NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. Spartanburg Sportswear Company
| Decision Date | 28 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 7439.,7439. |
| Citation | 278 F.2d 312 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. SPARTANBURG SPORTSWEAR COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Paul Elkind, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Louis Schwartz, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on the brief), for Petitioner.
Whiteford S. Blakeney, Charlotte, N. C. (Blakeney, Alexander & Machen, Charlotte, N. C., on the brief), for respondent.
Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and SOPER and HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judges.
The present phase of this proceeding was begun by the filing on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board of a petition praying that the Spartanburg Sportswear Company, its officers and agents, be adjudged in civil contempt because of their alleged disobedience of and refusal and failure to comply with the decree of this court entered on July 2, 1957. It was charged in the Board's petition that the company and its officers committed contempt in not reinstating in good faith Louise Lindsey and Virginia Dixon, whose discharge we had previously adjudicated an unfair labor practice and whose reinstatement we had ordered. N. L. R. B. v. Spartanburg Sportswear Co., 4 Cir., 1957, 246 F.2d 366.
We referred the matter to Rufus M. Ward, Esq., of Spartanburg, South Carolina, as Special Master, who took two days of testimony and filed a comprehensive report of his findings. The Master's conclusion was that the Board failed to meet the burden resting upon it to show by clear and convincing proof that the company had violated the decree of this court in any particular except in its failure to make payment of vacation pay to Louise Lindsey. The payment, while delayed, was, however, made before the hearings were begun before the Master. In all other respects the Master exonerated the company. In the case of Lindsey, although she was subjected to abuse by fellow employees, the Master held the evidence insufficient to base a conclusion that the employer connived at or sanctioned such mistreatment. Whatever cause she had for complaint ceased in a few weeks, and she did retain her job until recently when she left for reasons of her own unconnected with the events complained of. In the case of Dixon, who was dismissed two days after her reinstatement, the Master concluded that her unseemly and vituperative language to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.L.R.B. v. J.P. Stevens & Co., Inc., Gulistan Div.
...includes the authority, based on his observation of witnesses, to choose between conflicting testimony. NLRB v. Spartanburg Sportswear Co., 4 Cir. 1960, 278 F.2d 312, 313. The Master chose the Gordon notes as being more reliable than the sketchy notes prepared by the Company negotiators, Li......
-
NLRB v. Laney & Duke Storage Warehouse Co.
...be established by clear and convincing proof. NLRB v. Tupelo Garment Company, 5 Cir., 1941, 122 F.2d 603, 606; NLRB v. Spartanburg Sportswear Company, 4 Cir., 1960, 278 F.2d 312; NLRB v. Standard Trouser Co., 4 Cir., 1947, 162 F.2d 1012, 1014. We cannot hold that the proof here of bad faith......
-
Olson Rug Company v. NLRB
...Co., 4 Cir., 162 F.2d 1012, 1014; N.L.R.B. v. International Hod Carriers', etc., 2 Cir., 228 F.2d 589, 591; N.L.R.B. v. Spartanburg Sportswear Company, 4 Cir., 278 F.2d 312, 313. There is evidence in the record which the Master was entitled to believe which establish the facts which we here......
- Rutherford v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY