NLRB v. Hanes Hosiery Division, Hanes Corp., 12981.

Decision Date18 July 1969
Docket NumberNo. 12981.,12981.
Citation413 F.2d 457
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. HANES HOSIERY DIVISION, HANES CORPORATION, Respondent.
CourtU.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.

BUTZNER, Circuit Judge:

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:

"Mr. Ashburn Brown\'s foreman told Mr. Fredricks the personnel manager, he said, `I would like to dismiss Kenny Brown.\' And Mr. Fredricks said, `Well, why?\' And he said, `Well, there\'s another sit-down. It looks like Kenny is causing the trouble; looks like he\'s continued to brew it up. So, it would be best to just dismiss Kenney.\'"

The superintendent of the shipping department corroborated Brown:

"Q. Wait a minute. But as a matter of fact, the sit-down had nothing to do with his discharge, did it?
* * * * * *
"A. The sit-down itself, the fact that Kenny Brown was the one who went around to the departments to get the people to sit down the first, added to the fact that here he was doing it a second time, yes, this did have something to do with it.
"Q. The fact that he had done it the first time, too?
"A. Added to the fact that he was doing it a second time, yes.
* * * * * *
"Q. So you had Mr. Ashburn Brown\'s foreman make an investigation to determine who caused this work stoppage, right?
"A. Yes, sir.
"Q. And the result of this investigation was that he was the one who caused it, right?
"A. He was the one who came around and got them, yes.
"Q. And this was one of the things to cause you to decide to discharge him?
"A. One of the things, yes, sir."

Undoubtedly,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • NLRB v. Ayer Lar Sanitarium
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • December 10, 1970
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • March 8, 1972
  • AFA Protective Systems v. Local Union No. 3, Intern. Broth. of Electrical Workers
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • August 10, 1972
    ...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.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • March 11, 1977
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT