Shell Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 29, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 87 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

SHELL OIL COMPANY 87
Shell Oil Company and Warren J. `Weitzel . Case 20-
CA-5619
May 29, 1975
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On November 30, 1970, the National Labor
Relations Board issued its Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding,' directing Respondent,
inter alia, to make whole Warren J. Weitzel for his
losses resulting from unfair labor practices commit-
ted by Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Thereafter, the Board's Order was enforced by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.2
Pursuant to a backpay specification and appropri-
ate notice issued by the Acting Regional Director for
Region 20, a hearing was held on October 31, 1974,
before Administrative Law Judge David G. Heilbrun
for the purpose of determining the amount of
backpay due the discriminatee.
On January 8, 1975, the Administrative Law Judge
issued the attached Supplemental Decision. There-
after, the General Counsel filed exceptions and a
supporting brief, the Charging Party filed exceptions
and supporting letters,3 and Respondent filed a brief
in answer to exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Supplemental Decision in light of the
exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the
rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administra-
tive Law Judge as herein modified.
We are in agreement with the Administrative Law
Judge that Weitzel's quitting of his interim employ-
ment at Mare Island Naval Shipyard was unjustified
under the circumstances and that his projected
interim earnings, had he retained that employment,
should be considered, along with the early retirement
benefits he received from Shell, in computing the
amount by which the backpay due him from
Respondent was offset. We also believe that, in the
absence of a more comprehensive accounting of the
funds to which Weitzel might have been entitled
from the Provident Fund, the amounts which would
have been put into the fund in Weitzel's account in
each quarter, had Weitzel not been discharged,
should be added to the gross backpay due him for
218 NLRB No. 32
each of those quarters. In computing these amounts,
we use the figures shown in the backpay specification
and Respondent's Exhibit 5, which the Administra-
tive Law Judge accepted as a correct compilation of
backpay figures to be considered. We note that in
1969, quarter II; 1971, quarter I; 1972, quarter I; and
1972, quarter II, the gross backpay due plus the
amount which should have been contributed to the
Provident Fund exceeds the sum of the projected
interim earnings and the early retirement benefit
received, by the following amounts for the respective
quarters: $8.61, $45.01, $65.51, and $9.51. Comput-
ing backpay on a quarterly basis4 we find that
Weitzel is entitled to these amounts, which total
$128.64, plus interest at the rate of 6 percent per
annum,5 and shall order that Respondent reimburse
Weitzel in that amount.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent,
Shell Oil Company, Martinez, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Pay to the discriminatee, Warren J. Weitzel, as
net backpay the amount of $128.64.
2. In addition to the above amount, pay interest
at the rate of 6 percent per annum computed on the
basis of each quarterly amount of net backpay due,
less any tax withholding required by law.
1 186 NLRB 941.
2 461 F.2d 1264 (1972).
3 The request by the Charging Party for oral argument is hereby denied
as the record, including the briefs, adequately presents the issues and
positions of the parties.
4 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950).
5 Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
DAVID G. HEILBRUN, Administrative Law Judge: On
September 12, 1972, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit entered judgment enforcing the Board's
reported Decision and Order' in this matter. Controversy
having arisen over the amount of backpay due Warren J.
Weitzel under the terms of that Decision and Order, the
issues raised in a backpay specification issued October 3,
1974, and answered October 24, 1974, were heard as
supplemental proceedings 2 at Martinez, California, on
October 31, 1974.
Upon the entire record in this case, including my
observation of the witnesses, and upon consideration of
briefs filed by General Counsel and Respondent, I make
the following:
1 Shell Oil Company, 186 NLRB 941 (1970).
2 The transcript is corrected as requested by Respondent in its
unopposed motion.
88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
Weitzel's backpay period commences March 17, 1969.
On March 19, 1969, he was employed by Mare Island
Naval Shipyard as a pipefitter at $4.08 per hour. On June
2, 1969, Weitzel resigned the position, giving "wish
employment commensurate to my training [and] education
as surveyor" as the reason. Respondent's former Employee
Relations Representative Hugh Roberts' testified that on
June 3, 1969, Weitzel came into his office incident to the
return of equipment and a brief conversation ensued.
