Western Union Telegraph Co.

In the Matter Of WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY and WESTERN UNION DIVISION, COMMERCIAL TELEGRAPHERS UNION, AFL Case Nos.4-T-2,4-T-3, and 4-T-4.-Decided April 28,1949 DECISION AND ORDER On April 26, 1948, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent, by reducing the compensation of one of its employees and furloughing another, had deprived certain of its em- ployees of rights, privileges, and immunities granted or guaranteed to them by Section 222 (f ), subdivisions (1) and (7) of the Communi- cations Act of 1934, as amended in 1943, herein called the Merger Act, and recommending that the Respondent take certain affirmative action,l as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.' Thereafter, the Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, with supporting briefs. The Union's request for oral argument is hereby denied because the record and the exceptions and the briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.2 The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs filed by the parties, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. The Respondent asserts that even though it did furlough Heppe in violation of the Merger Act, the Board cannot now order Heppe's reinstatement because the 4-year protected period of the Merger Act 1 The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent did not reduce the compensation of or furlough certain other employees, as alleged in the complaint . As to these allegations the Trial Examiner recommended that the complaint be dismissed. 2 The Trial Examiner, at the hearing, permitted the General Counsel to amend the complaint in certain respects and denied the Respondent 's accompanying request for a continuance. The Respondent thereupon protested this action and requested the Board to set aside the entire proceeding and order a new hearing. The Trial Examiner referred this motion to the Board. The record discloses that the Respondent was afforded full opportunity to present and develop any defense relevant to the issues. We find that the Trial Examiner' s action was not prejudicial to the Respondent . Its motion is therefore denied 83 N. L. R. B., No. 30. 238 WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY 239 has expired. Similarly, it contends that the maximum amount of back pay for which it can be held liable is the net loss incurred by Heppe from the date of his furlough on November 20, 1946, to September 27, 1947, the expiration date of the 4-year protected period of the Merger Act. We do not agree. Section 222 (f) (7) of the Merger Act provided, in effect, that the Respondent could not furlough or discharge Heppe without his con- sent during the 4-year period following September 27, 1943. The Respondent did furlough Heppe without his consent during this pe- riod, thereby violating that section of the Act. This violation created in Heppe a statutory right against the Respondent for relief upon the ensuing injuries. The jurisdiction for the enforcement of such right is delegated to the National Labor Relations Board, and the remedy therefor is "the same remedies as are provided by the National Labor Relations Act in the case of employees covered by that Act." 3 In thus adopting the remedies of the National Labor Relations Act prior to amendment, the Merger Act imposed no time limitation upon the power of the Board to prescribe proper relief, and, except, perhaps, for the limitations contained in the National Labor Relations Act prior to amendment, places no limitation upon the nature of the remedies. Thus, the Board is free to adopt those remedies within the framework of the National Labor Relations Act prior to amendment as it finds the situation merits. The remedy for unlawful discharge customarily provided under the National Labor Relations Act is (1) reinstatement of the employee wrongfully discharged, and (2) reimbursement for the loss of pay which that employee sustained from the date of the wrongful dis- charge to the date of the offer of reinstatement. In this case, Heppe's loss, after the 4-year period, of the job held by him before his fur- lough, with the consequent loss of wages, is a direct result of the Re- spondent's wrongful conduct, unless it be assumed that the Respondent would have furloughed him immediately upon the expiration of that period. Such an assumption would be wholly speculative on the pres- ent record and is one, therefore, in which we are unwilling to indulge 4 3 Section 222 (f ) ( 10) of the Merger Act provides: For purposes of enforcement or protection of rights, privileges , and immunities granted or guaranteed under this subsection , the employees of any such consolidated or merged carrier shall be entitled to the same remedies as are provided by the National Labor Relations Act in the case of employees covered by that Act ; and the National Labor Relations Board and the courts of the United States (including the courts of the District of Columbia ) shall have jurisdiction and power to enforce and protect such rights, privileges, and immunities in the same manner as in the case of enforce- ment of the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. See N. L. R. B. v. Remington Rand, Inc.. 94 F. ( 2d) 862 , 872 (C. A. 2), certiorari denied, 304 • U. S. 576; F. W. Woolworth Company v. N. L. R . B., 121 F. (2d) 658, 662 (C. A. 2). 