07.02.2015 Views

TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

VIII<br />

Contempt Litigation<br />

Petitions for adjudication in civil or criminal contempt of parties<br />

for noncompliance with decrees enfoicing <strong>Board</strong> oideis mere filed in<br />

eight cases during fiscal 1961 In thiee of these cases, the petitions<br />

were granted, 1 in three, the petitions were withdia•n following<br />

compliance by respondents duling the course of the pi oceedings ,<br />

and two remained open 3<br />

During this year, opinions of some interest wet° rendered in two<br />

cases instituted the previous year, Tempest Shirt Manufacturing Co,<br />

Inc ,4 and Olson Rug Co 5 In Tempest, the Fifth Ch.-cuit adjudged a<br />

successor corporation, which had not participated in the original proceedings,<br />

in civil contempt for refusing to iemedy the unfair labor<br />

practices of its predecessor And in Olson, the Seventh Circuit<br />

approved a Special Master's hmited discovely m der against the<br />

Boaid in connection with the ieference befm e<br />

In Tempest, the enforcing decree had required Tempest, its officers,<br />

agents, successors, and assigns to reinstate tities of its former employees<br />

because of discrimination against them Pi ior to the issuance<br />

of the underlying Boaid older, Tempest's plant, equipment, and woik<br />

force were taken over by Pascal Corpoiation as the result of the<br />

division of business inteiests between Robeit Pascal and others who<br />

shared the proprietary interests in Tempest Pascal contended that<br />

because the transfer of Tempest's business interests to Pascal Corporation<br />

was a bona fide business transaction and was not designed to<br />

continue Tempest in disguise for the purpose of evading the decree,<br />

Pascal Corporation was not a successor within its pm view But the<br />

court, noting that Pascal's piopi ietary inteiest in the plant nevei<br />

substantially changed, that he continuously exerted manageiml<br />

2 10 LRB v Ravel, Inc , adjudged Feb 23, 1061 (C A 1, No 5053) ,NLRB v Gustavo<br />

Stannone, acbudged Feb 20, 1061 (C A 2) • NLRB v F 21 Reeves d Sons, Inc , adjudged<br />

Jan 19, 1961, reported at 47 LURM 2480, certiorari denied 366 U S 914 (C A 10,<br />

No 6125)<br />

2 N LRB v Habib Marcus (CA 2) , NLRB v Pioneer Wagon Works, Inc (CA 6,<br />

No 13755) , NLRB v Detroit Plastics Products Co (C A 6, No 13819)<br />

'NLRB v Editorial "El Imparcial" Inc (C A 1, No 5568) , NLRB v Local 901,<br />

ILA. (Hut on Stevedormq Co ) (C A 2,.<br />

*NLRB v Tempest Shirt Hanufactiosng Co , Inc , 285 F 2d 1 (C A 5')<br />

'NLRB v Olson Rug 00 ,201 F 2d655 (CA 7)<br />

209

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!