Hendrickson Brothers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 13, 1990

299 N.L.R.B. 442 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

442 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Hendrickson Brothers, Inc. and Steven Smith and Charles Curd. Cases 29-CA-8479 and 29-CA- 9668 August 13, 1990 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY On December 5, 1988, Administrative Law Judge William F. Jacobs issued the attached sup- plemental decision. The Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Intervenor, Local 282, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL- CIO, filed exceptions and supporting briefs. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this prooceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and conclusions as modified, but not to adopt the rec- ommended Order. The judge found the Respondent liable for cer- tain amounts of backpay and fund contributions due employees John Kuebler and Charles Curd from April 20, 1982, through May 2, 1983. Al- though the Board in an earlier decision 2 had also ordered Local 282, the Intervenor, to pay Kuebler and Curd backpay and fund contributions for the same period of time, the judge declined to order an equitable setoff as requested by the Intervenor. The judge stated that because no provision was made for a setoff in the remedy section of the underlying decision, 3 he was not authorized to decide that issue. The Respondent and the Intervenor have except- ed to the judge's failure to determine the relative backpay liability of the parties to Kuebler and Curd for the period of April 20, 1982, through May 2, 1983.. find it appropriate to apportion the liability of the Respondent and the Intervenor at this time. We agree with the Intervenor that under the cir- cumstances the Respondent should be held primari- ly liable for backpay and fund contributions from ' No exceptions were filed regarding the backpay owed employee Steven Smith. Frank Miscall Construction, 251 NLRB 219 (1980), enfd. 697 F.2d 294 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied 459 U.S. 988 (1982) (Mascali I). Hendrickson Bros., 272 NLRB 438 (1985), enfd. 762 F.2d 990 (2d Cir. 1985). 4 The General Counsel has excepted to the judge's failure to find the Respondent and the Intervenor jointly and severally liable for backpay and fund contributions for that period of time. April 20, 1982, through May 2, 1983, and that the Intervenor should be held secondarily liable for those amounts. In 1980, the Board issued Mascali I, supra, in which the Intervenor was ordered to make whole employees Kuebler and Curd for damages resulting from their discharge by Willets Point Contracting. The backpay period in the Mascali I decision was found to be from October 21, 1977, through May 2, 1983, the date the employees were offered rein- statement by Willets Point.3 In May 1981, Kuebler and Curd found employ- ment with the Respondent. On April 20, 1982, the employees were discharged by the Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 6 In Hendrickson Bros., supra, the Board ordered the Respondent to make the employees whole for dam- ages resulting from their discharge. The backpay period is from April 20, 1982, through March 29, 1985. 7 Thus, there are Board orders against both the Respondent and the Intervenor covering the period of April 20, 1982, through May 2, 1983. â€¢ The Respondent contends that because the judge in Mascali II, supra, found that the Intervenor was primarily and continuously liable to Kuebler and Curd until their reinstatement at Willets Point Con- tracting, and because that judge found their em- ployment with the Respondent was not substantial- ly equivalent to their original employment at Wil- lets Point, the Respondent has no backpay liability to the employees. In the alternative, the Respond- ent contends that the Intervenor is primarily, liable and the Respondent is secondarily liable for the backpay covering the period of time in question. We reject these contentions. Rather, we fmd that the Respondent should be held primarily liable for the backpay and fund contributions from April 20, 1982, through May 2, 1983. Statutory policy re- quires that