Court Opinion

ID: 9443068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:10:16.398204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:21.917493
License: Public Domain

KERNER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The law is well settled that the task of administering the Act and formulating policy lies with the Board, which has considerable latitude to shape the remedy within the scope of its statutory authority, subject, *845of course, to a limited judicial review. The rule is also established that where a determination has been left to an administrative body, the delegation of that authority must be respected and the administrative conclusion left untouched. It has .been held that .the Board has discretionary authority to decline jurisdiction where the impact on commerce is relatively insubstantial. Because the relation of remedy to policy is peculiarly a matter of administrative competence, we have been admonished not to enter the allowable area of the Board’s discretion, and that we must guard against the danger of sliding from the narrow confines of law into the more spacious domain of policy. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 313 U.S. 177, 194, 61 S.Ct. 845, 85 L.Ed. 1271. Here, not only were factual questions involved, but questions of policy requiring the exercise of the judgment of the Board in employing the statutory powers. The Board found — amply supported 'by the evidence — that many of the employers involved in the proceeding were only remotely connected with the case; that they merely supplied materials to others; and that as to those employers who were directly involved, the operations were essentially local in character. Based on these facts, the Board concluded “that it would not effectuate the purposes or policies of the Act to exercise jurisdiction in this proceeding.” Under the circumstances I cannot say that in so concluding the Board abused its discretion, hence I would dismiss the petition.