Superior Export Packing Co., Inc. And Meadowland Hy-Pro Industries, Inc. And Multiple Auto Parts, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 16, 1990

299 N.L.R.B. 61 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

SUPERIOR EXPORT PACKING CO 61
Superior Export Packing Co., Inc.' and Meadowland
Hy-Pro Industries, Inc. and Multiple Auto
Parts, Inc. and District 65, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, AFL-CIO. Cases 22-CA-13806
and 22-CA-13888
July 16, 1990
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY
On August 2, 1989, Administrative Law Judge
Raymond P Green issued the attached supplemen-
tal decision The General Counsel filed exceptions
and a supporting bnef, and Respondent Meadow-
land Hy-Pro Industries, Inc filed a brief in opposi-
tion to the exceptions
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority m this proceeding 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, findmgs, 2 and
conclusions, as further explained below, and to
adopt the recommended Order
1 In adopting the judge's gross backpay formula,
we find that the Respondent has met its burden of
proving that, following its discriminatory refusal to
hire the six discnmmatees, an undisputed decline in
business sales reduced its work force to fewer than
six and reduced the hours worked by those em-
ployees to such a degree that the discnmmatees
would have been periodically laid off or would
have worked reduced hours for nondiscriminatory
reasons throughout the backpay period It is clear
from the record that the discnmmatees would not
have worked even half of the hours credited to
' Although the name of Superior Export Packing Co. Inc continues
to appear in the caption for this proceeding, all unfair labor practice alle-
gations against this company have been dismissed and the General Coun-
sel does not contend that It is liable for the backpay at Issue here
2 We agree with the Judge's findmg that backpay claimant Alexander is
not entitled to backpay after May 1, 1985, when he began receiving
Social Secunty Disability Benefits Contrary to the judge, we do not find
that receipt of disability benefits, standing alone, is pnma facie proof in
the circumstances of this case that Alexander no longer was in the labor
market Alexander's disability (inability to speak or hear) did not prevent
lum from working for the Respondent's predecessor and presumably
would not have prevented him from working either for the Respondent
Of It had not unlawfully refused to hire him) or for an Interim employer
Furthermore, receipt of disability benefits did not require Alexander to
cease looking for a job, although receipt of wages in excess of a certain
amount would have entailed loss of eligibility for further benefits Alex-
ander admitted, however, m an August 22, 1986 letter to the Board's Re-
gional Office, that he stopped his pursuit of employment because he re-
ceived disability benefits In the absence of any affirmative evidence that
he thereafter resumed an mtenm Job search, we rely on this admission as
pnma fame proof that Alexander was no longer in the labor market after
May 1, 1985 The General Counsel has failed to rebut this proof
them under the gross backpay formula used by the
General Counsel Accordingly, we agree with the
judge that application of this formula in the cir-
cumstances of this case would be "arbitrary or un-
reasonable," and we affirm the judge's finding that
the alternative formula that he applied is a reasona-
ble method for determining backpay here
Boland Marine & Mfg Co, 280 NLRB 454
(1986), is distinguishable on the basis that, at the
point in time when the judge in that case errone-
ously tolled the backpay period for all discnmma-
tees involved, the respondent's business decline had
not reduced the relevant work force to a number
below the number of discnmmatees Inasmuch as
all the discnnunatees in Boland could have contin-
ued to work in the reduced work force and there
was no specific showing that any of them would
have been laid off for nondiscriminatory reasons,
the respondent failed to meet its burden of justify-
ing any cutoff or diminution of backpay
2 The General Counsel has excepted to the
judge's finding that backpay claimant DeMarco
not entitled to backpay The General Counsel
argues that the Respondent did not meet its burden
of showmg that DeMarco concealed mtenm earn-
ings We agree with the judge's finding, but we
reject any implication that a backpay claimant's
failure to cooperate in a prehearmg investigation
per se disqualifies that claimant from receipt of
backpay In this case, however, the compliance of-
ficer testified that DeMarco acknowledged during
the preheanng investigation that he had obtained
interim employment and had worked "almost since
the time he left Superior" Nevertheless, the com-
pliance officer further testified that the computa-
tion for DeMarco's backpay showed no offset for
interim earnings because DeMarco refused to dis-
close to the Region where he had worked or how
much he had earned during the backpay period
The compliance officer's testimony sufficed to
meet the Respondent's burden of establishing that
DeMarco mtentionally concealed interim earnings
for all quarters of the backpay period Under these
circumstances, the burden shifted to the General
Counsel to rebut this evidence It is undisputed that
the General Counsel did not subpoena or otherwise
attempt to have DeMarco testify, nor does the
General Counsel contend that DeMarco was un-
available to testify Accordingly, we agree with the
judge that the Respondent met its burden and that
Starhte Cutting, 280 NLRB 1071 (1986), and 284
NLRB 620 (1987), is inapplicable
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
299 NLRB No 9
62 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
judge and orders that the Respondents, Meadow-
land Hy-Pro Industries, Inc and Multiple Auto
Parts, Inc , Moonachie, New Jersey, their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall pay James Al-
exander, Daniel Chnstiano, Juan Diaz, Rafael
Garcia, and Ramon Payan the sums set out in the
recommended Order
Mitchell Schley, Esq , for the General Counsel
Michael W Appelbaum, Esq , for the Respondent
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RAYMOND P GREEN, Administrative Law Judge This
case was tried in Newark, New Jersey, on May 1, 1989
The compliance specification was issued by the Regional
Director for Region 22 on December 28, 1988
On consideration of the entire record in this supple-
mental proceeding including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses and after consideration of the
briefs filed, I make the following
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I BACKGROUND
The underlying decision in these cases was issued by
an administrative law judge on May 12, 1986, and af-
firmed by the Board on July 23, 1986 In pertinent part,
the Board concluded
1 That Meadowland Hy-Pro Industries, Inc and Mul-
tiple Auto Parts, Inc, although not alter egos of Superi-
or Export Packing Co, Inc constituted a legal successor
to Supenor
2 That Meadowland and Multiple had unlawfully re-
