Case ID: f2d_496/html/1195-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. LUNDAY-THAGARD OIL COMPANY, Respondent.
    No. 73-2176.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    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, ISfeyhart, Miller, Reich & Pappy, Los Angeles, Cal., for charging party.
    Before ELY and CARTER, Circuit Judges, and EAST, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable William G. East, Senior United States District Judge, Eugene, Oregon, sitting by designation.
    
   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.