a transgressor should bear the burden of the consequences stemming from its illegal acts. See generally Sheet Metal Workers Local 355 (Zinsco Electrical Products), 254 NLRB 773 (1981), enfd. in pertinent part 716 F.2d 1249 (9th Cir. 1983). Absolving the Respondent of primary liabil- ity for its unlawful discharges would enable interim employers who engage in misconduct to face no fi- nancial consequences for their unlawful discharges so long as the initial respondents were solvent. In Bowen v. Postal Service, 8 the Supreme Court addressed similar policy concerns regarding the rel- 5 Frank Mascali Construction, 289 NLRB 1155 (1988) (Mascali II). 6 The Intervenor was in no way implicated in Hendrickson Brothers' wrongdoing. 7 No backpay is claimed after the second quarter of 1983. 8 459 U.S. 212 (1983). 299 NLRB No. 55 r HENDRICKSON BROS 443 ative liability of the union and the employer when the employer terminated its employee in breach of its collective-bargammg agreement and the union subsequently breached its duty of fair representa- tion in processing grievances concerning the termi- nation There the employee's damages were caused by the employer, the first wrongdoer, but through its subsequent wrongdoing in breach of the duty of fair representation, the union increased the dam- ages sustained The Court held the union, as the second wrongdoer, primarily liable for the addi- tional damages resulting from its misconduct, while the employer was held to be secondarily liable for those damages 9 Applying these principles to the instant case, we find that the Respondent should be held primarily responsible for the backpay due as a result of its unlawful discharge of Kuebler and Curd in 1982 Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act when it terminated Kuebler and Curd There is no dispute that the traditional remedy for such a violation is reinstatement with full backpay Because employment with the Respondent was found not to be substantially equivalent employ- ment to employment at WiBets Point, such as to cut off the Intervenor's backpay hability, 10 this case is complicated by the fact that the Intervenor is also liable for backpay and fund contnbutions throughout the same period Thus, even during the period that Kuebler and Curd were employed by the Respondent, the Intevenor remained liable for the difference in the amounts earned with the Re- spondent and that which the discnnimatees would have earned at Willets Point Conversely, the Inter- venor could offset its backpay liability with the amounts Kuebler and Curd earned with the Re- spondent In the absence of the Respondent's un- lawful terminations, Kuebler and Curd would have continued working for the Respondent and the In- tervenor would have been allowed to utilize the offset provided by the discnmmatees' income with Respondent throughout the backpay period Be- cause the discnmmatees' interim earnings were re- duced due to the unfair labor practices of Respond- ent, we find that the Respondent is primarily liable for the backpay during that period Respondents found to have violated the Act by terminating their employees are normally required to reimburse the discnmmatees with full backpay In compliance proceedmgs, however, respondents are free to raise defenses to this obligation, mcludmg the fact that discnmmatees have earned other mcome during the 9 See also Vaca v Stpes, 386 U S 171, 197 (1967), in which the Court stated that the governing pnnciple is to apportion liability according to the damage caused by the fault of each party 19 289 NLRB 1155 relevant period Where, as here, the interim earn- ings are cut off by the unfair labor practices of an- other, we believe that the party responsible for un- lawfully cutting off the interim earnmgs should be primarily responsible for the backpay that would have been earned in the absence of this conduct To hold otherwise would allow the mtenm em- ployer to benefit from a quirk whereby another party was also responsible for backpay during the same period " We hold that Local 282 is second- arily liable for those amounts Because the amounts owed by the Union under Mascah II for the period between April 20, 1982, and May 2, 1983, are