Anthony v. National Labor Relations Board
This text of 132 F.2d 620 (Anthony v. National Labor Relations Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Petitioner seeks our order permitting him to file and prosecute in forma pauperis a petition for review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board, which petitioner alleges “deprives him of re-employment and back wages due.” The National Labor Relations Act gives this court no jurisdiction of such a controversy. To invoke our jurisdiction under § 10 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160, the petitioner must be a “person aggrieved” by the order. A workman has no personal claim for back pay or reinstatement in employment en-forcible in this court. Hence he is not a “person aggrieved” within the meaning of that Act. National Licorice Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 309 U.S. 350, 363, 60 S.Ct. 569, 84 L.Ed. 799; National Labor Relations Board v. American Potash & Chemical Corp., 9 Cir., 113 F.2d 232, 235, 129 A.L.R. 874; National Labor Relations Board v. Sunshine Mining Co., 9 Cir., 125 F.2d 757, 761.
The petition is denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
132 F.2d 620, 11 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 787, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-v-national-labor-relations-board-ca9-1942.