240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Under these circumstances, we conclude that the remedy recom- mended by the Trial Examiner, viz, reinstatement and back pay until reinstatement is offered, is appropriate and fully consistent with the authority conferred upon the Board by the Merger Act and the Na- tional Labor Relations Act.5 ORDER Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 222 (f) (10) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Western Union Telegraph Company, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall : 1. Offer Henry P. Heppe immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges. 2. Pay to Henry P. Heppe a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as a commercial representative of the Respondent from November 20, 1946, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period. 3. Pay to James F. Powers a sum of money equal to the difference between his real earning rate as of September 27, 1943, and his real earning rate on and after November 20, 1946, for the period from November 20, 1946, to September 26, 1947, both inclusive, using the formula set forth in Section 3 (d) of the attached Intermediate Report. 4. Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it herewith is, dis- missed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent, in violation of the Act, furloughed B. D. Wilson, James F. Powers, and Robert M. Cilley, and reduced the compensation of B. D. Wilson, Robert M. Cilley, and Henry P. Heppe. INTERMEDIATE REPORT Mr. John H. Garver, for the General Counsel. Messrs. William E. Seward and David E. Kruger. of New York City, for the Respondent. Messrs. Frank Bloom and H. G. Steinbrenner, of Washington, D. C., for the Union. Cf Matter of Republic Steel Corporation ( Upson DiviAion ), 77 N L R B. 1107 : Matter of Barton Brass Works and Precision Machined Parts Company, 78 N. L. R. B. 831. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY STATEMENT OF THE CASE 241 Upon two charges filed on February 10. 1947, and upon one charge filed on March 7, 1947, by Western Union Division, Commercial Telegraphers' Union, A. F. of L., herein called the Union, and in accordance with an order dated De- cember 26, 1947, of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,' herein called General Counsel, consolidating the three cases, the General Counsel, by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), issued his complaint dated January 6, 1948, against Western Union Telegraph Company, herein called the Respondent, alleging that the 'Respondent had de- prived and was depriving four employees, namely, B. D. Wilson, James F. Powers, Henry P. Heppe, and Robert M. Cilley, of rights, privileges, and immunities granted or guaranteed to them under Section 222 (f), subdivisions (1) and (7) of the Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064, as amended in 1943, 57 Stat. 5, herein called the Act.' In substance, the complaint alleged as violations of the Act that on or about September 27 and October 7, 1943, and on or about November 19, 1946, the Respondent reduced the compensation of each of the afore-named employees with- out his consent and at all times since, during the employment of each, continued to pay the reduced amount of compensation, and that on or about November 19, 1946, the Respondent terminated the employment of Henry P. Heppe without his con- sent and without justifiable cause and thereafter refused to reinstate said em- ployee to•work which was consistent with his past training and experience in the telegraph industry. Copies of charges and complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were served upon the Respondent and the Union. The Respondent's answer, filed January 19, 1948, denied the allegations of the 'complaint with respect to violations of the Act. The answer also pleaded affirm- atively certain matters going to the jurisdiction of the Board and in limitation, certain matters which, inferentially, may constitute a plea of consent by the affected employees, and an allegation that Heppe refused to accept other employ- ment with the Respondent. The disposition of issues respecting the Board's ,jurisdiction and limitation of action will be set forth herein below in connection with rulings on motions. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from February 10 to 12 inclusive, 1948, before the undersigned Trial Examiner, desig- nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. All parties were represented by counsel.' All participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At the opening of the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel, hereinafter called G. C. counsel, moved to amend the complaint to insert the words "dis- charged, furloughed, and" before the words "reduced the compensation of each of the employees" in paragraph 10 of the complaint, and to correlate the language of paragraph 11 of the complaint' to the amended paragraph 10. The motion ' The National Labor Relations Board hereinafter will be called the Board. s The amendment, commonly known as the Telegraph Merger Act, added Section 222 to 'Title II of the original Act. 3 The Union was represented by counsel and by its Legislative National Vice President.. 4 Paragraph 11 would be thus amended to read : The discliaiges, furloughs, and reduction of compensation . . . were without the consent of each said employee." 