National Labor Relations Board v. Evans Plumbing Company
106 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3059, 639 F.2d 291, 3 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 909 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Act of 1978 does not apply to administrative enforcement proceedings initiated by governmental units, such as the National Labor Relations Board, when they are exercising their police or regulatory powers, even if the proceeding involves the entry of a money judgment.
Facts:
- On or about February 15, 1980, Evans Plumbing Company (Evans) discharged employees Jack T. Lee and F. J. Meeks.
- Lee and Meeks were discharged for complaining to their union about alleged mismanagement of their vacation funds by Evans.
- A charge of unfair labor practices was filed against Evans regarding these discharges.
- On August 8, 1980, Evans filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy in the Northern District of Alabama.
Procedural Posture:
- A charge of unfair labor practices was filed against Evans Plumbing Company before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- The matter was set down for a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) on August 9, 1980.
- At the ALJ hearing, Evans' counsel appeared and moved to continue the proceedings, arguing the bankruptcy filing triggered an automatic stay.
- The ALJ apparently overruled Evans' motion, and the hearing was held.
- On September 30, 1980, the ALJ found that Evans had committed an unfair labor practice by discharging Lee and Meeks and ordered them reinstated with back pay.
- The ALJ's order was transmitted to the NLRB, and Evans failed to file any exceptions within the time provided.
- The NLRB adopted the ALJ's decision.
- The National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for summary entry of judgment in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to enforce its decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Act of 1978, 11 U.S.C.A. § 362(a)(1), apply to an enforcement proceeding by the National Labor Relations Board against a debtor-employer, or does it fall within the governmental unit's police or regulatory power exemption under § 362(b)(4)?
Opinions:
Majority - PER CURIAM
No, the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Act does not apply to this enforcement proceeding by the National Labor Relations Board because it falls within the statutory exemption for governmental units enforcing their police or regulatory powers. The court explained that 11 U.S.C.A. § 362(a)(1) generally imposes an automatic stay on judicial, administrative, or other proceedings against a debtor upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition. However, § 362(b)(4) explicitly carves out an exception, stating that the automatic stay does not apply to the commencement or continuation of an action or proceeding by a governmental unit to enforce its police or regulatory power. The legislative history clarifies that this exception covers governmental units suing to prevent violations of laws (e.g., fraud, environmental protection, consumer protection) or attempting to fix damages for such violations. The court found that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is clearly a governmental unit. Furthermore, its action to remedy unfair labor practices, such as the discriminatory discharge of employees for union-related complaints, constitutes an enforcement of federal law regulating employer-employee relationships, thereby qualifying as an exercise of police or regulatory power under § 362(b)(4). The court also noted that § 362(b)(5) permits the entry of a money judgment but generally not its enforcement, as enforcing a money judgment could grant preferential treatment to one creditor over others. The court explicitly limited its decision to permitting the entry of judgment for injunctive relief (reinstatement) and back pay, stating that the question of enforcement of a money judgment would be a different matter not addressed by this ruling.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical boundary between bankruptcy protection and governmental regulatory authority, clarifying that the automatic stay cannot be used by a debtor to halt administrative actions by agencies like the NLRB when they are enforcing their police or regulatory powers. This ensures that federal labor laws can be effectively administered and violations remedied, preventing employers from using bankruptcy as a shield against accountability for unfair labor practices. The distinction between the entry of a money judgment and its enforcement is a significant nuance, indicating that while an agency can obtain a judgment for monetary relief, the actual collection may still be subject to the bankruptcy court's oversight to ensure equitable distribution among creditors.