Several minutes after Weitzel's departure Roberts prepared
a memorandum of the conversation which reads in part:
[M]r. Weitzel stated that he had resigned from his
pipefitter's job at Mare Island; his reason being the
excessive pressure towards overtime work (12 hours a
day, 7 days a week) due to repairs on the submarine
that had recently sunk. He said' his basic desire had
been to get into surveyor type work at Mare Island, but
felt that it would take him three or four years and he
didn't want to wait that long. He also stated that
acceptance of this overtime did create problems
regarding his income tax.3
R. P. Sheridan, head of personnel operations division
at Mare Island, testified that pipefitter positions were
continually open for the period June 2, 1969, through July
31, 1972, and the hourly rate increased in stages to $5.43.4
As an "open" position persons responsible for recruitment
were "looking for" pipefitters during the stated period. The
position of surveyor at Mare Island Naval Shipyard is
classified GS-7, the equivalent rate for which was
approximately 72 percent of that hourly rate associated
with the pipefitter classification there from March 1969
through July 1972.
Weitzel did not testify. For 6 or 7 years before being
discharged he had been "sole incumbent" of the surveyor
position on Respondent's survey team. During the prior 14
years Weitzel had been, successively, a pipefitter helper (4
years) and a pipefitter (10 years) with Respondent. The
surveyor position at Respondent's facility carried a higher
rate of pay as compared to pipefitter there. General
Counsel pleaded the receipt of $28.91 in net interim
earnings by Weitzel during 1971. The backpay period ends
July 31, 1972, when Weitzel resumed employment with
Respondent.
Conclusions
Mitigation of damages, for which the burden of proof
rests on Respondent,5 is the issue of these supplemental
proceedings. While the original proceeding established the
commission of unfair labor practices for which Respon-
3 Pursuant to a retirement application signed "under protest" by Weitzel,
a statement of settlement relative to the Shell Provident Fund dated April
24, ,1969, showed the amount of a settlement check as $34,513.58 with
$23,344.32 of this figure subject to Federal income tax. In addition monthly
retirement benefits of $216.13 were paid commencing February 1969.
4 The hourly rate progression to $5 43 incorporates two "step"
increments at 6-month intervals measured from March 1969.
5 N.L.R.B. v. Brown & Root, Inc., 311 F.2d 447,454 (C.A. 8, 1963).
6 The exclusion of gross backpay for the quarter involved resulted in an
dent, as "wrongdoer," must be accountable under the
terms of remedial action ordered and enforced, this does
not affect classic mitigation principles that have been
broadly established and consistently applied by the Board.
The most common instance calling for application of such
principles is either the situation of a discriminatee
obtaining interim employment which is then relinquished
during the backpay period or failing to obtain employment
(or sufficiently remunerative employment) during the
period. The claim of mitigation here is "willful loss of
earnings" from and after June 2, 1969. Respondent argues
that leaving the Mare Island job was without "sufficient or
just cause" and, in the alternative, that Weitzel was
obligated to "lower his sights" after a reasonable time
following the Mare Island employment and "accept other
available work as a pipefitter."
An individual's aptitude, education, experience, training,
motivation, and personal mobility ordinarily forms a
composite tending to affect success, or-lack thereof, in the
attainment of interim employment. Prevailing labor market
factors also impinge importantly on whether a job is
obtained by one so seeking with reasonable diligence. The
success attaching to an employment search may be
fortuitous; however, once a job is assumed the focus
becomes that of the job's content and why, when no longer
held, a discontinuance occurred. Chief among the factors
to be examined is general suitability, in terms of whether
the individual should have retained the employment as a
substantial means of earning livelihood while unremedied
unfair labor practices continued to exist.
In Kartarik, Inc., 111 NLRB 630, (1955), the Board
adopted findings that a discriminatorily discharged die-
and-tool maker be subjected to an exclusion of gross
backpay because of quitting "certain employment" at St.
Paul, Minnesota, and leaving for California "to see his
mother and to obtain employment' more in accordance
with his skills" when, admittedly, "work, closer to his skills
was available in the St. Paul area at that time." 6
In East Texas Steel Castings Companyy'Inc., 116 NLRB
1336, (1956), the Board rejected a contention of willful
losses where quitting of employment was for "justifiable
personal or other reason." The "personal" reason was
quitting a 32-hour-week job in preference for a 6-day-week
one, while the "other" reason was simply that the
discriminatee experienced layoff.
