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

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · June 24, 1970 · 429 F.2d 580

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/291319

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. MONTICELLO CEDAR COMPANY, Inc., Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 24, 1970
- **Citations:** 429 F.2d 580; 74 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2688; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8533
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Browning, Carter, Per Curiam, Trask
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/291319

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/291319. Public record. Not legal advice.