TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board
TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board
TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board
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