
    COMMISSIONER OF LABOR OF the VIRGIN ISLANDS, Petitioner, v. CARIBE CONSTRUCTION CO., Respondent.
    Civ. No. 189-1966.
    District Court, Virgin Islands, D. St. Thomas & St. John.
    Jan. 18, 1969.
    
      A. Robert Pfeffer, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Virgin Islands, for petitioner.
    George H. T. Dudley, Charlotte Amalie, V. I., for respondent.
   MEMORANDUM SUR PLEADINGS AND PROOF

VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judge.

This case is before the court on a Petition (filed 6/27/66 pursuant to 24 V.I.C. § 69 and amended by order of the court dated 11/7/66) for enforcement of an order of the Commissioner of Labor of the Virgin Islands entered January 20, 1966, as the result of a proceeding under 24 V.I.C. § 68. Findings of Fact and Legal Conclusions were included in the Decision filed with this January 20,1966, order on that date. Respondent never appeared in the administrative proceeding under 24 V.I.C. § 68 and has never filed a petition for judicial review of that proceeding as permitted by 24 V. I.C. § 70. However, the day before the trial date, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Enforcement Order which summarizes the arguments made on its behalf at the trial.

The above-mentioned Decision finds that respondent refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize and bargain with The Virgin Islands Labor Union (petitioner in the proceeding under 24 V.I.C. § 68 which resulted in the January 20, 1966, order), despite the certification of the union as the collective bargaining representative of respondent’s employees. This finding is supported by substantial evidence. See 24 V.I.C. § 70(b), which provides:

"The findings of the Commissioner as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.”

V. I. Labor Union v. Caribe Construction Co., 343 F.2d 364, 5 V.I. 665, 669 (3 Cir., 1966), and cases there cited.

The principal argument of respondent is that the order of 1/20/66 is moot because respondent is no longer in the business of construction. Respondent’s president made this suggestion to the Commissioner in the administrative proceeding under 24 V.I.C. § 68 by letter of 12/16/65 (see footnote 1 of Decision of 1/20/66) and it was rejected. The Federal Courts have repeatedly stated that a violator of the law cannot escape injunctive proscription by ceasing the activity in which the legal violation occurred because such violator might later decide to resume such activity. See United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633, 73 S.Ct. 894, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953); I. C. C. v. Barron Trucking Co., 276 F.2d 275 (3rd Cir. 1960); United States v. Aluminum Company of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2nd Cir. 1945); United States v. Jerrold Electronics Corp., 187 F.Supp. 545, 571 (E.D.Pa.1960), aff’d. 365 U.S. 567, 81 S.Ct. 755, 5 L.Ed. 2d 806 (1961).

There is no showing that the employer’s September 30,1967, report of change in status of business to the Unemployment Insurance Division restricts its corporate power to resume the construction business in 1969.

However, 24 V.I.C. § 69 provides that this court “may grant such temporary relief or restraining order as it deems just and proper or issue a decree * * * modifying and enforcing as so modified * * * the order of the Commissioner.” In view of the delay in bringing this matter to trial, all the wording of the order and notice filed on 1/20/66 is no longer “just and proper”. For this reason, certain alterations in the language used in that order are contained in the modifications of that order being enforced by this court today.

ORDER

And now, January 18, 1969, after consideration of the Memorandum filed today, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assign, shall:

1. Refrain from:

(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Virgin Islands Labor Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the construction business;

(b) In any other manner interfering with restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to join or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, guaranteed in Section 64, subsection (a), Title 24, Chapter 3, Virgin Islands Code, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in conformity with Section 65, subsection (3), Title 24, Chapter 3, Virgin Islands Code.

2. Take the following affirmative action which the Commissioner of Labor finds will effectuate the policies of Title 24, Virgin Islands Code:

(a) Post at all its locations in Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, U. S. Virgin Islands, copies of the notice attached hereto and marked as “Appendix.” Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Commissioner of Labor, shall, after having them duly signed by an authorized representative of the respondent, be posted by said respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Responsible steps shall be taken by the said respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.

(b) Notify the said Commissioner of Labor, in writing, vyithin 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.

APPENDIX TO ORDER OF JANUARY 18, 1969

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES

PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

and in order to effect the policies of Title 24, Chapter 3, of the Virgin Islands Code, we hereby notify our employees that:

WE WILL, upon resumption of the construction business and after request, bargain collectively in good faith with the Virgin Islands Labor Union, SIU, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment and upon reaching an understanding we will embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
Included: All employees employed by Caribe Investment and Development Co., Inc. in the construction business.
Excluded: All office clerical employees, guards, watchmen and all bona fide supervisors vested with authority to hire and fire.
WE WILL NOT promise benefits to our employees to induce them or others to withdraw their support or activities on behalf of the above-named organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to join or assist Virgin Islands Labor Union, SIU, AFL-CIO, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in conformity with Section 65, subsection (3), Title 24, Chapter 3, Virgin Islands Code.

CARIBE INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.

(Employer)

Dated_,_ By_ _

(Representative) (Title)

This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any other material.

Employees may coYnmunicate with the Commissioner of Labor, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands (Tel. No. 774-0649), if they have questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. 
      
      . The trial was held as scheduled, 1/15/69. This Motion is untimely as a Motion and has been considered as an offer of the exhibits attached to it.
     
      
      . As indicated above, it would appear that the proper way to challenge the decision and order of 1/20/66 was by a Petition for Review under 24 V.I.C. § 70, which respondent did not file. See NLRB v. Natl. Min. Co., 134 F.2d 424, 425-426 (7th Cir. 1943).
     
      
      . The fact that the name of the corporation has been changed to Caribe Investment and Development Company, Inc. also does not establish lack of corporate power to re-enter the construction business. For the purposes of this decision, the truth of respondent’s offer of proof at the January 15 trial, as well as the genuineness of the documents attached to his 1/14/69 Motion, have been assumed.
     
      
      . Respondent’s contention that the delay was caused entirely by petitioner is rejected.
     