NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER,
v.
MONTICELLO CEDAR COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the company's allegations of irregularities in the election did not constitute arbitrary or capricious conduct by the Regional Director, thus the Board's order would be enforced.
The Board petitioned for enforcement of its order against Monticello Cedar Company, which had refused to bargain with a certified union. Monticello de…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Arbitrary And Capricious Standard Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cont'l Nut Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 393 U.S. 1000 (U.S. 1968)
- Ragen v. California, 393 U.S. 1000 (U.S. 1968)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hood Corp. & Contractors' Equip. Supply Co., 346 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1965)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Cont'l NUT Co., 395 F.2d 830 (9th Cir. 1968)