aff'd, 506 F.2d 1052 (3d Cir.1974), cert. denied 421 U.S. 963, 95 S.Ct. 1950, 44 L.Ed.2d 449 (1975). In National Maritime, the Court held that: [Leedom v.] Kyne and [Boire v.] Greyhound [376 U.S. 473, 84 S.Ct. 894] teach us that disagreement with the Board on a matter of policy or statutory interpretation is not a sufficient basis for assertion of jurisdiction ... [0]ur jurisdiction is properly limited to intervention in those cases ... in which the Board has violated a ‘clear and mandatory’ command of the Act. National Maritime, 375 F.Supp. at 434 (citation omitted); see U.S. Metal Co. Employees’ Ass’n v. NLRB, 478 F.Supp. 861, 863 (W.D.Pa.1979) (following National Maritime’s construction of Leedom v. Kyne); see also Nissin Foods (USA) Co. v. NLRB, 515 F.Supp. 1154, 1158 (E.D.Pa.1981) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff does not allege that the Board
holding in part that the leedom v kyne exception applies only when the board violated a clear statutory mandate holding that an employee has no right of action against an employer for wrongful discharge where no clear mandate of public policy is violated thereby holding that federal law can provide source of state public policy for determining whether discharge of employee violated clear mandate of public policy holding that ex parte young exception to states sovereign immunity applies only where violation of federal law is ongoing not where federal law was violated only in the past holding that when no statutory exception applies  the district court lacks the authority to impose a sentence less than the statutory mandatory minimum