National Labor Relations Board v. Monticello Cedar Company, Inc.

Ninth Circuit

National Labor Relations Board v. Monticello Cedar Company, Inc.

429 F.2d 580, 74 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2688, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8533

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 24, 1970

Docket23643_1

StatusPublished

This text of 429 F.2d 580 (National Labor Relations Board v. Monticello Cedar Company, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

National Labor Relations Board v. Monticello Cedar Company, Inc., 429 F.2d 580, 74 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2688, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8533 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Board petitions for enforcement of an order against Monticello Cedar Company, Inc. (Monticello). It is undisputed that Monticello refused to bargain with General Teamsters Local 439 after the Local had been certified by the Board’s Regional Director. Monticello defends its conduct by citing irregularities in the Regional Director’s determination of the election results.

The election was conducted pursuant to a consent agreement between Monticello and the Union. Monticello concedes that the agreement provided that “the determination of the Regional Director shall be final and binding upon any question * * * relating in any manner to the election. * * * ” Monticello claims, however, that its complaints involve the type of “arbitrary or capricious” action on the part of the Regional Director which this circuit has indicated a willingness to review. NLRB v. Continental Nut Co. (9 Cir. 1968), 395 F.2d 830; cert. denied 393 U.S. 1000, 89 S.Ct. 485, 21 L.Ed.2d 464 (1968); NLRB v. Hood Corporation (9 Cir. 1965), 346 F.2d 1020.

We have examined the proceedings before the Board and the contentions raised by Monticello. We do not find error in the Board’s grant of summary judgment. Monticello’s allegations, even if taken as true, do not present a case of arbitrary or capricious conduct by the Regional Director.

The Order of the Board will be enforced.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The Board petitions for enforcement of an order against Monticello Cedar Company, Inc. (Monticello). It is undisputed that Monticello refused to bargain with General Teamsters Local 439 after the Local had been certified by the Board’s Regional Director. Monticello defends its conduct by citing irregularities in the Regional Director’s determination of the election results.

The election was conducted pursuant to a consent agreement between Monticello and the Union. Monticello concedes that the agreement provided that “the determination of the Regional Director shall be final and binding upon any question * * * relating in any manner to the election. * * * ” Monticello claims, however, that its complaints involve the type of “arbitrary or capricious” action on the part of the Regional Director which this circuit has indicated a willingness to review. NLRB v. Continental Nut Co. (9 Cir. 1968), 395 F.2d 830; cert. denied 393 U.S. 1000, 89 S.Ct. 485, 21 L.Ed.2d 464 (1968); NLRB v. Hood Corporation (9 Cir. 1965), 346 F.2d 1020.

We have examined the proceedings before the Board and the contentions raised by Monticello. We do not find error in the Board’s grant of summary judgment. Monticello’s allegations, even if taken as true, do not present a case of arbitrary or capricious conduct by the Regional Director.

The Order of the Board will be enforced.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

429 F.2d 580, 74 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2688, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-labor-relations-board-v-monticello-cedar-company-inc-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack