NLRB v. Hanes Hosiery Division, Hanes Corp., 12981.
Decision Date | 18 July 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 12981.,12981. |
Citation | 413 F.2d 457 |
Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. HANES HOSIERY DIVISION, HANES CORPORATION, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Susan Sherman, Atty., N. L. R. B. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and William Wachter, Atty., N. L. R. B., on the brief), for petitioner.
W. S. Blakeney, Charlotte, N. C. (Douglas P. Murray and Blakeney, Alexander & Machen, Charlotte, N. C., on the brief) for respondent.
Before SOBELOFF, BRYAN, and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of a cease and desist order which includes a requirement that the Hanes Hosiery Division of Hanes Corporation reinstate David Kenneth Brown with back pay and post an appropriate notice. 168 NLRB No. 111, 67 LRRM 1080 (1967). Finding substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's conclusion that Brown was fired for protected activity in violation of § 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1), we grant enforcement.
On March 22, 1967, most of the forty employees in Hanes Hosiery's shipping department left their work, gathered in the break room adjacent to their work area, and sought to petition management for more pay and more help. They had no union representation. Upon getting a promise that high management would speak to them later, they dispersed and returned to work within about thirty minutes.1 Brown was one of two organizers of this protest. Earlier he had moved through the clerk's section of the shipping department drumming up support. His solicitation took about twenty-five minutes. The next day Brown was away from his work station three times, but not, the Board found on substantial evidence, because he was organizing another work stoppage. Brown was fired within a week.
The company concedes that the gathering itself was protected activity within § 7 of the Act. But it argues that Brown was fired not for leading the protest, but for being away from his job and interrupting the work of others the day of the stoppage and the next day.
The Board, however, found that Brown was discharged because he had organized the first protest and was, management thought, going to lead another. This finding is supported by substantial evidence. Brown testified:
"
The superintendent of the shipping department corroborated Brown:
Undoubtedly,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
NLRB v. Ayer Lar Sanitarium
...insulate him from discharge. H. L. Meyer Company v. N. L. R. B., 426 F.2d 1090, 1094 (8th Cir. 1970); N. L. R. B. v. Hanes Hosiery Division, Hanes Corp., 413 F.2d 457, 458 (4th Cir. 1969). On the other hand, the cases are legion that the existence of a justifiable ground for discharge will ......
- Novak v. Beto
-
AFA Protective Systems v. Local Union No. 3, Intern. Broth. of Electrical Workers
...of the discharged employees was held to be outside the protection of Section 7 (U.S.Code, Title 29, § 157). However, in NLRB v. Hanes Hosiery Corp., 413 F.2d 457 (CA4), the same Circuit held the instigation of a sit-down to be protected by Section 7. Similarly, in Golay & Co. v. NLRB (371 F......
-
Neptune Water Meter Co., a Div. of Neptune Intern. Corp. v. N.L.R.B.
...402 F.2d 299, 304 (4th Cir. 1968); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. NLRB, 448 F.2d 8, 13 n. 16 (4th Cir. 1971); NLRB v. Hanes Hosiery Div., Hanes Corp., 413 F.2d 457, 458 (4th Cir. 1969); Filler Products, Inc. v. NLRB, 376 F.2d 369, 377 (4th Cir. In Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. NLRB, 539 F.2d......