Knickerbocker Plastic Co., Inc., 132 NLRB 1209 (1961),
examined the action of 10 individuals who assertedly lost
earnings willfully.? Circumstances related to'the quitting of
jobs by voluntary choice or in the context of transportation
problems and distasteful job conditions. The Board held
each individual had quit "without compelling or justifying
means ." The claimants' status was , summarized with
language concluding that none of the jobs quit appeared
excess of net interim earnings over gross backpay.
7 Respondent relies extensively on Knickerbocker in support of its
primary contention. American Bottling Company, 116 NLRB 1303 (1956),
and Ozark Hardwood Company, 119 NLRB 1130 (197), are also cited. The
former of these involves a harsh pronouncement that willful loss of earnings
was incurred by a discnminatee domiciled in Corpus Christi, Texas, who
obtained higher-paying interim employment in Chicago, Illinois, which he
quit under circumstances deemed "a choice of ^us own making " for which
he should "hear the consequences of his choice."
SHELL OIL COMPANY 89
"more burdensome" than those previously held nor
"unsuited to persons of the claimants' skill and experi-
ence." In no case had a claimant quit employment "for
sufficient and justifiable cause" but instead each appeared
"motivated more by personal convenience, preference, or
accommodation than by necessity or difficulties inherent in
the jobs which they quit." It was expressly noted that the
jobs had "paid wages at least comparable to the ones they
had held with [Kmckerbocker]."8 The Board wrote in
further part at 1215:
On this record, we cannot mitigate the backpay
damages by finding that these jobs were unsuitable
ways of earning a living, or that the claimants were
justified in quitting them with no prospect of other
employment. Once these claimants had obtained jobs,
they could not voluntarily relinquish such employment
under the circumstances herein involved without
incurring what constitutes a willful loss of earnings for
the period subsequent to their quitting.
In Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 151 NLRB 1701
(1965) the Board held that quitting a driver-salesman job
where final earnings were "almost equal to his [former]
base pay" was not justified by conditions of the claimant's
truck engine running hot and that the employer failed to
provide a sufficient quantity of merchandise for his route's
needs.
In The Madison Courier, Inc., 180 NLRB 781 (1970), the
Board adopted language describing the conditional signifi-
cance of jobs within the labor market area of discrimina-
tees as "[C]omparable to, but not identical with, the jobs
held by the claimants at the Madison Courier prior to the
strike with respect to wages, hours, and other conditions of
employment, as well as the amount of physical effort
required to perform them and the degree of personal
satisfaction and status in the community they afforded to
their holders." 9
It is evident the Board expects discriminatees to
prudently retain such interim employment as is secured.
Excusable exception keys most frequently to the term
"unsuitable"; ordinarily applied to mean unprestigious,
8 Respondent compares the ratio of Weitzel's Mare Island earning rate
to gi oss backpay (84 percent based on hourly wage of $4.08 from March 17,
1969, to June 2, 1969, and $842 monthly salary for the same period) with the
facts of Knickerbocker, stating that only 2 of the 10 claimants there had a
higher interim earnings ratio (Resp. brief p. 8) The reference for such
assertion is 6 pages of Appendix in Knickerbocker where substituted
backpay schedules are set forth with the "offset" deductions applied to
reflect willful losses for the 10 claimants (other than Zamora) named at p
1215. In fact, Respondent's characterization is inaccurate and fails to take
into account particularized factors and fluctuation in such schedules. While
claimants Granados and Kadi did exceed an 84 percent ratio in certain
quarters, so did Muller and Hamilton at 86 percent and 85 percent for
quarters 1952/IV and 1953/II, respectively. A more realistic analysis is to
select quarters for each of the Knickerbocker claimants nearest to
commencement of the backpay period, if such quarter appears free of
extraneous factors. Doing this for Granados, Kadi, Blakemord, Granata,
Ramirez, Contreras, and Corrao , yields pertinent earnings ratios of 98
percent, 93 percent, 80 percent, 76 percent, 70 percent, 69 percent, and 49
percent for quarters 1952/I,I, 1952/IV, 1952/IV, 1952/IV, 1954/IV, 1952/II,
and 1955/I, respectively (plus Muller and Hamilton described separately
above). The median of these is 80 percent and the arithmetic mean 78
percent. As so refined the notion of "comparable" earnings at interim
employment, expressly noted by the Board in Knickerbocker, displays a
preponderance favoring this branch of Respondent's argument here
annoying jobs or those certain to create unacceptable
disruption to the discriminatee's private life.10 Weitzel's
former work as a surveyor "normally [involved] operating
the surveying instruments, recording data, and making the
necessary calculations." 186 NLRB at 943. An illustrative
survey activity was "[S ]ecuring several elevations and
fixing several benchmarks requested by the California
Bureau of Reclamation in order to plan a proposed 60-inch
pipe line across the refinery property to bring water from
the Sacramento River to the Martinez reservoir." Id.
