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

Good Law
429 F.2d 580·74 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2688·1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8533
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 24, 197023643_1California225 words

Opinion

Opinion

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.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.