National Labor Relations Board v. Hopwood Retinning Co., Inc., et al.

104 F.2d 302 (2d Cir. 1939) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · June 6, 1939

Summary

This Second Circuit opinion addresses a motion by the National Labor Relations Board to hold the Hopwood Retinning Company, its successor entity Monarch Retinning Company, and its president in civil contempt for failing to comply with a prior court order enforcing an NLRB directive. The court finds that the respondents' actions constitute a deliberate evasion of their obligations to reinstate locked-out employees and bargain collectively. Consequently, the court grants the motion, appoints a special master to determine the number of entitled employees and back wages owed, and prepares for a final decree of commitment or property levy.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Clark; L. Hand; Augustus N. Hand
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
June 6, 1939
Procedural posture
NLRB moved for contempt against Hopwood and Monarch for failure to comply with the court's July 26, 1938 order.
Precedential value
published
Parties
National Labor Relations Board v. Hopwood Retinning Co., Inc.; Monarch Retinning Co., Inc.; John A. Hopwood
Disposition
other

Topics

employment lawlabor lawadministrative lawcivil procedureremedies

Practice areas

employment lawadministrative lawcivil procedureremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Hopwood Retinning Co., Inc. and its officers are in civil contempt for failure to comply with the court’s order
  2. Whether Monarch Retinning Co., Inc. can be held liable as an agent or instrumentality of Hopwood despite procedural defects
  3. Whether the contempt proceeding is civil rather than criminal

Holdings

  1. The court held that Hopwood Retinning Co., Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns are in contempt of the July 26, 1938 order.
  2. The court held that Monarch Retinning Co. is the alter ego of Hopwood and may be treated as an agency or instrumentality; the order was vacated against Monarch but the court may still hold it in contempt as an agent of Hopwood.
  3. The proceeding is civil contempt because the punishment is wholly remedial and serves the complainant’s purposes.

Key quotations

"While particular acts do not always readily lend themselves to classification as civil or criminal contempts, a contempt is considered civil when the punishment is wholly remedial, serves only the purposes of the complainant, and is not intended as a deterrent to offenses against the public." (at 304)

Factual background

The Board ordered Hopwood Retinning Co. and its successor Monarch Retinning Co. to cease unfair labor practices, reinstate locked‑out employees, pay back wages, and bargain with unions. The companies failed to comply; Monarch was formed by Hopwood's owners and operated as its alter ego. Affidavits showed minimal effort to comply and an offer of only $1,500 toward wages.

Procedural history

The National Labor Relations Board issued an order on Jan. 15, 1938 directing Hopwood and Monarch to cease unfair labor practices, reinstate employees, and pay back wages. The district court incorporated that order and later vacated it as to Monarch for procedural defects. The Board sought contempt; the Second Circuit considered the motion and entered an order finding both companies and their officers in contempt.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…