During Weitzel's unavailability throughout the 1969 strike
period, a slight amount of survey work was performed by a
junior draftsman. No facts of record are available as to the
surveyor position supposedly aspired to at Mare Island or
the pipefitter positions formerly held by Weitzel at
Respondent and at Mare Island. These,occupations have,
however, been descriptively defined as follows:
SURVEYOR ... Surveys earth's surface . . . deter-
mining exact location and measurements of points,
elevations, lines, areas, and contours of earth's surface
to secure data used for construction, mapmaking, land
valuation, mining, or other purposes: Calculates
information . . . . [k]eeps accurate notes . . . . [s]u-
rveys earth's surface, using surveying instruments and
verifies ... accuracy of survey data secured. [U. S.
Department of Labor, Vol. I, "Dictionary of Occupa-
tional Titles" (3d ed., 1965) ].
PIPE FITTER, MAINTENANCE (any ind.) ...
Determines defects in and maintains piping systems for
steam, gas, water, air, acid, and paints in industrial or
commercial establishments .... [r]eads blueprint or
schematic drawings to determine work aids and
procedures .... [m]easures, cuts, threads, and installs
pipes, valves, gages, and other fixtures, using handtools
[and machines]. [Id.]
The occupation of surveyor tends to defy stereotyping.
Obviously some physical exertion and manual dexterity is
involved; however intellectual requirements are clearly
present as well as willing ability to work in close
9 In its Second Supplemental Decision and Order in Madison Courier
(202 NLRB 808 (1973)) the Board dealt only with remanded issues not
pertaining to a quitting of interim employment. On October 11, 1974, the
Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded the
case a second time in an action relied on by Respondent relative to its
alternative contention that Weitzel should have "lower[ed] his sights" and
accepted available pipefitter work by no later than October 17, 1969 The
Court's opinion treats the "lower sights" doctrine finding it grounded in
N.L.RB v, Southern Silk Mills, Inc. 242 F.2d 697 (C.A. 6, 1957), cert.
denied 355 U.S. 821 (1957), and N L RB v. Moss Planing Mill Co., 224 F 2d
702 (C.A. 4, 1953), but relevant only insofar as discnminatees would first be
accorded a reasonable time within which to search for work in the industry
of their primary skills . NLRB. v. The Madison Courier, Inc, 505 F,2d 391
(C.A.D.C, 1974),
10 In Lozano Enterprises, 152 NLRB 258 (1965), a skilled linotype
operator was justified in quitting janitorial work paying less than half his
former weekly wages. In John S. Barnes Corporation, 205 NLRB 585 (1973),
discnminatees permissibly quit jobs where one was'made "nervous" by his
foreman and the second experienced "too difficult a, pattern of life for
himself and his family" on an unaccustomed shift (each had obtained
substitute employment without a break in normal workdays, thus clouding
the precise significance of these holdings). See also Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc,
170 NLRB 1734, 1744 (1968); Artim Transportation System Inc, 193 NLRB
179, 183 (1971)