gen- erally larger than those owed by the Respondent under Hendrickson Bros for the same period, Local 282 shall be solely liable to the employees for the difference between the amount it owes Kuebler and Curd pursuant to Mascah II and the amount owed by Hendrickson Brothers pursuant to this de- cision 12 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that A The Respondent, Hendrickson Brothers, Inc. Valley Stream, New York, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall 1 Make whole Steven Smith by paymg him the sum of $21,474 in backpay with interest as provid- ed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 13 less tax withholdings required by Federal and state laws The Respondent shall also pay into the Local 282 Pension Trust Fund and Annuity Trust Fund on behalf of Steven Smith the sums of $7,488 and $3,443 respectively, plus interest, as provided in Merryweather Optical Co 14 2 In conjunction with Intervenor Local 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, with Respondent Hendrickson Brothers primarily liable, pay John Kuebler and Charles Curd the following amounts of backpay together with interest to be computed in the manner set forth above Similarly, m conjunction with Interve- " Though one could argue that holding the Respondent in this situa- tion to be pnmanly liable allows the Intervenor to avoid its liability due to the same quirk in the system, in effect we are simply allowing the In- tervenor to offset backpay that would have been earned in the absence of the Respondent's unfair labor practices 12 For example, the judge found that the Respondent owes employee Kuebler $17,975 in backpay for the penod of Apnl 20, 1982, through May 2, 1983 Under Mescal, II, the Intervenor was found to owe Kuebler $21,816 for the same penod of time Pursuant to this decision, the Re- spondent, being pnmanly liable, will owe Kuebler $17,975 in backpay, and the Intervenor will be secondarily liable for this amount Additional- ly, the Intervenor will be solely liable to Kuebler for $3,841 in backpay (the amount of backpay the Intervenor owes less the amount of backpay the Respondent owes) 13 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) 14 240 NLRB 1213, 1216 fn 7 (1979) Pension Annuity Trust Fund Trust FundBackpay John Kuebler $17,975 00 $3,937 00 $2,192 00 Charles Curd 16,75600 4,00600 2,16300 444 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nor Local 282, with Respondent Hendrickson Brothers primarily liable, pay into the Local 282 Pension Trust Fund and Annuity Trust Fund the following amounts on behalf of Kuebler and Curd with interest as set forth above Pension AnnuityBackpay Trust Fund Trust Fund John Kuebler $17,975 00 $3,937 00 $2,192 00 Charles Curd 16,756 00 4,00600 2,16300 B Intervenor Local 282, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, Elmont, New York, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1 Pay John Kuebler and Charles Curd the fol- lowing amounts 15 of backpay, together with inter- est, as provided in New Horizons for the Retarded, supra 16 Further, Intervenor Local 282 shall pay into the Local 282 Pension Trust Fund and Annu- ity Trust Fund on behalf of Kuebler and Curd the following amounts, plus interest, as provided in Merryweather Optical, supra Pension Annuity Trust Fund Trust Fund John Kuebler $3,84i00 $8900 $17481 Charles Curd 823 00 0 153 61 2 In conjunction with Respondent Hendrickson Brothers, with Hendrickson Brothers primarily liable, pay John Kuebler and Charles Curd the fol- lowing amounts of backpay, together with interest, to be computed in the manner set forth above Fur- ther, in conjunction with Respondent Hendrickson Brothers, with Hendrickson Brothers pnmanly liable, pay into the Local 282 Pension Trust Fund and Annuity Trust Fund on behalf of Kuebler and Curd the following amounts, plus interest, as pro- vided above 13 In calculating the amount of backpay, annuity, and pension fund contnbutions the Intervenor owes Kuebler and Curd, we have relied on the figures provided by the General Counsel in his brief regarding the amounts owed by the Intervenor under the Mascah II decision No party has questioned the accuracy of these figures 10 Inasmuch as payment