fused to hire the warehouse employees of Superior be-
cause those employees were represented by the Union
As a consequence, the Board ordered that the com-
plaint be dismissed as to Superior, that Meadowland and
Multiple be required to bargain with the Union, and that
the latter two Companies be required to offer immediate
reinstatement and backpay to the employees named
below I However, in the decision, the administrative law
judge noted that the record was insufficient to determine
whether the discnmmatees would have been terminated
at some time after February 1985 even assuming that
they had all been hired by the successor
II THE ISSUES
It is agreed that the backup period for all of the discri-
mmatees commenced on January 1, 1985 The General
Counsel concedes that valid offers of reinstatement were
made to the discnmmatees on various dates, which there-
fore terminated the backpay period Thus, the General
Counsel concedes that offers of reinstatement were made
to Alexander on August 1, 1988, to Chnstiano on July
15, 1988, to DeMarco on July 15, 1988, to Diaz on July
1 The Board's Order was enforced by the United States Court of Ap-
peals, for the Third Circuit on May 12, 1988
18, 1988, to Garcia on November 15, 1988, and to Payan
on November 15, 1988
The General Counsel also conceded that the discnmin-
atees had certain amounts of interim earnings which
should be offset against their gross backpay In this
regard, the General Counsel amended the specification at
the hearing to admit certain amounts of interim earnings
for Chnstiano and this resulted in amending the specifi-
cation from alleging net backpay on his behalf from
$82,818 77 to $16,565 38
It is alleged by the General Counsel (and conceded by
the Respondent), that the discrimmatees' rates of pay
during the backpay period should be their last rates of
pay with Superior (the predecessor), and that wage in-
creases of 25 cents, 50 cents, 37-1/2 cents, and 25 cents
should be included respectively, as of January 10 and
November 7, 1985, September 10, 1987, and November
10, 1988 Also alleged by the General Counsel is that
each of the discnmmatees would have received at the
end of 1985, 1986, and 1987 the same bonuses as were
received by employee Antonio Pison
The most serious issue in this case (involving the most
money), is the question as to what formula should be
used to ascertain gross backup The General Counsel
contends that the appropriate measure of the hours that
each of the discnminatees would have worked each
week during the backpay period is the average hours
worked per week by the Respondent's full-time employ-
ees who performed the same work, excluding any indi-
viduals who worked fewer than 24 hours during any
given week 2 To illustrate, if during one particular week
in 1987, there were seven employees who worked in the
warehouse for more than 24 hours, one would total their
regular hours during that week and divide by Section 7
That would yield the average weekly regular hours for
each of the discnmmatees who would all be credited
with the average for that particular week Similarly, for
overtime hours, the General Counsel would total the
overtime hours during that week, divide by section and
that would yield the average number of overtime hours
to be credited to each of the discrimmatees during the
exemplar week According to the General Counsel's for-
mula, to arrive at each of the discrimmatees' quarterly
gross back wages (leaving aside for the moment bo-
nuses), one needs only to multiply the wage rate of each
discrimmatees by the average weekly regular and over-
time hours credited to each discrimmatees during the rel-
evant quarter
As will be seen, the problem with the General Coun-
sel's theory is that it does not take into account the fact
that during virtually all of the backpay period, the
number of Respondent's "replacement" employees was
significantly fewer than the number of discnmmatees
In summary, the General Counsel's overall contention
in this case is that the Respondent owes the discnmina-
2 The General Counsel asserts that the Board when using a formula
based on the average workweek of a representative complement of em-
ployees excludes individuals who work fewer than 24 hours per week in
order to take Into account nominal absenteeism See International Trailer
Co, 150 NLRB 1205, 1211 (1965), Harvest Queen Mill Co, 90 NLRB 320,
344 (1950)
SUPERIOR EXPORT PACKING CO 63
tees as net backpay, the amounts set forth below, plus in-
terest
James Alexander 3$83,739 61
Daniel Chnstiano 16,565 38
Anthony DeMarco 78,126 49
Juan Diaz 30,312 26
Rafael Garcia 38,497 65
Raman Payan 19,158 84
Discussion
Turning first to the formula, the Respondent contends
that the formula designed by the General Counsel is pu-
nitive rather than remedial in that it does not take into
account the overall and substantial decline in the Re-
spondent's business operations after it became a successor
and failed to hire the employees named above In this
regard, the Respondent produced evidence establishing
that due to competition and other factors beyond its con-
trol, the business declined from sales of $23 million by
the predecessor in 1984 to $16 5 million by the Respond-
ent dunng its first year of operations after it took over
In the next 2 years Respondent's sales declined further to
$15 million in 1986, and $13 million in 1987
The Respondent then points to the payroll records to
show that consistent with the aforesaid decline in sales,
the number of bargaining unit employees actually used
by it over the entire backpay period to perform the work
done by the six discnminatees was consistently less than
the number six To illustrate, assume that during a par-
ticular week during the backpay period, there were three
replacement employees who worked a total of 120 hours
In that circumstance the Respondent would contend that
there were 120 hours to be credited to the discnmmatees
which could be allocated either by giving 40 hours to
the three discnmmatees with the highest seniority, or by
dividing the 120 hours by 6, giving each discnmmatees
credit for 20 hours during that particular week Under
this proposed concept, the overall gross backpay (no
matter how allocated to individuals), would be consider-
ably less than if the General Counsel's formula was
adapted For if the General Counsel's concept was ac-
cepted, the 120 hours actually worked by the three re-
placements would result in a total of 240 hours bemg
credited to the discnmmatees Thus, under the General
Counsel's formula, one would divide 120 by 3 to yield an
average of 40 hours for the week and then credit each of
the six discnmmatees with 40 hours worth of gross back-
pay for that week (40 times 6=240)
Over the years the Board has applied a number of dif-
ferent formulas to determine the backpay of discnmina-
3 Alexander became eligible for Social Security Disability Benefits in
May 1985 on account of his deafness, and the record indicates that from
that time and for some or all of the remaining backpay penod, he re-
ceived $668 per month The General Counsel in his brief contends that
