Stare decisis is one of the fundamental principles of American jurisprudence. "It protects the interests of those who have taken action in reliance on a past decision." See Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___, slip op. at 39 (2022). "'Precedent is a way of accumulating and passing down the learning of past generations, a font of established wisdom richer than what can be found in any single judge or panel of judges.," (quoting N. Gorsuch, A Republic, If You Can Keep It at 217 (Forum Books 2019). For the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), however, stare decisis is often an impediment to desired outcomes, more honored in its breach than in the observance. The disregard for precedent likely results from the fact that the NLRB "is not a court whose jurisdiction over violations of private rights must be exercised. It is an administrative agency whose function is to adjudicate public rights in a manner that will effectuate the purpose of the National Labor Relations Act." See Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, 353 U.S.1, 13 (1957) (Burton, J. dissenting). The Supreme Court has recognized that administrative adjudication is a "'constant process of trial and error.'" See NLRB v. J. Weingarten, 420 U.S. 251, 266 (1975) (quoting NLRB v. Seven-Up, 344 U.S. 344, 349 (1953). Indeed, the court has observed that the trial and error approach "differentiates perhaps more than anything else the administrative from the judicial process."