NLRB RULES & REGULATIONS §101.14 Judicial review of Board decision and order.
If the respondent does not comply with the Board’s order, or the Board deems it desirable to implement the order with a court judgment, the Board may petition the appropriate Federal court for enforcement. Or, the respondent or any person aggrieved by a final order of the Board may petition the circuit court of appeals to review and set aside the Board’s order.
If a petition for review is filed, the respondent or aggrieved person must ensure that the Board receives, by service upon its deputy associate general counsel of the Appellate Court Branch, a court-stamped copy of the petition with the date of filing. Upon such review or enforcement proceedings, the court reviews the record and the Board’s findings and order and sustains them if they are in accordance with the requirements of law. The court may enforce, modify, or set aside in whole or in part the Board’s findings and order, or it may remand the case to the Board for further proceedings as directed by the court.
Following the court’s judgment, either the Government or the private party may petition the [United States] sic, Supreme Court for review upon writ of certiorari. Such applications for review to the [United States] Supreme Court are handled by the Board through the Solicitor General of the United States.
ALJ Greens Decision & Order were predicated upon the "theory" proposed by the UBCJA International via their chosen 'party in interest'; the corrupt Jersey Mobsters running the NRCC.
Further, ALJ Greens D & O was not based on the preponderance of the evidence (the civil std.) or any direct evidence or fact. The only fact is that the UBCJA, NRCC & the Cement League never had a prima-facie case at the outset & thus it should have been summarily dismissed by ALJ Green; notwithstanding multiple violations of law and precedent at every turn which they and the USAO and Independent Monitor failed to raise or argue due to their being complicit in the fraud and/or their public incompetence.
ALJ Green has been around the NLRB for 20+ years, thus his failure to follow base NLRB Board Rules & Regulations, prior Board, Appellate & U.S. Supreme Court precedent and basic requirements of civil law are readily apparent and clear for all to see.
The UBCJA International & it's affiliated District Councils std. modus operandi is to proffer a phony 'test case(s)' which they jointly intend to forge into National Policy and precedent nationwide w/o adequate and proper service to all parties so impacted - either at the ALJ level or prior to the Board decision and order. Their joint conspiracy to do so illegally alters and amends a Federal law without Congressional notification, input or authority thus usurping the Congressional perogative to initiate, pass, alter and amend Federal Labor law.
Aggrieved Parties must appeal this to the Board in Washington D.C. and to the Circuit Court of Appeals.
This is a Property Rights Case and due to the aggrandizement and usurption of power by the UBCJA International, NRCC, NYCDCC, Cement League the ALJ & the Board; it is also one of Constitutional significance.
Stare decisis is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.
See Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 265-266 (1986). Adhering to precedent "is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than it be settled right." Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
Nevertheless, when governing decisions are unworkable or are badly reasoned, "this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent." Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 665 (1944). Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, it "is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision." Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119 (1940). This is particularly true in constitutional cases, because in such cases "correction through legislative action is practically impossible." Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., supra, at 407 (Brandeis, J., dissenting). Considerations in favor of stare decisis are at their acme in cases involving property and contract rights, where reliance interests are involved,
see Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U.S. 111, 116 (1965); Oregon ex rel. State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363 (1977); Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., supra, at 405-411 (Brandeis, J., dissenting); United States v. Title Ins. Co., 265 U.S. 472 (1924); The Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 443, 458 (1852), the opposite is true in cases such as the present one involving procedural and evidentiary rules.