Rex H. Reed v. Rosemary M. Collyer Etc

1988-06-27

Headline: Denies review and leaves NLRB General Counsel’s dismissal of unfair labor-practice charges untouched, making it harder for claimants to get courts to review dismissals of such complaints.

Holding: The Court denied the petition for review, leaving in place the lower courts' rulings that the NLRB General Counsel's dismissal of unfair-labor charges was not subject to judicial review.

Real World Impact:

Leaves NLRB General Counsel's dismissal of charges unreviewed by courts.
Makes it harder for complainants to seek judicial review of dismissal decisions.
Creates uncertainty about applying Webster v. Doe to agency actions.

Topics: labor disputes, agency enforcement decisions, judicial review, constitutional rights

Summary

Background

Rex Reed sued Rosemary Collyer, the National Labor Relations Board's General Counsel, after she dismissed unfair-labor-practice charges he filed. He said the dismissal violated his Fifth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection (basic fairness and equal treatment). The district court dismissed the suit as not subject to court review, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed that dismissal in an unpublished order.

Reasoning

The core question was whether courts can review the General Counsel's decision to drop enforcement of labor charges. The opinion notes a recent Supreme Court decision, Webster v. Doe, which said Congress must clearly say if constitutional claims cannot be reviewed. The opinion cites the NLRB statute, 29 U.S.C. §153(d), and refers to earlier cases like Heckler v. Chaney that treated agency enforcement choices as largely insulated from judicial review.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court denied review, the lower-court ruling that such dismissals are generally unreviewable remains in place here. That outcome makes it harder for people who file labor complaints to get a judge to review the agency's decision to drop their case. Petitioner had filed a supplemental brief arguing Webster supported his position, and one Justice called the denial a puzzling departure from the usual practice of remanding cases affected by new decisions.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia dissented from the denial. He said the Court should have granted review, vacated the lower judgment, and remanded for reconsideration to limit or clarify Webster's reach.