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
coordination with others of a small group. Functionally it
is often an integral phase of civil engineering. Rate of
remuneration, the most visible measure of employment
skills, showed higher valuation than for pipefitter at
Respondent's facility but a lower comparative one at Mare
Island.11
Within this general framework the essential issue is
whether the pipefitter position at Mare Island was
unsuitable or amounted to interim employment which
could be quit for justifiable reason. All that is known of
Weitzel's specific motivation in submitting' the resignation
of June 2, 1969, is contained in Roberts' record of
contemporaneous utterance.12 Two reasons were under-
stood to exist. The first, "excessive pressure towards
overtime work," was clearly job-related yet did not
manifest as a burdensome factor or immediately impinging
on Weitzel's ability to remain in this employment.13 The
second recorded reason dealt with tax consequences from
interim earnings , a clearly impermissible influence, under
the duty to mitigate . See Phelps Dodge Corp. v. N.L.R.B.,
313 U.S. 177, 197-200.
There remains the narrower question of whether the
pipefitter position was intrinsically unsuitable and a
continuing potential, which Weitzel happened to exercise
on June 2, 1969, was present for it to be yielded up without
disadvantaging this claim. As a recognized trade or craft
pipefitting involves manual effort of varying degree and the
display of craft skills.14 On a cultural scale no known
aspersion exists as to group it with "menial" 15 occupations,
nor was it in a labor market area geographically inconven-
ient to Weitzel.'6 While Weitzel was 56 years of age at the
time, there is no claim that pipefitter duties at Mare Island
were unduly arduous or beyond his personal capacity to
fulfill. On the contrary the position was pointedly appro-
priate to his own occupational background. The total
situation fails to reveal that justifiable cause existed for
Weitzel to quit this employment. His voluntary cessation of
gainful work in the slender hope of securing preferred
survey employment, with undenied overtones that leisure
rather than labor would afford financial advantage, marks
the action as a willful loss of earnings deemed to reduce
further backpay by the measure of nonmitigation. Mastro
Plastics Corporation, etc., 136 NLRB 1342, 1350 (1962);
Gary Aircraft Corporation, 211 NLRB 554 (1974). Consider-
I
i As a position within Federal service at Mare Island , the earnings of a
surveyor position were governed by placement within the general schedule
rather than as a "recognized" trade or craft. Allocation to the GS-7 level
embodied the formal assessment that a Mare Island surveyor position
included performance of "work .. in a professional , scientific or technical
field [or] requiring professional , scientific or technical training , and, to a
limited extent, the exercise of independent technicaljudgment ." 5 U.S C.A
15102(cx7), ¶5104(7), 15341.
12 The resignation occurred I day before formal filing of the original
charge in this proceeding, a fact harmonizing with Roberts' notes of Weitzel
saying his "unfair labor practice claim [was ] activated."
18 "Pressure" (to work overtime) is a nebulous term best clarified by the
pressuree . The notion involved is that of voluntary versus nonvoluntary
overtime. Here Roberts' notes allude to a prospective 84-hour workweek,
yet the parties are in agreement that Weitzel worked only a "normal" 40-
hour week throughout his Mare Island employment (G.C. Exh.- 1(c) -
Appendix; Resp. Exh. 3).
14 Cf. Local No. 612, Teamsters (Brown Mechanical Contractors, Inc.), 202
NLRB 924 (1973).
15 A characterization of the janitor and dishwasher positions involved in
ing the credible testimony of Sheridan that pipefitters were
both employed and sought continuously during the
claimed backpay period, Respondent correctly calculates
the willful loss in its Exhibit 5 (column headed "Projected
Interim Earnings") based on the arithmetic reconstruction
of its Exhibit 3. Thus, for each of the calendar quarters
existing in full or part during the claimed backpay period
(subsequent to June 2, 1969) the amount of quarterly
willful loss plus sums received as "Early Retirement
Benefits" exceeds gross backpay. The consequence is a
determination that no backpay is due Weitzel relative to
the pleaded controversy.17
In so concluding Respondent's subsidiary contention is
not reached. The "lower(ing) of sights" rationale relates to
sufficiency of the search for employment, encouraging
preservation of skill and training when there is risk these
might be "prejudice[d]"' by "more readily" available work
opportunities of an alternative character.18 Further, the
doctrine addresses the dilemma of whether to accept a
position of limited remuneration which mitigates so
ineffectually that continuing to actively seek jobs is the
wiser course. An equivalent suitability exists here between
the surveyor and pipefitter occupations. Once the latter
was secured the viable issue remaining surrounds motiva-
tion for resigning. This obviates consideration of testimony
from placement official Brian Listoe that pipefitter jobs
were in continual demand at institutional employers of the
Martinez-Vallejo labor market area during the claimed
backpay period.
