National Labor Relations Bd. v. Carlisle Lumber Co., 8361.
| Decision Date | 04 December 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 8361.,8361. |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. CARLISLE LUMBER CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Charles Fahy, Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, and Richard A. Perkins, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Theodore B. Bruener, of Aberdeen, Wash., for respondent.
Before WILBUR, HANEY, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.
On September 18th the petitioner filed a motion to adjudge the respondent in contempt for failure to comply with the orders of this court made December 13, 1937, and September 23, 1938, wherein, among other things, the Carlisle Lumber Company was ordered to pay specified sums of money as back pay to its several employees, as specified by name and amount. These amounts aggregate approximately $160,000.
Prior to the filing of the verified motion the Carlisle Lumber Company, on September 14, 1939, had filed a lengthy petition addressed to this court, alleging that a settlement had been arrived at between the petitioner and respondent concerning a method of satisfying the order of the court with relation to the payment of money. The petitioner filed an answer thereto traversing some of the facts and particularly the claim that the plan of settlement had been unconditionally approved by it. This answer was filed October 30, 1939. Both matters were set for hearing on the same day, November 2nd. The petition of the respondent for an order approving the settlement with the petitioner and ordering a compliance therewith was dismissed on the motion of the Board.
At the time of the hearing no answer had been filed to the petitioner's motion that the Lumber Company be adjudged in contempt. The respondent Lumber Company was given leave to file an answer to the allegations of the verified motion. This answer was filed November 14, 1939. The answer admits the failure to pay the amounts awarded and ordered paid by this court, but alleges that this failure was due to the inability of the company to make such payments. In addition to a detailed statement of the property owned by the respondent it refers to its petition in the matter of the proposed settlement and makes the same a part of its answer.
The petitioner moves for an order adjudging the Carlisle Lumber Company in contempt and for an order referring this contempt proceeding "to a special master to make findings and file a report after due investigation, such report to contain findings and recommendation regarding the ability of the Carlisle Lumber Company to comply with the orders of this court and to take such action as shall appear just, reasonable and necessary to make effective those orders."
In considering the propriety of such an order it will be necessary to state in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Killoren
...a retroactive and accumulating "indebtedness due to the Board for and on behalf of the * * * employees." National Labor Relations Board v. Carlisle Lumber Co., 9 Cir., 108 F.2d 188, 189. It was an indebtedness arising out of an obligation imposed by statute; hence was quasi contractual in n......
-
National Labor Relations Bd. v. Sunshine Mining Co.
...right to intervene or to be heard there is at least doubtful. Consult § 5-322, Idaho Code, and annotations. 4 Compare N.L.R.B. v. Carlisle Lumber Co., 9 Cir., 108 F.2d 188. In that case the employer claimed to be financially unable to pay the awards. Ultimately a stipulation between the Boa......
-
NLRB v. Trans Ocean Export Packing, Inc.
...but are civil in nature. Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 86 S.Ct. 1531, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966); N. L. R. B. v. Carlisle Lumber Co., 108 F.2d 188, 189 (9th Cir. 1939). While respondents do not make the point, the law is settled that the privilege against self-incrimination can be c......
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Reed & Prince Mfg. Co.
...to these employees. Waterman S. S. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir., 1941, 119 F.2d 760; National Labor Relations Board v. Carlisle Lumber Co., 9 Cir., 1939, 108 F.2d 188; National Labor Relations Board v. Hopwood Retinning Co., 2 Cir., 1939, 104 F.2d 302. As is well stated in ......