Alexander's receipt of disability benefits does not establish his unavailabil-
ity for work and should not toll his backpay He does concede however,
that the payments might be construed as analogous to mtenm earnings
In that case, Alexander's net backpay would be considerably lower than
$83,739 if he collected the disability payments throughout the entire
backpay period
tees 4 The aim of using one formula as opposed to an-
other, is to restore the discrimmatees, as accurately as
possible, to the economic situation they would have been
in absent the illegal discrimination against them In this
respect, the Board has "broad discretion" to shape or
choose a formula designed to best approximate what the
discnmmatees would have earned but for the illegal
action against them Bagel Bakers Council of Greater New
York v NLRB, 555 F 2d 304, 305 (2d Cur 1977), NLRB
v Brown & Root, Inc , 311 F 2d 447, 452 (8th Cir 1963)
In Brown & Root, the court stated aster aim
Prefatory to a discussion of respondents' attack
on the formula employed by the Board in calculat-
ing the amounts of the backpay awards, it is well to
note that the purpose of a back pay award is to
make whole the employee who has been discrimi-
nated against as the result of an unfair labor prac-
tice The employee is entitled to receive what he
would have earned normally during the period of
the discrimination against him, less what he actually
earned in other employment during that period Of
course, an employee must use reasonable diligence
to find employment during the period of discrimina-
tion He is not entitle to back pay for periods during
which he voluntarily remained in idleness
In solving the problems which arise in back pay
cases the Board is vested with a wide discretion in
devising procedures and methods which will effec-
tuate the purposes of the Act
Obviously, in many cases it is difficult for the
Board to determine precisely the amount of back
pay which should be awarded to an employee In
such circumstances the Board may use as close ap-
proximations as possible, and may adopt formulas
reasonably designed to produce such approxima-
tions We have held that with respect to the formu-
la for arriving at back pay rates or amounts which
the Board may deem necessary to devise in a par-
ticular situation, "our inquiry may ordinarily go no
further than to be satisfied that the method selected
cannot be declared to be arbitrary or unreasonable
in the circumstances involved "5
In the circumstances involved, it is my opinion that
adoption of the General Counsel's formula would be ar-
bitrary or unreasonable Had the records of the Compa-
ny shown that over the 3-year backpay period, the
normal complement of bargaining unit employees was
generally five or six or higher, it would be easy to pre-
sume that the discnminatees would have worked during
the entire backpay period with few or no layoffs In that
circumstance, the averaging formula as postulated by the
General Counsel would be perfectly reasonable, even if
4 A variety of different formulas are described in the Board's Case
Handling Manual for Compliance Proceedings Secs 10534 to 10544
5 In NLRB v Brown & Root, supra, the court approved the Board's use
of a formula which computed the average hours of all employees work-
ing in the discrimmatees's job category for each week during the backpay
period When the weekly average hours were determined, gross backpay
was calculated by multiplying the average hours figure by the appropri-
ate hourly wage rate
64 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on occasion, the replacement work force dropped below
SIX
However, given the evidence that the Respondent's
business has steadily declined over the backpay period
and the evidence that it never subcontracted out bargain-
ing unit work, it is reasonable to conclude that the
number of workers it used to perform warehouse and/or
driving functions during the backpay penod was consist-
ent with its business needs The point is that after the Re-
spondent took over the business, it consistently used
fewer employees than six employees and this leads me to
the conclusion that had the six discnminatees been hired
on January 1, 1985, many of them would nevertheless
have been laid off for substantial penods of time during
the backpay period because there simply was not enough
work for six employees to do on a steady, week-in and
week-out basis 8
The General Counsel argues quite properly that the
burden of proof on this score belongs to the Respondent,
New England Tank Industries, 147 NLRB i98, 601
(1964) He also argues that the lesser number of employ-
ees can be explained by a number of factors, including
the fact that supervisory people did warehouse work
during the backpay period, that the Respondent made
the existing work force work harder, and "most signifi-
cantly" the fact that during many of the weeks, the
smaller work force worked large accounts of overtime I
do not find any of these contentions persuasive
In the case of supervisors doing bargaining unit work,
there was no evidence that the prior contract prohibited
supervisors from doing such work Further, as the suc-
cessor is not bound to the predecessor's contract, there is
no reason to assume that any contract would have con-
6 Based on G C Exh 5, which is a summary of the Respondent's pay-
roll records, I have calculated the following by adding up all of the
hours worked by anyone doing unit work
In the first quarter of 1985, the range of bargaining unit employees was
from four to six, and the average weekly hours worked was 220 This
would yield work for 5 5 employees per week if they worked a normal
40-hour week In the second quarter there were two to four employees
with a weekly average of 112 hours which would yield work for 2 8 em-
ployees/week In the third quarter there were two to four employees
with a weekly average of 132 hours yielding work for 3 3 employees/-
week In the fourth quarter there were three to four employees with a
weekly average of 151 hours yielding work for 3 7 employees/week In
the first quarter of 1986 there were two to five employees with a weekly
average of 135 hours yielding work for 3 38 employees/week In the
second quarter there were two to five employees with a weekly average
of 160 hours yielding work for four employees/week In the third quarter
there were three to five employees with a weekly average of 168 hours
yielding work for 4 2 employees/week In the fourth quarter there were
two to four employees with a weekly average of 123 30 hours yielding
work for 3 08 employees/week In the first quarter of 1987 there were
one to three employees with a weekly average of 107 hours yielding
work for 2 67 employees/week In the second quarter there were two to
three employees with a weekly average of 108 77 hours yielding work for
2 72 employees/week In the third quarter there were two to four em-
ployees with a weekly average of 121 77 hours yielding work for 3 04
employees/week In the fourth quarter there were two to three employ-
ees with a weekly average of 105 hours yielding 2 63 employees/week In