242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was granted over objection of Respondent's counsel. Respondent's counsel there- upon moved for a continuance on the ground of surprise. This motion and a renewal thereof at the close of the Government's case were denied on the ground that any surprise that had been occasioned by the amendment to the complaint was surprise as to legal theory and not surprise as to the facts.' The under= signed stated, however, that he would give the Respondent 15 days from the time the Respondent finished putting in such evidence as it had within which to apply for a further hearing if it appeared to the Respondent within that time that there was additional evidence it wished to adduce.' A motion by Respondent's counsel to disqualify Union's counsel on the ground that he had been employed by the Board at Washington at the time these cases were pending was denied when Respondent accepted the statement of the Union's counsel that he had severed all relations with the Board before the filing of the charges in this case. At the close of the first day of the hearing, Respondent's counsel moved to dis= miss the complaint on the grounds that more than 4 years had elapsed since the approval of the merger and that the complaint had issued after the' expiration of said 4 years.' The motion was denied. Respondent's counsel further moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the funds of the Board should not be used to hear this case! This motion was denied. During the course of examination of the witness Heppe, Respondent's counsel moved to dismiss the complaint as to Heppe on technical grounds' The motion was denied. At the conclusion of the Government's case, counsel for the Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of failure of proof. The undersigned denied :The motion at the close of the Government's case was also based on a claim of right, presumably under Section 203.15 of the Board's Rules which provides for 10 days' notice after service of the complaint. The undersigned does not regard the amendment to the complaint made in this case as necessitating a continuance. 5 The undersigned stated that this meant that the Respondent not only could call addi- tional witnesses or introduce documentary evidence but could call the same witnesses to testify further on any matters which Respondent found had not been covered . The Re- spondent 's counsel said this was not satisfactory and asked for a continuance while it appealed the Trial Examiner's ruling to the Board. The Trial Examiner then gave the Respondent 's counsel 30 minutes within which to send a request to the Board for leave to appeal, pending reply to which the hearing proceeded. Leave to appeal was denied by the Board. I Counsel for the Respondent apparently assumed that, since the protection afforded to employees of the merged carriers was limited to 4 years from the date of approval of the merger, the remedy for violation thereof was also limited to the same period. A similar motion was made by the Respondent and denied by the undersigned in Matter of Western Union Telegraph Company, Case No. 2-T-6. The undersigned has explained his reasons for denial of said motion in his Intermediate Report in that case. Respondent's counsel did not, in his motion, reiterate the ground advanced in the answer, 1. e., that more than 6 months had elapsed between the time of the alleged violations and the issuance of the complaint [filing of the charges?]. However, the undersigned will here state such ground is without merit for the reasons more fully set forth in the said Intermediate Report in Case No. 2-T-6. Matter of Bernard Fisch et al., d/b/a Union Products Company, 75 N. L. R. B. 591; N. L. R. B. v. Brozen, 166 F. (2d) 812 (C. C. A. 2), 21 L. R. R. M. 2430. 9 The motion was first directed to discretion and then on the claim that the Appropria- tions Act of July 8, 1947, limited the use of the Board's funds. The motion was denied on both grounds. 9 It is not clear whether Respondent's motion was made on the ground that Heppe had not signed the charge, that there was a variance between the charge and complaint, or that there was a variance between the charge and the testimony of Heppe . But all of such grounds are without merit. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY 243 the motion without prejudice to the Respondent to make a similar motion at the close of the hearing. Before putting in its case, the Respondent requested a right to submit an amended answer, not merely to amend its existing answer 1° This motion was denied on the ground that it was unnecessary, but the undersigned stated that the denials of the existing answer would be taken as denials of the allegations of the complaint as amended, that the Respondent could put in any affirmative defense ,it had, whether pleaded or not, and that the Respondent would be permitted at the close of the case to amend its answer to conform to the proof. Respondent's coun- sel then stated that he was making a protest against proceeding with the Re- spondent's case and moved that the Board set aside the entire proceeding and order a new hearing. This motion was obviously not directed to the Trial Exam- iner in view of his previous ruling that the Respondent should proceed. The motion, therefore, was not ruled on by the Trial Examiner and it will be referred to the Board when and if this matter comes before it in due course. Respondent's counsel next moved for a severance of Case No. 4-T-4 which in- volves Heppe. The motion was denied. Respondent's counsel then moved that all direct testimony in response to ques- tions of Union's counsel be stricken on the ground that under Section 202.10 of the Board's Rules which reads in part : "The Board's attorney has the burden of proof of violations of . . . Section 222 (f) of the Telegraph Merger Act." 11 The motion was denied. At the close of the evidence, G. C. counsel moved to amend the complaint to conform to the evidence as to informal matters. This motion was granted. The Respondent again moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Govern- ment had not sustained the burden of proof and had failed to prove all its conten- tions in the complaint. The undersigned reserved ruling on this motion. It is now granted in part and denied in part as hereinbelow indicated. At the request of counsel, the undersigned fixed the time for filing of briefs and for oral argument conditionally on there being no application by the Respondent for