This case is before the Court upon petition of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of the Order against the respondent, issued on February 22, 1962, pursuant to § 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended ( 61 Stat. 136 , 73 Stat. 519 , 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.). The NLRB had jurisdiction of this matter because the Respondent, a California corporation, engaged in the manufacture of aircraft and missile products in Pomona, California, and shipped products to points outside of California.

The Board found that the Respondent violated § 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO [hereinafter referred to as the Union], which was certified as the exclusive representative of all machinists which had been found by the Board to constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of § 9(b) of the Act.

The Respondent, under date of July 16, 1962, caused to be served upon the Board a purported answer to the petition for enforcement of the Order of the NLRB. The answer set forth the following:

In its brief Respondent states that the employer [Respondent] admittedly refused to recognize the Union as bargaining agent on the grounds “(1) that the unit certified was inappropriate, and (2) the election was not validly conducted.” No other contentions seem to be made in support of Respondent’s refusal to recognize the Union as the bargaining agent. It is Respondent’s claim that the Board’s continued adherence to the Union as the bargaining agent is arbitrary or capricious and this the Board denies. Therefore, as stated by Respondent, the question before the Court is whether, on the record before it, the Board’s continued adherence to the certified unit is arbitrary or capricious.

The Board in its Decision and Direction of Election found that the machinists covered by the petition, “being a homogeneous craft group, may constitute an appropriate craft unit.” On this subject the Decision and Direction of Election recites:

In considering the question before us, we must determine from the record whether the findings of the Board as to the appropriateness of the certified unit are supported by substantial evidence and, in making such determination, we will follow the views of Judge Lemmon in Foreman & Clark, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Bd., 9 Cir., 215 F.2d 396, 398 .

We have read the record and we believe the summary of the evidence stated in Petitioner’s brief to be substantially correct. The summary is as follows:

We are satisfied that there was sub stantial evidence to support the Board’ finding and conclusion that the Unioi here constituted an appropriate craf' unit.

From our examination of the record we hold that the Board’s determination of the unit was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

In N. L. R. B. v. Moss Amber Mfg. Co., 9 Cir., 264 F.2d 107 , this Court held:

On April 13, 1961, Respondent filed with the Board a motion for reconsideration and rehearing. The motion was entitled, “Motion Of Employer For Amendment Of Direction Of Election Extending Time In Which Election May Be Held; And Motion For Reconsideration Or Rehearing.” The motion recites:

In support of its motion, among other things, Respondent argued:

Respondent also contended that there was no job progression program.

The Board’s Trial Examiner, Martin S. Bennett, in the “Intermediate Report and Recommended Order” concerning points raised in Respondent’s motion of April 13, 1961, among other things, stated:

In National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Worcester Woolen Mills Corp., 1 Cir., 170 F.2d 13, 16, the Court, dealing with contentions urged here, stated:

We also find here that the evidence amply substantiates the Board’s conclusion that the election was valid and accurately reflected the wishes of the Respondent’s production employees at the time.

In view of the principles laid down in the cases cited above, we need not consider other points raised by Respondent.

Reviewing the record as a whole, we are unable to say as a matter of law that the Order of the National Labor Relations Board herein is not supported by substantial evidence.

The Order is affirmed and will be enforced.