National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, v. Lunday-thagard Oil Company, Respondent, 496 F.2d 1195 (9th Cir. 1974)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 496 F.2d 1195 (9th Cir. 1974) June 19, 1974

Joseph E. Mayer (argued), R. Bruce McLean, Elliott Moore, Acting Asst. Gen. Counsel, Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., Wilford W. Johansen, Director, Region 21, N.L.R.B., Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.

Robert M. Lieber (argued), Littler, Mendelson & Fastiff, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.

George A. Pappy, of Brundage, Neyhart, Miller, Reich & Pappy, Los Angeles, Cal., for charging party.

Before ELY and CARTER, Circuit Judges, and EAST,1  District Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:


The record does not support the respondent's contention that it was deprived of significant procedural rights. See the Board's Rules and Regulations, 29 C.F.R. 102.69(c) (1973); see also NLRB v. Singleton Packing Corp., 418 F.2d 275, 280 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 824, 91 S. Ct. 47, 27 L. Ed. 2d 53 (1970); Sonoco Products Co. v. NLRB, 399 F.2d 835, 839 (9th Cir. 1968); NLRB v. J.R. Simplot Co., 322 F.2d 170, 172 (9th Cir. 1963). Upon the basis of the record and the Petitioner's Decision and Order, reported at 203 NLRB No. 12, the challenged Order will be

Enforced.

 1

Honorable William G. East, Senior United States District Judge, Eugene, Oregon, sitting by designation

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.