National Labor Relations Board v. Sequoia District Council of Carpenters, Afl-Cio, and John Horn and Larry Null, Additional in Contempt

I.

BACKGROUND

This matter comes before us on respondents’ 1 exceptions to findings of fact and conclusions of law of a Special Master appointed by this court. We appointed the Master pursuant to the National Labor Relation Board’s (hereafter NLRB or Board) petition for an adjudication of contempt 2 against Sequoia District Council of Carpenters (hereinafter Sequoia or Union) and its officers. 3

In an earlier proceeding we enforced a Board order prohibiting Sequoia from engaging in illegal secondary activities. 4 NLRB v. Sequoia District Council of Carpenters, 499 F.2d 129 (9th Cir. 1974). That judgment ordered that Sequoia

In addition, the judgment required that “to effectuate the policies of the [National Labor Relations] Act” Sequoia post notices embodying the terms of the judgment in its offices, meeting halls or hiring halls for a period of 60 days. Copies of the notice were to be supplied by the NLRB’s Regional Director in San Francisco. The judgment was served on the attorney for Sequoia. The NLRB supplied notices which lacked language indicating the breadth of the judgment’s prohibitions. 6

II.

SCOPE OF REVIEW

We must accept the Special Master’s factual findings…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur for the most part in the majority opinion; I am obliged to dissent, however, from that portion of the opinion sustaining the Special Master’s findings and conclusions with respect to the union officers Null and Horn.

I have no quarrel with the proposition that one “who knowingly assists a defendant in violating an injunction subjects himself to civil . . . proceedings for contempt.” Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832 (2d Cir. 1930). But, as stated by Judge Hand in that case: “[T]he only occasion when a person not a party may be punished [for contempt of an injunction] is when he has helped to bring about, not merely what the decree has forbidden . but what [the decree] has power to forbid, an act of a party. This means that the respondent must either abet the defendant, or must be legally identified with him.” 42 F.2d at 833 .

The question here is whether the respondents Null and Horn, as officers of the defendant union but not parties to the original NLRB enforcement proceeding, may be adjudicated in contempt of this court’s decree as having either abetted the union’s violations of the injunction or as being so far…

568 F.2d 628 97 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2897 , 83 Lab.Cas. P 10,384 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. SEQUOIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, AFL-CIO, Respondent, and John Horn and Larry Null, Additional Respondents In Contempt. No. 73-3365. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Dec. 14, 1977. Paul Elkind, Washington, D. C., for petitioner. Victor J. Van Bourg, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. On Petition to Review Exceptions to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Recommendations of The Special Master. Before KOELSCH, WRIGHT and TRASK, Circuit Judges. EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: I. BACKGROUND 1 This matter comes before us on respondents' 1 exceptions to findings of fact and conclusions of law of a Special Master appointed by this court. We appointed the Master pursuant to the National Labor Relation Board's (hereafter NLRB or Board) petition for an adjudication of contempt 2 against Sequoia District Council of Carpenters (hereinafter Sequoia or Union) and its officers. 3 2 In an earlier proceeding we enforced a Board order prohibiting Sequoia from engaging in illegal secondary activities. 4 NLRB v. Sequoia District Council of Carpenters, 499 F.2d…