the first quarter of 1988 there were three employees with an average of
142 23 hours yielding work for 3 55 employers/week In the second quar-
ter there were one to five employees with a weekly average of 117 46
hours yielding work for 2 94 employees/week In the third quarter there
were three to five employees with a weekly average of 177 38 hours
yielding work for 443 employees/week In the fourth quarter there were
two to four employees with a weekly average of 124 12 hours yielding
work for 3 1 employees/week
tamed a prohibition against supervisors doing bargaining
unit work Finally, the assumption on the General Coun-
sel's part that if supervisors had not done such work,
there would have been enough work for two additional
employees is hopelessly speculative Much the same can
be said about the contention that under the successor the
employees worked harder and therefore if they worked
at the same slow pace as before, there would have been
room for more employees
In his brief, the General Counsel states "Most signifi-
cantly, a review of the payroll summary sheets shows
that employees throughout the backpay period regularly
worked large amounts of overtime, often working over
fifty and sixty hours per week This kind of over-
time shows that there was work available for more em-
ployees than the payroll lists Had Respondent not un-
lawfully failed to retain the Superior work force this
large amount of overtime could have translated into
straight time work for the discnmmatees " However, as
demonstrated above at footnote 6, adding up all the
overtime, plus hours worked by part-time and summer
employees, still does not come close to providing a full
week of employment for all of the six discnnunatees,
during any quarter within the backpay period
In my opinion the General Counsel's reliance an
Boland Marine & Mfg Go, 280 NLRB 454, 460-461
(1986), is misplaced In that case, the company employed
270 unit employees at the time of the unfair labor prac-
tice, but that number had declined drastically throughout
the backpay period until it reached a low point of 25
The Board reversed the finding of the admimstrative law
judge that the backpay tolled as of a date 2 years after
the unfair labor practice had been committed because, in
the view of the administrative law judge, there would
have been no work by that time for the discnmmatees
In the present case, there is no contention by the Re-
spondent and there will be no finding by me that the
backpay period will be tolled on account of the decline
in the Respondent's business Rather, the question before
me is whether the backpay formula proposed by the
General Counsel reasonably approximates the account of
earnings that the discnmmatees would have made had
they been hired by the Respondent
Before descnbmg the formula which I shall adopt in
this case, I note here a few matters which will be rele-
vant to that issue First, Antonio Pison, who worked for
the predecessor, was hired by the Respondent and
worked continuously during the backpay period Al-
though he is not exactly a replacement or substitute em-
ployee, it seems self-evident to me that the hours that he
worked should be included when making a formula for
gross backpay Second, because the Respondent as a suc-
cessor (and not as an alter ego), was not required to
adopt the union contract and because all of the discn-
mmatees, had they been hired, would have started out
with same starting dates, there is no basis for asserting
that any discrimmatees should have seniority vis-a-vis
any other Finally, I note that both the predecessor and
the successor used drivers and warehouse employees
interchangeably and therefore, there is no basis for
giving preference to either group
SUPERIOR EXPORT PACKING CO 65
Given my conclusion that during the backpay period
there was not enough work to give on a continuous basis
to all of the discnmmatees, it seems to me that the fairest
way of determining gross backpay is to total all of hours
of bargaining unit work performed in each week of the
backpay period (including the hours worked by Pison,
by part-timers and by summer employees), and then
divide by the number of the discnmmatees available for
work during the period in question In this manner, any
particular week's actual work hours would be allocated
to the discnmmatees equally Moreover, by allocating
the hours equally to all of the discnmmatees I am taking
Into account that there is no rational basis for determin-
ing which of them would or would not have been laid
off at any particular time because work was not available
for the entire group
Issues also arose as to a number of the individual dis-
cnminatees Thus, there were a variety of contentions by
either side as to Alexander, DeMarco, Garcia, and
Payan None of these people testified in this proceedmg
and whatever information I have is the result of the pre-
hearing investigation as reported to the Region's compli-
ance officer either verbally or in wntmg
Regarding Anthony DeMarco, the compliance officer
testified that during the backpay investigation, DeMarco
told him that he had been employed "almost since the
time he left Superior" DeMarco refused, however, to
disclose where he worked or how much he earned
during the backpay period
Inasmuch as DeMarco has willfully concealed from
the Board's Regional Office his interim earnings during
the entire backpay period, it is my opinion that he should
be denied all backpay 7 See Ad Art, 280 NLRB 985
(1986), American Navigation Go, 268 NLRB 426 (1983)
Accordingly, I shall eliminate him from the formula and
instead of initially dividing the number of hours per
week by six discnmmatees, I shall divide that number by
five
James Alexander is a deaf-mute who was employed as
a driver and warehouseman He was actually laid off
before the Respondent took over In his written comnun-
'cations with the Region, he indicated that for a period
of time after his layoff, through March 1985, he unsuc-
cessfully looked for other employment In a letter to the
Region dated August 22, 1986, Alexander wrote
The purpose of this letter in regards to my past em-
ployment efforts At the time of my dismissal from
Superior Export, I tried to look for gainful employ-
ment, but because of the fact that I am 60 years of
7 I see no basis for establishing a 1-year escrow account for DeMarco
as was done in Starhte Cutting, 280 NLRB 1071 (1986), Starhte Cutting,
284 NLRB 620 (1987) (Starhte and Iron Workers Local 373 (Building
Contractors), 295 NLRB 648 (1989) In those cases, the Board ordered
gross backpay to be placed Into escrow accounts for 1 year on behalf of
missing and nontestifymg claimants The Board further ordered in the
latter case that if a person made a claim during the year, the Respondent
would be afforded the opportunity to question him about his interim
earnings The Board further ordered in the Iron Workers case that "No
funds will be disbursed to any claimant who refuses to provide the re-
quested information or to appear for an interview"
As DeMarco has already refused to provide information regarding his
interim earnings, I see no reason to put money on his behalf into an
