversed in part the Court of Appeals.
“[W]hether on remand the Board must invoke its rulemaking procedures if it determines, in light of our opinion, that these buyers are not ‘managerial employees’ under the Act.”
No. The Supreme Court noted that “nothing in the present case” qualified as “an abuse of discretion or a violation” of the enabling statute. Adjudication was a perfectly valid remedy.
“[S]urely the Board has discretion to decide that the relevant information necessary to mature and fair consideration of the issues.”