of backpay by a labor organization is not treated as wages pawl by or on behalf of an employer, we shall not re- quire the Intervenor to deduct state and Federal taxes from the backpay due Kuebler and Curd Iron Workers Local 433 (RPM Erectors), 286 NLRB 702 (1987) Beatrice Kornbluh, Esq , for the General Counsel Robert M Ziskin, Esq , of Commack, New York, for the Respondent Daniel E Clifton, Esq (Clifton & Schwartz), of New York, New York, for the Chargmg Party Franklin K Moss, Esq (Friedman, Levy-Warren & Moss), of New York, New York, for the Intervenor SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION WILLIAM F JACOBS, Administrative Law Judge This supplemental proceeding was instituted for the sole pur- pose of determining the amount of backpay due discn- mmatees Charles Curd, John Kuebler, and Stephen K Smith under the Board's Order m Case 272 NLRB 438 dated September 28, 1984, enforced by the Court of Ap- peals for the Second Circuit on March 7, 1985 1 No agreement having been reached as to the amount of backpay due, the Regional Director for the backpay specification and notice of hearing on August 1, 1986, which was amended on September 29, 1987 Respondent filed its initial answer on September 24, 1986, and an answer to the amended backpay specification on October 26, 1987 2 The backpay hearing was held before me on December 7 through 9, 1987, and January 27, 1988, in Brooklyn, New York All parties were afforded an op- portunity to participate in the hearing, to present evi- dence, examine witnesses, and to argue orally Briefs were filed by the Respondent, Charging Party, and In- tervenor I ISSUES Kuebler and Curd 1 The backpay specification provides for the Re- spondent to pay Kuebler and Curd backpay from April 20, 1982, the date of their discharge, through March 29, 1985, 3 the effective date of Respondent's offer of rein- statement Respondent, however, claims that Local 282 is responsible for backpay from April 20, 1982, until March 1983, because the Union, between those dates had inter- fered with the reinstatement of Kuebler and Curd at Wil- lets Point Contracting Corp by demanding that Willets not only reinstate Kuebler and Curd but also pay the backpay due them, which the Board had already decided was solely the responsibility of the Union and not of Willets Respondent asserts that the Union's demand that Willets pay the Union's backpay obligation prolonged the backpay penod and that the Union, rather than Re- 1 762 F 2d 990 2 Orders extending time to answer Issued September 3, 1986, and Octo- ber 8, 1987 3 No backpay is claimed after the second quarter of 1983 Backpay HENDRICKSON BROS 445 spondent, should therefore be liable for this period until the date March 1983, when the Union dropped its demand that Willets pay Kuebler and Curd the backpay owed to them by the Union 2 Respondent charges that, dunng the backpay period April 20, 1982, through March 29, 1983, neither Kuebler nor Curd took appropriate steps to find other employ- ment and have not provided the Region with an accurate report of all their interim earnings Respondent also claims that Curd had earned interim earnings as a cab- driver which should have been reflected in the backpay specification but which were not Steven Smith The backpay specification provides that Smith's back- pay period began November 14, 1980, the date of his dis- charge, and would continue to run indefinitely in the ab- sence of a valid offer of reinstatement With respect to this provision, the Region takes the position that Smith was offered and accepted the position of chauffeur on or about March 29, 1985, but as of April 1, 1984, on the re- tirement of Anthony Spina, was entitled to have become the fuel truckdnver and therefore should have been rein- stated to that position on March 29, 1985 Inasmuch as that position was not offered to Smith, and would have paid him substantially more than the job he was offered, Respondent's offer of reinstatement was not a valid one Respondent, on the other hand, contends that at the time of his termination, Smith was not the fuel truckdnver and had waived his right to that position prior thereto Respondent further asserts that on or about March 29, 