escrow account and wait another year to finally resolve this case
age and a deaf-mute, employment was hard to find
I received Social Security Disability and am still re-
ceiving, that is the reason why I stopped my pursuit
of employment It's next to impossible for a man of
my age and apparent handicap to find work I hope
that at the hearing this will be considered
The evidence shows that Alexander became eligible
for Social Security Disability Benefits as of May 1985
and that as a consequence, he received $668 per month
for at least 2 years
The Respondent's contention that Alexander should be
disallowed any backpay because he failed to look for
work, is clearly not supported by sufficient evidence to
sustain the Respondent's burden The more serious ques-
tion involves his application for and receipt of Social Se-
curity Disability Benefits
In addition to old age benefits, the Social Security Act
provides disability benefits In order to be eligible for
such benefits, one must be unable to engage in "any sub-
stantial gainful employment by reason of any medically
determinable physical or mental impairment which can
be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can
be expected to last for a continuous period of not less
than 12 months" Further, in order to be declared as dis-
abled, a worker must be unable, considering age, educa-
tion, and work experience, to engage in any kind of sub-
stantial gainful work which exists in the national econo-
my whether or not such work exists in the immediate
area, whether a specific job vacancy exists, or whether
the worker would be hired if he or she applied for work
See Social Security Handbook section 507 et al See also
section 223(d)(1) of the Social Secunty Act
Under the National Labor Relations Act, the general
rule is that an employer is ordinarily not liable for back-
pay for periods when an employee is unavailable for
work due to illness or a disability NLRB v Ongmal
Oyster House, 822 F 2d 413, 415 (3d Cir 1987), Canova v
NLRB, 708 F 2d 1498 (9th Cif 1983), American Mfg
Go, 167 NLRB 520 (1967) Cf Jenkins Index Corp, 283
NLRB 457 fn 3 (1987)
In the present case the evidence shows that Alexander,
because of his condition as a deaf-mute was unable to
obtain interim employment during some or all of the
backpay period and received Social Security Disability
Benefits, commencing on May 1, 1985 In my opinion
this evidence establishes prima facie, that as of May 1,
1985, Alexander no longer was in the labor market due
to his disability I therefore am satisfied that the Re-
spondent has met its burden in this respect, the General
Counsel not having shown that despite the disability, Al-
exander nevertheless was able to obtain employment
during the backpay period (In fact the evidence suggests
that Alexander did not seek employment after he became
eligible to receive disability benefits) 8
8 Under the Social Security law It would theoretically be possible to
collect disability benefits and to work simultaneously For example, earn-
ings of below $190 per month will not disqualify someone for recovenng
the disability benefit Also, earnings between $190 and $300 per month
may or may not, depending upon circumstances, disqualify a recipient
Finally, It is possible under the law for a recipient to receive the monthly
benefit and to have a trial work period of up to 9 months
66 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
My determination regarding Alexander necessarily af-
fects the formula as he no longer was available for em-
ployment after May 1, 1985 Accordingly, instead of di-
viding each week's available total hours by 5 (having ex-
cluded DeMarco), I shall, after May 1 divide the weekly
hours of bargaining unit work by 4 so as to allocate the
gross hours per week to the remaining discnmmatees I
also note that backpay periods for Chnstiano and Diaz
end respectively on July 15 and 18, 1988 Therefore for
the remainder of the backpay period for Garcia and
Payan (from mid-July 1988 until November 15, 1988), I
shall divide the total hours by 2
In a somewhat related manner, the Respondent argues
that Rafael Garcia should not be eligible for backpay
during the months of April and May 1986 because he
was injured and unable to work As Garcia was not
called as a witness, the only evidence on this question
came from the compliance officer who testified that his
information was that Garcia hurt his arm while working
on his interim job and therefore was out of work for 2
months As the only evidence relating to Garcia's injury
was that it was incident to his interim employment, the
backpay period shall not be tolled for the period of his
injury In American Mfg Co, supra, the Board stated
The origins and causes of infections and organic
infirmities, such as influenza and heart attacks, for
example, are usually not known and cannot be de-
termined or assumed It is ordinarily reasonable to
assume, however, that absences from work because
of such illnesses would probably have occurred
even if the employee had not been discharged As
the claimant's loss therefore cannot be said to have
a likely relationship to the unlawful discrimination,
disallowance of backpay for all periods of unavail-
ability because of such illnesses is proper
The same underlying reasoning does not, howev-
er, apply to periods of illness, which occur because
of industrial accidents suffered during the course of
interim employment or are otherwise attributable to
the unlawful conduct of the Respondent The
causes of such ailments are known and attributable
to events which would not have taken place, or to
environmental factors which would not have been
present, had the employee not been unlawfully re-
moved from his employment in the Respondent's
plant
Where an interim disability is closely related to
the nature of the interim employment or arises fram
the unlawful discharge and is not a usual incident of
the hazards of living generally, the period of disabil-
ity will not be excluded from backpay Consonant
with its obligation to establish deductions from
backpay, the Respondent continues to have the
burden of demonstrating that an excludable period
of absence from work because of illness has taken
place, and the General Counsel may rebut this by
showing the unusual nature of the disability, its
causes, probable relation to the unlawful discharge
because of the hazards of interim employment,
search for work, etc
Ramon Payan has worked during the entire backpay
period at a full-time job As shown by General Counsel's
Exhibit 5, Payan on occasion during the backpay period
(usually on Saturdays), has worked for the Respondent
Thus, during the backpay period Payan moonlighted on
occasion at the Respondent while working at his regular
job elsewhere
The Respondent asserts that the compliance specifica-
tion is in error because it does not include Payan's earn-
ings at the Respondent, during the backpay period as
part of his interim earnings
Under Board law, where a discnmmatee had no sup-
plementary job prior to the discrimination, any earnings
from a second "moonlighting" job during the backpay
