Operations In Fiscal Year 1988 - National Labor Relations Board

Contempt Litigation 163Drug Research, Inc. The Board thereafter returned to the SixthCircuit, requesting that the court fmd for the Board on its contemptpetition against Great Lakes now that the Board had determinedGreat Lakes to be a successor employer. In GreatLakes II, 855 F.2d 1174 (6th Cir. 1988), 16 the court affirmed theBoard's determination on the successorship issue, and concludedthat the company could properly be held in contempt based onthat fmding. In particular, the court noted that "while the factualdetermination of successorship is best made by the Board, thelegal obligations of Great Lakes could be determined in the firstinstance in the context of the contempt proceeding itself' (855F.2d at 1181). Moreover, the court concluded, contempt proceedingscould be brought against the employer even thoughthere had not been a Board determination prior to the filing ofthe contempt petition that the company was a successor employer.The court stated: "An employer must always decide in thefirst instance what its legal obligations are, including its legal obligationsas a successor employer. The Board does not providedeclaratory judgments in such circumstances." 855 F.2d at 1186.Great Lakes was, therefore, ordered to bargain with the unionfor a full certification year, including expedited bargaining for aminimum of 6 months, under the supervision of the Board and aspecial'master (see amended order, supra at fn. 16).One bargaining case of note during the fiscal year was NLRBv. Gentzler Tool & Die Corp." In that case the court, by orderdated November 16, 1987, affirmed a special master's report thatthe company had violated the court's judgment by failing to executean agreed-upon contract, failing to implement and apply retroactivelythe terms of the contract, and failing to make employeeswhole for lost benefits. Specifically, the court construed anautomatic renewal clause in a collective-bargaining agreement ashaving extended the contract several years beyond the original1983 expiration date and found that the company had violatedthe judgment by failing to execute and adhere to that contract.In so doing, it rejected the company's contention that the agreeduponcontract was not intended to include an automatic renewalclause under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and further ruledthat a notice seeking modification of the contract did not effecttermination under the automatic renewal clause. Finally, thecourt found that the company violated the general make-wholeprovisions of the judgment by failing to pay vacation pay benefits,the amounts of which were agreed upon. The contempt adjudicationincluded, inter alia, payment by the company of theBoard's attorneys' fees and prospective fmes of $10,000 per violationand $1000 per day for future violations.16 The court clarified the remedial portion of its decision, by published order dated December 1,1988 (862 F.2d 103)."See fn. 6, supra.