Opinion ID: 433054
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Contempt Sanction

Text: 35 Finally, Bell argues that contempt sanctions ought not be imposed, peppering its brief with protestations of its good faith. We are somewhat sympathetic, for much of the conduct alleged by the Board seems comparatively benign. But this is civil contempt, not criminal. The employer's intent is therefore not for us to consider; rather, we must simply determine whether our judgments were in fact violated. NLRB v. Crown Laundry Dry Cleaners, Inc., 437 F.2d 290, 293 (5th Cir.1971); see Florida Steel Corp. v. NLRB, 648 F.2d 233, 236 (5th Cir.1981). The special master's findings are not clearly erroneous, they are supported by substantial evidence, and they clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Bell has violated our 1978 judgments. See NLRB v. J.P. Stevens & Co., 538 F.2d 1152, 1160-61 (5th Cir.1976). We must therefore adjudge the company in civil contempt. Crown Laundry, 437 F.2d at 293.