period is not included in interim earnings Miami Coca-
Cola Co, 151 NLRB 1701, 1710 fn 24 (1965), Acme Mat-
tress Co, 97 NLRB 1439, 1443 (1952) Therefore as
Payan's occasional work at the Respondent during the
backpay period was a supplemental job to his regular
employment situation during that time, his earnings at
the Respondent shall not be added to his interim earn-
ings
The General Counsel showed that during the backpay
period, bonuses were paid around Christmas time to em-
ployees of the Respondent, generally in the amount of 1
week's pay Accordingly, I agree with the General
Counsel that gross backpay should include a bonus to
each discrimmatee, assuming that he would have been
employed during the relevant period The amount to
each would be determined by multiplying the person's
pay rate at the time of the bonus times 40
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed9
ORDER
The Respondents, Meadowland Hy-Pro Industries,
Inc and Multiple Auto Parts, Inc , Moonachie, New
Jersey, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1 Make payment to James Alexander the sum of
$6,264 01 plus interest, less tax withholdings required by
Federal and state laws
2 Make payment to Daniel Christian° the sum of
$3,168 08 plus interest, less tax withholdings required by
Federal and state laws
3 Make payment to Juan Diaz the sum of $15,463 83
plus interest, less tax withholdings required by Federal
and state laws
4 Make payment to Rafael Garcia the sum of
$22,829 16 plus Interest, less tax withholdings required by
Federal and state laws
5 Make payment to Ramon Payan the sum of
10,449 60 plus interest, less tax withholdings required by
Federal and state laws
6 No money is owed to Anthony DeMarco
9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
SUPERIOR EXPORT PACKING CO 67
Reg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay GrossBackpay Reg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay
Gross
Backpay
1985/1 12-5 40 278 00 444 46 28
1-3 222 $13764 12-12 40 278 00 10 104 25
1-10 40 258 00 21 65 $20946 12-19 35 94 249 80
1-17 ao 258 00 12 85 124 32 12-26 33 31 231 50
1-23 39 5 254 77 Bonus = $27800
1-31 40 258 00 123 119 00
2-7 317 204 46 Totals $3,21076 $3013 $3,518 89
2-14 30 55 197 00
2-21 38 04 245 36 1986/1
2-28 34 05 219 60 1-2 40 $27800 6 $8924
3-7 34 45 222 20 1-9 25 94 180 28
3-14 ao 258 00 465 45 00 1-16 19 75 137 26
3-21 40 25800 32 31 00 1-23 24 28 168 75
3-28 40 258 00 36 34 83 1-30 28 81 200 23
2-6 35 06 243 67
Totals $3,029 03 $563 61 $3,592 64 2-13 33 56 233 24
Interim Earnings = $3,100 14 2-20 38 38 266 74
Net Backpay = $492 50 2-27 40 278 00 8 8 34
1985/2 3-6 33 75 234 56
4-4 40 $25800 825 $8000 3-13 39 81 276 68
4-11 40 258 00 995 96 26 3-20 40 278 00 84 876
4-18 37 07 239 10 3-27 31 06 215 86
4-25 29 85 192 50 Totals $2,991 27 $10634 $3,097 61
5-2 18 85 121 58 Interim Earmngs = $1,742 00
5-9 40 258 00 175 16 93 Net Backpay = $1,355 61
5-16 305 196 72
5-23 25 19 162 50 1986/2
5-30 216 139 32 4-3 30 38 $21114
6-6 267 172 20 4-10 ao 278 00 37 $386
6-13 262 169 00 4-17 ao 278 00 379 39 50
6-20 20 129 00 4-24 ao 278 00 619 64 53
6-27 327 211 00 5-1 33 06 229 77
5-8 35 75 248 46
Totals $2,506 92 $193 19 $2,700 11 5-15 24 06 167 20
Interim Earnings = $1,284 68 5-22 32 38 225 00
Net Backpay = $1,415 43 5-29 ao 278 00 1 88 1960
1985/3 6-5 40 278 00 412 42 95
7-4 32 87 $20814 6-12 40 278 00 869 90 60
7-11 23 69 152 80 6-19 ao 278 00 12 06 125 72
7-18 ao 258 00 125 12 09 6-26 ao 278 00 275 28 67
7-25 37 5 241 87 Totals $3,305 57 $41543 $3,721 00
8-1 29 62 191 04 Interim Earnings = $1,742 00
8-8 37 31 24065 Net Backpay =$1,979 00
8-15 40 258 00 18 17 41
8-22 34 56 223 00 1986/3
8-29 40 258 00 37 360 7-3 40 $27800 13 187 $13747
9-5 29 94 193 00 7-10 40 278 00 10 104 25
9-12 39 38 254 00 7-17 ao 278 00 443 46 20
9-19 23 69 152 80 7-24 40 27800 456 47 50
9-26 17 81 114 87 7-31 ao 27800 11 25 117 28
Totals $2,746 17 $33 10 $2,779 27
8-7 ao 278 00
8-14 40 278 00
387
463
40 34
48 27
Interim Earnings = $1,742 00 8-21 32 125 223 27
Net Backpay = $1,037 27 8-28 ao 278 00 75 7 80
1985/4 9-4 30 16 209 60
10-3 29 $18700 9-11 39 69 275 85
10-10 385 248 32 9-18 34 87 242 35
10-17 345 222 50 9-25 36 44 253 26
10-24 38 25 246 70 Totals $3,175 07 $54913 $3,724 20
10-31 33 44 215 69 Interim Earnings = $1,742 00
11-7 36 31 252 35 Net Backpay = $1,982 20
11-14 40 278 00 188 19 60
11-21 38 62 268 40 1986/4
11-28 36 75 254 50 10-2 40 $27800 56 $5 84
68 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Reg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay GrossBackpay Reg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay
Gross
Backpay
10-9 30 56 212 40 9-3 33 188 243 10
10-16 33 44 232 40 9-10 27 44 201 00
10-23 30 69 213 30 9-17 23 19 170 00
10-30 30 19 209 80 9-24 24 88 175 80
11-6 20 63 143 38
11-13 20 138 00
11-20 29 56 205 44
11-27 30 208 50
Totals $2,696 82 $13190
Intenm Earnings = $1,742 00
Net Backpay = $1,086 72
$2,710 72
12-4 32 875 228 48 1987/4
12-11 30 125 209 37 10A 22 75 $16660
12-15 40 278 00 2 20 85 10-8 21 81 160 00
12-25 30 208 50 10-15 22 75 166 60
Bonus = $27800 10-22 24 94 182 70
10-29 23 56 172 50
Totals $2,346 10 $2669 $2,650 80 11-5 23 75 174 00
Interim Earnings = $1,742 00 11-12 24 188 177 20
Net Backpay = $908 79 11-19 22 44 164 40
11-26 23 06 169 00
1987/1 12-3 24 19 177 20
1-1 40 $27800 25 $2600 12-12 24 125 176 70
1-8 33 229 35 12-17 34 375 251 80
1-17 34 25 238 30 12-24 40 293 00 2 22 00
1-22 33 56 233 24 12-31 33 75 247 20
1-29 215 149 40
2-5 26 06 181 10 Bonus = $29300
2-12 32 18 223 65
2-19 22 06 153 30
2-26 31 215 45
3-5 22 153 00
Totals $293 00 $2,678 90 $2200
Interim Earnings = $1,720 00
Net Backpay = $1,273 90
$2,993 90
3-12 145 100 80 1988/1
3-19 13 56 94 40 1-7 35 69 $261 40
3-26 21 94 152 48 1-14 40 293 00 2 $220
Totals $2,034 02 $2600 $2,060 00 1-21 36 25 265 53
Interim Earnings = $1,742 00 1-28 33 125 242 64
Net Backpay = $31800 2-4 40 293 00 138 15 16
2-11 39 19 287 00
1 98 7/2 2-18 33 06 242 20
4-2 27 19 $18900 2-25 34 125 250 00
4-9 23 56 163 70 3-3 36 125 264 60
4-16 29 125 202 40 3-10 28 88 211 50
4-23 325 225 80 3-14 37 75 276 50
4-30 40 278 00 1 375 14 33 3-24 31 75 232 60
5-7 27 19 189 00 3-31 32 75 240 20
5-14 23 44 162 90
5-21 27 44 190 70
5-28 22 94 159 40
6-4 23 125 160 70
Totals $3,360 17 $1736
Interim Earnings = $3,120 00
Net Backpay = $257 33
$3,377 53
6-11 24 69 171 30 1988/2 Interim Earnings Exceeded Net Backpay
6-18 26 06 181 00
6-25 24 375 169 40 1988/3
7-7 35 94 $263 26
Totals $2,443 30 $1433 $2,45763 7-14 33 125 242 64
Interim Earnings = $1,742 00 7-21 40 293 00 15 25 $16750
Net Backpay = $715 63 7-28 40 293 00 49 88 548 00
198713 8-4 40 293 00 52 625 578 20
7-2 40 $27800 3 125
7-9 40 278 00 55
7-16 12 19 84 72
$3560
57 30
8-11 40 293 00 67 125 737 53
8-18 40 293 00 62 125 682 60
8-25 40 293 00 46 875 515 00
9-1 40 293 00 41 375 454 607-23 33 75 234 60 9-8 40 293 00 14 75 162 007-30 315 218 90
8-6 13 75 95 60
9-15 40 293 00 78 125 858 40
9-22 40 293 00 54 25 596 108-13 26 94 187 20
8-20 40 278 00 375 39 00 9-29 40
293 00 36 75 403 80
8-27 36 25 251 90 Totals $3,728 90 $5,703 73 $9,432 62
1985/1
1-3 222