Finally Respondent argues that Weitzel owes it sums
that are cognizable in this supplemental proceeding. The
basis of this assertion is the swing from plus to minus net
backpay totals, by quarter, resulting from monthly receipt
of $216.13 in early retirement benefits. The backpay
specification concedes the offsetting effect of these, pay-
ments, but no reason is present to accept the unprecedent-
ed notion of a discriminatee being held financially liable to
a Respondent because of dealings between them or
extraneous payments received by the discriminatee. Ad-
justments which are narrowly identified in lieu of earnings
are properly deductible; beyond that Respondent has no
standing -to ask for beneficial relief.19 The scope of this
proceeding ends with the question of what amount, if any,
Respondent shall now pay out in remedial satisfaction of
Lozano, left unmodified by the Board's general adoption of Trial Eitaminer
conclusions (152 NLRB at 264).
16 The respective localities of former employment and the Mare Island
interim employment are the California cities of Martinez and Vallejo,
respectively . An approximate traveling distance between them is 10 miles,
crossing the Sacramento River by toll bridge. While interim expenses are
scheduled in offset of earnings at Mare Island, no other assertion is raised
respective to the differing locale. A majority of Mare Island employees
commute to work from distances in excess of 15 miles (Tr: 40).
17 General Counsel argues that a principle exists which cloaks the
quitting of employment with presumptive justification. (G.C Br. 3.) No
satisfactory authority is advanced for the proposition. It can only be
assumed as an attempted restatement of doctrine charging Respondent with
meeting a burden of proof without lingering "uncertainties in the record."
N L RR v. Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 360 F.2d 569, 575-576
(C A 5, 1966); McCann Steel Company, Inc., 212 NLRB 394 (1974)
18 Maintenance of fullest craft proficiency was emphatically preferred in
the context of "a highly complex and constantly changing industry" preseni
in Madison Courier, 202 NLRB at 811, 812
is To the extent that workmen's compensation payments reflected
"replacement of lost wages" they were included with interim earnings in
(Continued)
SHELL OIL COMPANY 91
the "loss of earnings" provision contained in paragraph
2(a) of the Board's Order.
The backpay specification sought further pecuniary relief
in terms of "emoluments" attached to former employment,
cash surrender value of the Provident Fund stock portfolio,
and indemnification relative to Federal Insurance Contrib-
ution Act credits. The first two subjects were obliquely
abandoned as a matter of colloquy during hearing, the
third 20 evolved to a bare request for protective order
relative to conjectural future events (Tr. 78, 79), and none
of the points was briefed by General Counsel. Under the
circumstances I see no adequate basis to expand on
American Mfg Co. of Texas, 167 NLRB 520 (1967) Analogous reasoning
was used to credit the amount paid under a settlement and release termed
"not I^gally binding" to adjust plaintiffs recovery in a Fair Labor Standards
Act case. Baker v. California Shipbuilding Corporation, 73 F.Supp. 322. Early
retirement payments would not have been made, or at least not in the
configuration or time frame here involved , but for Respondent's unlawful
conduct Respondent 's claim is repugnant to basic purposes of this
adjudication.
20 A technique superficially similar to this subject was that devised to
cause an "attempt" at procuring restoration of pension rights by late tender
traditional approaches to the computation of net backpay
in formal supplemental proceedings.
Disposition
Upon the foregoing findings, conclusions, and the entire
record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby
issue the following recommended:
ORDER21
Warren J. Weitzel is due no backpay from Respondent.
of contributions . Arnim, supra at 185. The typical manner of spreading
retroactive F.I.C A. contributions was not developed here and my view of
the basic controversy means that no such credit will arse.
21 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Supplemental Order herein shall, as
provided in Sec. 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the
Board and become its findings, conclusions , and Supplemental Order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.