1985, Respondent made a full and valid offer of reinstate- ment to Smith, thereby terminating backpay liability On the entire record in this case 4 including my obser- vation of witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the parties, I hereby make the following II FINDINGS OF FACT A The Obligation of Local 272 In Teamsters Local 282 (Willets Point Contracting),Â° the administrative law judge, the undersigned, found that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by interfering with the reinstatement of Kuebler and Curd by Willets Point Contracting Corp when it coupled its demand for their reinstatement with the demand that Willets Point assume the Union's backpay liability The Respondent, in its answer here, relied on the ad- ministrative law judge's decision in Willets Point in urging that the Union be held responsible to Kuebler and Curd for any backpay that may be owed to them within the period April 20, 1982, through March 29, 1983 However, the Board reversed the administrative law judge's decision, finding that the Union's action was not violative of the Act, and dismissed the complaint In so doing the Board stated â€¢ By stipulation, the entire record including transcripts and exhibits in related Cases 29-CB-4937, 29-CA-5975, 29-CA-3075, 29-CB-3115, and 29-CB-3235 were received Into the record of the instant proceeding 5 288 NLRB 56 (1988) In our view, the conduct involved herein relates to the Respondent's compliance, or lack thereof, with the outstanding Board order in Mascah The order in Mascah does not state, nor has the Board ever detailed, how the Respondent might secure the nec- essary funds it needed to satisfy its backpay obliga- tions In our view, the Respondent's actions, as de- tailed in the judge's decision, appear to have been engaged in for the purpose of offsetting its backpay obligation under the Mascah decision and/or cutting off its backpay Thus, the Board finds nothing wrong with the Union's insistence that Willets pay Kuebler and Curd the money owed them by the Umon Despite this finding, Respond- ent, m the instant proceeding, continues to urge, in its memorandum of law, that the Union be held pnmanly liable for backpay covering the period April 20, 1982, through March 30, 1983 In light of the Board's decision, I find no basis for Respondent's contention Hendrickson Brothers, is not, at this point, relieved of its backpay ob- ligation to Kuebler and Curd B Efforts of Kuebler and Curd to Find Employment, Accuracy of Reports of Interim Earnings, Curd's Intenm Earnings as a Cabdriver In Frank Mascah ConstructionÂ° the queitions of wheth- er Kuebler and Curd made adequate efforts to find inter- im employment during penods relevant here and wheth- er they furnished accurate reports of interim earnings in- cluding Curd's cab earnings were fully explored It was determined that their efforts to find intenm employment were adequate and their reports accurate Findings to this effect were made by the administrative law judge in his supplementary decision in Mascalt and were adopted by the Board in its own Supplemental Decision and Order Respondent has provided no evidence to disturb these findings and I rely on them in rejecting Respond- ent's position with regard to these matters Steven Smith Respondent hired Steven Smith as a truckdnver 1970 Shortly after being employed, Edward Silvera, the steward, asked Smith if he would be interested in driving the fuel truck"' if it became available Smith replied af- firmatively and thereafter drove the fuel truck on an "as needed" basis, whenever the regular fuel truckdnver, Tony Spma, was on vacation or absent for any reason On one occasion in 1985, while Smith was driving a flat truck or 10-wheeler, he noticed Paul Gattus, an em- ployee jumor in seniority to himself, operating the fuel truck He contacted the steward and complained that he, rather than Gattus, should be driving the fuel truck The following day, Smith was put on the fuel truck and drove it the rest of the week until Spina return from va- cation He also filled in on the fuel truck on various oc- casions in 1976 and 1977 289 NLRB 1155 (1988) 7 The fuel truckdriver usually began work earlier each morning than