1-10 40

1-17 40

1-23

39 5

1-31

40
2-7

31 7

2-14

30 55

2-21

38 04

2-28

34 05

3-7

34 45
3-14

40
3-21

40
3-28

40
$13764
279 00 21 65 $22650
279 00 12 85 134 40
275 50
279 00 123 128 70
216 20
213 00
265 40
237 50
238 90
279 00 465 48 65
279 00 32 33 50
279 00 36 37 60
SUPERIOR EXPORT PACKING CO 69
GrossOT Pay Backpay
GrossReg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay BackpayReg firs Reg Pay OT Hrs
Interim Earnings = $3,526 25
Net Backpay --= $5,906 37
1A98/4
10-6 40 $29300

39 $428 50

10-13 40 293 00

255 280 20

10-20 40 293 00

24 375 267 80

10-27 40 293 00

205 225 20

11-3 40 293 00

16 175 80

11-10 40 303 00

8 375 95 14

11-17 40 303 00

27 75 315 20

11-24 40 303 00

15 170 40
Totals $2,374 00

$1,958 24 $4,332 24
Interim Earnings = $2,080 00
Net Backpay = $2,252 24
GrossReg firs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay Backpay
Totals $3,258 14

$60941 $3,867 55
Interim Earnings = $3,040 63
Net Backpay = $82692
1985/2 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1985/3 Interim Earmngs Exceeded Gross Backpay
1985/4 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1986/1

1-2

40 $29800 856 $9600

1-9

25 94 193 90

1-16

19 75 147 60

1-23

24 28 181 50

1-30

28 81 215 40

2-6

35 06 262 00

2-13

33 56 250 90

2-20

38 38 286 90

2-27

40 298 00 8 900

3-6

33 75 252 30

3-13

39 81 297 60

3-20

40 298 00 84 900

3-27

31 06 232 20
Totals $3,214 30

$11400 $3,328 30
Interim Earnings = $3,120 00
Net Backpay = $208 30
1986/2
4-3 30 38

$22700

4-10 40

298 00 37 $415

4-17 40

298 00 379 42 50

4-24 40 298 00

619 69 40

5-1 33 06 247 00

5-8 35 75 267 20

5-15 24 06 180 00

5-22 32 38 242 00

5-29 40 298 00

1 88

2100

6-5 40 298 00

4 12

46 00

6-12 40 298 00

8 69

97 40

6-19 40 298 00

12 06

135 20

6-26 40 298 00

2 75

30 80
Totals $3,547 20

$44648 $3,993 68
Interim Earnings = $3,354 00
Net Backpay = $63968
1986/3
7-3 40 $298 00

13 187 $14790

7-10 40 298 00

10 111 20

7-17 40 298 00

443 50 00

7-24 40 298 00

456 51 00

7-31 40 298 00

11 25 126 10

8-7 40 298 00

387 43 40

8-14 40 298 00

463 42 00

8-21 32 12 240 10

8-28 40 298 00

75 840

9-4 30 16 225 40

9-11 39 69 201 10

9-18 34 87 260 60

9-25 36 44 272 40
Totals $3,583 60
Interim Earnings = $3,558 00
Net Backpay = $615 60
1986/4 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1987/1 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1987/2 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1987/3 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1987/4 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1988/1 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1988/2 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1988/3
7-7 35 94 $282 10
7-14 33 125 260 00
7-21 40 314 00 15 25
7-28 40 314 00 49 88
8-4 40 314 00 52 625
8-11 40 314 00 67 125
8-18 40 314 00 62 125
8-25 40 314 00 46 875
9-1 40 314 00 41 375
9-8 40 314 00 14 75
9-15 40 314 00 78 125
9-22 40 314 00 54 25
9-29 40 314 00 36 75
Totals $3,996 10
Interim Earnings = $3,963 00
Net Backpay = $6,146 50
1988/4
10-6 40 $31400
10-13 40 314 00
10-20 40 314 00
10-27 40 314 00
11-3 40 314 00
$59000 $4,173 60
39
25 5
24 375
205
16
$17960
587 30
619 70
790 40
731 50
552 00
487 20
173 70
920 00
638 80
433 20
$6,11340 $l0,10950
$45920
30030
28700
241 40
188 40
70 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
GrossReg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay Backpay Reg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs
Gross07' Pay Backpay
11-10

ao

324 00

8 375

101 80

11-17

40

324 00

27 75

337 20

11-24

ao

324 00

15

182 30
Totals $2,542 00

$2,097 60 $4,963 60
Interim Earnings = $2,950 00
Net Backpay = $2,013 60
Reg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay BackpayGross
1985/1
1-3 222 $17982

1-10 40 334 00 21 65 $271 17

1-17 ao 334 00 12 85 160 95

1-23 395 329 00

1-31 ao 334 00 123 154 05

2-7 317 264 70

2-14 30 55 255 09

2-21 38 04 317 72

2-28 34 05 284 32

3-7 34 45 287 65

3-14 40 334 00 465 58 24

3-21 ao 334 00 32 40 08

3-28 ao 334 00 36 45 09
Totals $3,922 30 plus $729 58 $4,651 88
Interim Earnings --= $3496 50
Net Backpay = $1,155 38
1985/2 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1985/3 Intenm Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1985/4
10-3 29 $242 15

10-10 38 5 321 47

10-17 345 288 08

10-24 38 25 319 39

10-31 33 44 279 22

11-7 36 31 321 34

11-14 40 354 00 188 $2496

11-21 38 62 341 79

11-28 36 75 325 24

12-5 40 354 00 444 58 94

12-12 40 354 00 10 132 75

12-19 35 94 318 07

12-26 33 31 294 79
Bonus = $35400

Total plus $4,113 54 plus $21665 $4,684 19
Interim Earnings = $3,397 50
Net Backpay = $1,286 69
1986/1 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1986/2 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1986/3
4o7-3 $35400