further hearing. A time was also fixed within which the Respondent might apply for a further hearing. That time elapsed with no request by the Respondent for further hearing.' Oral argument by G. C. counsel, the Union, and the Re- spondent was heard by the undersigned at Washington, D. C., on March 16, 1948. Briefs have been filed with the Trial Examiner by the Respondent and by the Union. Upon the entire record in the case and upon his observation of the witnesses, the undersigned makes the following : 10 The request for permission to file an amended answer was accompanied by remarks of Respondent's counsel indicating that he wanted time to review the defense before filing such an amended answer, and appeared to the undersigned to be another device to get a continuance. "Rule 202.10 in paragraph (b) provides: "Every party has the right to present his case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to con- duct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts . . ' Rule 203.8 reads in part : "The term `party' as used herein shall mean . . . any person named or admitted as a party . . . in any Board proceeding, including without limi- tation, any person filing a charge . . Under Rule No. 203.1 the term "person" Includes, as under Section 2 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, "labor organizations." 12 During oral argument, counsel for the Respondent stated that he had waived this privilege. 244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE CONSOLIDATED OR MERGER COMPANIES The Respondent is a New York corporation, having its principal office in New York City. It is engaged in the reception and transmission by telegraph and cable of intrastate, interstate, and international communications throughout the United States and foreign countries. Postal, a New York corporation, until October 7, 1943, had its principal office in New York City. Prior to that date it was engaged in the reception and trans- mission by telegraph and cable of intrastate, interstate, and international com- munications throughout the United States and foreign countries. On September 27, 1943, the Federal Communications Commission, pursuant to a written agreement between Respondent and Postal and in accordance with the provisions of the Act, entered an order approving a consolidation or merger of the Respondent and Postal, and thereafter, on October 7, 1943, the Respondent ac- quired the properties, facilities, equipment and holdings of Postal. Since the.lat- ter date, the Respondent has operated said properties, facilities, equipment and holdings, together with its own properties, facilities, equipment, and holdings as a consolidated or merged carrier within the meaning of the Act. II. THE EMPLOYEES INVOLVED B. D. Wilson , James F. Powers, and Henry P. Heppe were in the employ of the Respondent on and before March 1, 1941, and at the time of approval of the merger. Robert M. Cilley was in the employ of Postal on and before March 1, 1941, and at the time of approval of -the merger. Each was employed at a rate of less than $5000 per annum and each continued in the employ of the Respond- ent after the date of the merger. III. THE FACTS CONSTITUTING THE BASIS OF COMPLAINT (a) The facts regarding furlough Each of the employees named in the complaint was employed by the Respond- ent, after the merger, as a commercial representative. At the time of the events ,hereinafter related, commercial representatives were covered by a collective bargaining agreement, effective April 1, 1946, between the Respondent and the Union. On about November 4, 1946, the Respondent decided to reduce the number of commercial representatives. On that day, Bruce Allen, Philadelphia divisional superintendent of the Respondent, called in representatives of the Union and notified them of the Respondent's intent to reduce the number of commercial representatives and stated that the Respondent would put into effect the me- chanics of the furlough force reduction provisions of their contract and that certain men, therefore, would receive furlough notices." The union representa- tive, Charles Stratton, protested that a furlough of such employees without their .consent would be a violation of the Act and that the Union as bargaining agent for these men did not consent to it. Allen said that it was not the Respondent's intention to sever anybody from the service, that it was simply a question of down grading by the force reduction method. Allen's statement had reference to the bumping process provided for under the Union's contract, under the pro- "Present at this time were LaBrum, president of the local of the Union, Stratton, the -local's vice president, Allen, Harold Baker, Respondent's city commercial manager, Edward ;filament, sales manager , and perhaps another. WESTERN UNION 'TELEGRAPH COMPANY 2415, vibiori's'bf1wliich-1t Wis ne`deasary'to gi've"an emphoyee''15 `days'`noti'ce' of ,lay-off' 1, I to«put"the"emplroye`e in'a fpositioii to''eaer`cise' his 'seniority rights3`' The uni'on''' representatives especially objected to down grading of ratings ( rates of pay) because similar ddwn ^grarll"n'g'oE'pdeitioi^s`'hadoc'curred In ' othter"cities'in' the eastern division with no accompanying reduction in ratings ; -so they asked Allen to defer any action on down grading of ratings until they , had had a chance to consult with their national officers . Allen had the furlough notices ready to deliver to the affected, employees.16 Stratton objected to these being given to the employees for signature since their signing them would be construable as consent. Allen asked if they would be accepted if the bottom part of the notice, containing the space for signature, were cut off. Stratton- said they would be accepted under protest. The