other drivers and therefore earned more overtime 446 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In March 1978, Spina suffered a prolonged illness which kept him off the job for 2-1/2 months Smith took over for him and drove the fuel truck daily for about 5 weeks until mid-April, at which time he suffered a sprained left hand while fueling a bulldozer The sprain was such that it prevented Smith from performing the duties connected with fueling the equipment, i e, drag- ging the hose from the fuel truck over to, and onto, the various pieces of equipment Since Smith could not prop- erly perform these duties, he asked the dispatcher to take him off the fuel truck and put him back on a flat truck or 10-wheeler This was done the following day and Smith lost no actual worktime Three or 4 weeks after Smith had injured his hand and transferred to the flat truck and 10-wheeler, Silvera asked him whether or not he was going back on the fuel truck Smith replied that he would go back on the fuel truck only after his hand was healed Silvera, according to Smith, said that he would have to take back the fuel truck job then and there or he (Silvera) would take Smith off the fuel truck meaning, apparently, that he would remove Smith's name from the seniority list of fuel truck drivers Though Smith object- ed mildly at the time, he did not file a grievance con- cerning this matter Smith testified that there were no further conversations thereafter between himself and Sil- vers concerning the fuel truck job Nor did Smith there- after ever seek to get back on the fuel truck either by filing a grievance, or by contacting any union or compa- ny official 8 He made no inquiries about the job but con- tented himself with shaping at Respondent's Long Island location, which is closer to his home, rather than at Valley Stream where the fuel trucks are located By October 1978 Smith's hand was fully recovered Nevertheless, he still made no effort to apply for the fuel truck job but continued shaping near his home, on a daily basis, driving standard equipment, flat trucks, 10- wheelers, and trailers He contmued driving standard trucks through out the rest of 1978, 1979, until his dis- charge on November 14, 1980 At no time during this period did Smith broach the subject of driving the fuel truck although he was well aware that he was entitled to the job whenever the regular fuel truckdnver was absent for any reason 9 On March 18, 1985, Respondent offered Smith rein- statement to his former position, effective March 29, 1985, at the latest By letter dated March 22, Smith, through his attorney, for the first tune since he injured his hand, indicated an interest in driving the fuel truck On March 26 Respondent, via mailgram, suggested to a Although Smith testified that he probably spoke to the dispatcher, William Carpmo, about going back on the fuel truck, Carpino denied that any such discussion ever took place I credit Carpmo Smith also testified vaguely that he thought he told Silvera, between Apnl and November 1978, that he was ready to go back on the fuel truck Silvera, however, denied that Smith ever told him this On the contrary, he testified that he approached Smith more than once concerning whether he was ready to go back on the fuel truck and each time was told by Smith that he was not ready 9 At the haring Smith testified that he was unaware that employees junior to him in semonty were dnvmg the fuel truck I do not credit Smith He knew all I along that he could return to the fuel truck job at any time that Spina was absent because he was next in semonty He simply chose not to exercise that right Smith and his attorney that if Smith were interested in claiming the fuel truckdnver's position, he should shape at the Valley Stream yard Although Smith accepted re- instatement, he has been dnvmg standard trucks and does not appear to have followed Respondent's sugges- tion to shape at Valley Stream to drive the fuel truck From the record it is abundantly clear that after Smith injured his hand and removed himself from the fuel truckdnver's job in favor of dnvmg other types of equip- ment, he was given every opportunity, to return to that position, initially on an "as