13 187 $17505
7-10 354 00

132 27

4o

10
7-17 354 00

58 81

40

443
60 534o7-24 354 00

456
149 34ao7-31 354 00

11 25
51 37ao8-7 354 00

3 87
8-14

354 00

4 63

59 004o
8-21 284 3032 125

8-28

40 354 00

75 995

9-4

30 16 267 00

9-11

39 69 351 25

9-18

34 87 308 60

9-25

36 44 322 50
Totals $4,365 65 plus $696 32 $5,061 97
Interim Earnings = $4,528 13
Net Backpay = $533 84
1986/4 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1987/1 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1 98 7/2 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1 98 7/3 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1987/4 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1988/1 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1988/2 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1988/3
7- 35 94 $331 55

7-14 33 12 305 58
Totals $637 13
Intenm Earnings = $44496
Net Backpay = $192 17
GrossReg firs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay Backpay
1985/1
22 2

$21034
ao

379 00 21 65 $30765
40

379 00 12 85 182 60
39 5

374 26
ao

379 00 123 116 54
31 7

300 36
30 55

289 46
38 04

360 52
34 05

322 62
34 45

326 41
ao

379 00 465 66 08
ao

379 00 32 45 47
40

379 00 36 51 15
Totals $4,457 97

$76949 $5,227 46
Interim Earnings = 0
Net Backpay = $5,227 46
1985/2
4- 40

$37900 825 $11723

4-11 ao

379 00 995 141 40

4-18 37 07

351 24

4-25 29 85

282 83

5-2 188

178 60

5-9 40

379 00 175 24 87

5-16 305

290 00

5-23 25 19

238 58

5-30 21 6

204 66

6-6 267

253 00

6-13 262

248 5

6-20 20

189 50

6-27 327

309 83
Totals $2,294 00 plus $283 50 $2,577 50
Interim Earnings = 0
Net Backpay = $2,577 50
1-3
1-10
1-17
1-23
1-31
2-7
2-14
2-21
2-28
3-7
3-14
3-21
3-28
71SUPERIOR EXPORT PACKING CO
GrossReg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay Backpay
1985/3

7-4

32 87 $31144

7-11

23 69 224 46

7-18

ao 379 00 125 $1776

7-26

375 355 31

8-1

29 62 280 65

8-8

37 31 353 50

8-15

40 379 00 18 25 58

8-22

34 56 327 46

8-29

40 379 00 37 526

9-5

29 94 283 68

9-12

39 38 373 12

9-19

23 69 224 46

9-26

17 81 168 75
Totals $4,039 83 plus $48 60 $4,088 43
Interim Earnings = $1,017 61
Net Backpay = $3,070 82
1985/4
10-3

29 $27478
10,40

385 364 80
10-17

345 326 90
la-24

38 25 362 40
10-31

33 44 316 80
11-7

36 31 362 20
11-14

ao 399 00 188 $2812
11-21

38 62 385 20
11-28

36 75 366 60
12-5

40 399 00 444 66 40
12-12

ao 399 00 10 144 90
12-19

35 94 358 50
12-26

33 31 332 30
Bonus = $39900
Totals $4,287 48

$239 42 $4,925 90
Intenm Earnings = $2,861 25
Net Backpay = $2,064 65
1986/1
1-2 40

$39900 85 $12800

1-9 25 94

258 75

1-16 19 75

197 00

1-23 24 28

242 20

1-30 28 81

287 40

2-6 35 06

350 00

2-13 33 56

334 75

2-20 38 38

382 84

2-27 40

399 00 8 11 97

3-6 33 75

336 65

3-13 39 81

397 10

3-20 40

399 00 84 12 57

3-27 31 06

309 82
GrossReg Hrs Reg Pay OT firs OT Pay Backpay
1986/2
30 38

$30300
ao

399 00

37
ao

399 00

3 79
ao

399 00

6 19
33 06

329 77
35 75

356 60
24 06

240 00
32 386

323 00
ao

399 00

1 88

28 12
ao

399 00

4 12

61 63
40

399 00

8 69

130 00
ao

399 00

12 06

180 40
ao

399 00

275

41 14
Totals $4,744 37

$59613 $5,340 50
Interim Earnings = $4,447 91
Net Backpay = $892 59
1986/3

7-3 40 $39900

13 187 $19728

7-10 40 39900

10

147 96

7-17 40 39900

443

66 27

7-24 40 39900

456

68 22

7-31 40 39900

11 25

168 30

8-7 ao 399 00

3 87

57 90

8-14 ao 39900

463

69 26

8-21 32 125 320 45

8-28 40 39900

75 11 22

9-4 30 16 300 84

9-11 39 69 395 90

9-18 34 87 347 80

9-25 36 44 363 49
Totals $4,920 49

$78641 $5,706 90
Interim Earnings = $5,073 58
Net Back Pay = $633 32
1986/4 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1987/1 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1987/2 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1987/3 Interim Earnmgs Exceeded Gross Backpay
1987/4 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1988/1 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1988/2 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay
1988/3

7-7

35 94 $37198
7-14

33 125 342 84

40 414 00 15 25 $23653
Totals $794 82 $236 53 $1,031 35
Interim Earnings = $581 77
Net Backpay = $449 58
4-3
4-10
4-17
4-24
5-1
5-8
5-15
5-22
5-29
6-5
6-12
6-19
6-26
$5 54
56 70
92 60
Totals $4,293 51
Interim Earnings = $3,243 75
Net Backpay = $1,202 30
$15260 $4,44605 GrossReg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay Backpay
1985/1

1-3 222 $17982

1-10 40 334 00

1-17 ao 334 00

1-23 395 329 00

1-31 40 334 00

2-7 317 264 70
21 65 $271 17
12 85 160 95
123 154 05
72 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Reg firs Reg Pay OT firs OT Pay GranBackpay Reg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay
Gross
Backpay
2-14 30 55 255 09 1985/2
2-21 38 04 317 72 4-4 ao $33400 825 $10333
2-28 34 05 284 32 4-11 ao 334 00 995 124 62
3-7 34 45 287 65 4-18 37 07 309 53
3-14 40 334 00 465 58 24 4-25 29 85 249 25
3-21 40 334 00 3 2 40 08 5-2 18 8 157 40
3-28 40 334 00 36 45 09 Totals $1,384 18 plus $22795 $1,612 13
Totals $3,922 30 plus $729 58 $4,651 88 Intenm Earnings = 0
Interim Earnings = p Net Backpay = $1,612 13
Net Backpay = $4,651 88 Grand Total Net Backpay = $6,264 01