Employees of New Hope Industries’ Donaldsonville, Louisiana, plant went on strike to protest the company’s failure to pay them on time and to force assurance that they would be paid on time in the future. Emil Thiac, the sole owner of this manufacturer of children’s clothing, threatened to discharge the employees in the event of a strike and subsequently did fire them when they struck. Thiac later informed an NLRB attorney investigating the situation that he would close down the plant rather than reinstate or give back pay to the discharged strikers. He also informed the attorney that efforts to obtain back pay could be futile because the company’s money was tied up in trust funds for his children. Thiac ultimately closed the plant and refused to give the NLRB his home address or provide the Board with any means to communicate with him.

Based on these facts, do you think the Board has any way of preventing Thiac from dissipating or hiding the company’s assets while the unfair labor practice charges are pending? See Norton v. New Hope Industries, Inc. [unpublished opinion (U.S.

Dist. Ct., M.D. La., 1985)].