needed" basis Though enti- tled to return to the fuel truck, he chose not to do so He remained in the employ of Respondent for approximately 2-1/2 years, long after his injured hand had recovered, and made no effort to exercise his right to return to the fuel truckdnver's position when available The record is devoid of any evidence to support the conclusion that he would have done so on the retirement of Tony Spina [Recommended Order omitted from publication ] Appendix C Respondent's Alternate Backpay Computation Computation of backpay due to Steven Smith I Gross Backpayl 19804Q (Nov 14-Dec 31) $1,936 00 1981 1Q 347 00 2Q 5,13700 3Q 7,33800 4Q 4,37800 1982 1Q 379 00 2Q 6,45200 3Q 8,37800 4Q 6,263 00 1983 1Q 233 00 2Q 7,169 00 3Q 7,70600 4Q 5,263 00 1984 1Q 1,269 00 2Q 8,247 00 3Q 9,13600 4Q 7,07700 1985 1Q 317 00 II Interim Earnings 19804Q 0 1981 1Q Island Transportation $31200 299 Edison Avenue West Babylon, NY 2Q Island Transportation 3,547 00 Bimasco 1,57600 242 Rabro Boulevard Hauppauge, N Y 3Q Bimasco 4,671 00 4Q Bimasco 2,17300 1982 1Q 0 2Q Bimasco 2,92200 3Q Bimasco 7,24000 4Q Bimasco 4,865 00 Carbo Fuel 1,549 00 HENDRICKSON BROS 447 -Continued Respondent's Alternate Backpay Computation Computation of backpay due to Steven Smith Gross Backpay Interim Earnings Net Backpay III Computation of Net Backpay 1980 4Q $1,93600 $0 $1,93600 1983 IQ 2Q 1 Bay Boulevard Hauppauge, NY Carbo Bimasco 0 130 00 4,45500 1881 1982 IQ 2Q 3Q 4Q IQ 2Q 347 00 5,13700 7,33800 4,37800 379 00 6,45200 312 00 3,54700 4,671 00 2,17300 0 2,92200 35 00 1,59000 2,66700 2,205 00 379 00 3,53000 3Q Bimasco 7,66500 3Q 8,37800 7,24000 1,13800 4Q Bimasco Carbo 3,58700 2,21500 1983 4Q IQ 6,263 00 733 00 6,41400 0 0 733 00 1984 IQ 0 2Q 7,16900 4,58500 2,58400 2Q Carbo 550 00 3Q 7,70600 7,66500 41 00 3Q Bimasco Bimasco 4,47800 9,34900 1984 4Q 1Q 5,263 00 1,26900 5,80200 0 0 1,26900 4Q Bimasco 5,716 00 2Q 8,24700 5,02800 3,21900 Carbo 1,461 00 3Q 9,136 00 9,349 00 0 4Q 7,07700 7,17700 01985 IQ Carbo 16900 1985 1Q 317 00 169 00 148 00 1 Gross backpay is based on the earnings of employee Henry Knoemschild Total Due $21,474 00 Computation of contnbutions due to Local 282 Pension and Annuity Trust Funds on behalf of Steven Smith Rate Per Hour Hours 2 Gross Totals InterimContributions Net Amount Due I Contributions due to Pension Trust Fund 1980 4Q 2 2065 218 0 $56700 $0 $56700 1981 IQ 2 8525 335 96 00 0 96 00 2Q 2 8525 475 0 1,35500 319 00 1,03600 3Q 2 8525 632 0 1,80300 1,00700 796 00 4Q 2 8525 369 5 1,05400 502 00 552 00 1982 IQ 2 8525 340 97 00 0 97 00 2Q 2 8525 528 0 1,50600 616 00 890 00 3Q 2 8525 624 0 1,78000 1,32200 458 00 4Q 2 8525 475 0 1,35500 803 00 552 00 1983 1Q 2 8525 180 51 00 0 51 00 2Q 2 8525 496 5 1,41600 730 00 686 00 3Q 2 8525 528 5 1,50800 1,32200 186 00 4Q 2 8525 378 5 1,08000 686 00 394 00 1984 IQ 2 8525 845 241 00 0 241 00 2Q 2 8525 508 1,449 00 826 00 623 00 3Q 2 8525 4465 1,27400 1,35800 0 4Q 2 8525 394 5 1,12500 887 00 238 00 1985 IQ 2 8525 170 48 00 23 00 25 00 Total Due $7,488 00 II Contributions to Annuity Fund 3 1980 4Q 10 237 0 $2400 $0 $2400 1981 IQ 40 340 14 00 0 14 00 2Q 40 492 5 197 00 54 00 143 00 3Q 100 682 0 682 00 392 00 290 00 4Q 100 401 0 401 00 191 00 210 00 1982 IQ 100 350 35 00 0 35 00 2Q 100 595 0 595 00 245 00 350 00 3Q 160 705 0 1,12800 895 20 233 00 4Q 1 60 504 5 807 00 499 00 308 00 1983 IQ 160 190 30 00 0 30 00 448 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD â€”Continued Computation of contnbutions due to Local 282 Pension and Annuity Trust Funds on behalf of Steven Smith Rate Per Hour Hours 2 Gross Totals InterimContributions Net Amount Due 2Q 1 60 527 0 843 00 466 40 377 00 3Q 160 585 0 936 00 843 00 93 00 4Q 160 396 0 634 00 374 00 260 00 1984 1Q 160 870 139 00 0 139 0 2Q 1 60 568 25 909 00 473 00 436 00 3Q 2 1125 615 75 1,30100 1,13400 167 00 3Q 2 1125 467 00 986 54 681 00 306 00 1985 1Q 2 1125 21 50 45 00 17 00 28 00 Total Due $3,443 00 2 Hours used to compute the Pension Trust Fund contnbutions are the regular hours worked by Henry Knoernschild 3 Hours used to compute Annuity Trust Fund contnbubons are the overtime hours worked by the comparable employees multiplied by 1 5 plus the regular hours worked by said comparable employees