notices, filled out and signed by Allen, were delivered to the four employees, Wilson, Powers, Heppe, and Cilley, that evening. Further discussion of the matter was deferred. About 10 days or 2 weeks later the same parties, with the addition of Heppe, as a union steward, met, and the Union was asked if it accepted the reduction. The union representatives said they considered such reduction accomplished by means of furlough to be a violation of the Act, that they would not bargain about the matter, and that any action taken by the Respondent would be' over the Union's protest. Allen asked the Union to make some suggestion of what might be acceptable in the way of down grading and suggested that they could always handle as a grievance any amount of reduction that was unsatisfactory. But the Union would not agree to any reduction. The matter of bumping was discussed. The Union asked if the Respondent had any specific jobs in mind and the Respondent replied that it did not, that the employees would have to bid in where they were best fitted and where their seniority would take them. Heppe asked specifically if the Respondent had anything in mind for him -in view of the fact that he had had no experience as a branch manager (as the other three commercial representatives had). He received a negative reply. The meeting concluded -with an arrangement for the affected individuals to meet with Harold Baker, the city commercial manager, to see what jobs the men might bump into. Within the next few days Stratton accompanied Powell, Wilson, and Cilley individually in meeting with Baker. Each bid into a branch manager job at a lower rate of pay than that enjoyed as a commercial representative. The ques- tion of whether this rate was lower than that received by them at the time of the approval of the merger will be considered in a subsequent portion of this report. None of these three men lost any time from work, and their pay as-commercial representatives was continued until they were placed in their jobs as branch managers.16 Stratton explained to Heppe the mechanics of bumping. Heppe said, accord- ing to Stratton, "I have never worked in a branch office, so where would I bump to, a messenger boy?" Stratton talked to Baker about Heppe and asked what a man would do who had not been in the position of branch manager before. Baker said that the thing to do was to get together and decide what they would do with him if he decided to bid into the branch manager' job. Baker offered no '- A question existed as to the applicability of these provisions of the ' contract to em- ployees employed before March 1, 1941. is A blank copy of such furlough notice is set forth in Appendix A. l' The furlough notice was effective on November 19, 1946 . Powers_and ' Wilson were placed by that date, Cilley was placed a few days later. He was paid at the commercial representative rate until that date. 844340-50-vol. 83-17 246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD suggestion other than this. At the end of the effective day of the furlough notice, November 19, 1946, Heppe left and did not return . He did not bid on any other job. On November 21,1946, Allen wrote the following letter to Heppe : DEAR Mn. HEPPE : On November 4 you were notified that, because of decreased work in the commercial representative classification, you would, as of November 20, be subject to the force reduction provisions of the A. F. L. contract. The noti- fication form did not specifically cover the employes' protective features of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, nor the employes' rights under the existing A. F. L. contract. However, before the notices were issued to you and others, the entire matter was reviewed with the union and the rights of the employes were fully discussed. The union was given to under- stand that in no way did this form interfere with the exercise of the em- ployes' rights under the contract or under the law. Later, the matter was again discussed in your presence with the union and the employes' rights were again clearly outlined. As evidence that there was no misunderstand- ing in the matter, the other four affected employes who received similar notices simultaneously with yours have exercised their seniority rights under the contract and are now at work in positions to which they have advanced a right by reason of seniority. We have not received from you an expression of your intentions. Your action implies your consent to voluntarily accepting the furlough. This leaves us in the position of not definitely knowing whether you have elected to accept the furlough. You realize that you are doing so voluntarily and without any compulsion. The company stands ready to offer you employ- ment in accordance with its obligations under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended , and in accordance with the provisions of the A. F. L. contract. In the circumstances, should you desire, after further reflection, to exer- cise your seniority rights, please let us know. A copy of this letter is being sent to the local union office. Yours very truly, s/ B. R. Arr.EN, Superintendent. Heppe saw the copy of this letter which had been sent to the union office. Correctly assuming that the one addressed to his house was the same, he did not then open it, and neither he nor anyone on his behalf answered the letter. He was never re-employed by the Respondent. (b) Contentions of parties respecting furloughs; conclusions G. C. counsel and union counsel contend that the conduct of the Respondent in resorting to furlough procedure in an effort to reduce the size of the sales force and to effect demotions was a violation of Section 222 (f ) ( 1) and (7))of the Act1' Specifically, it is claimed that the issuance of furlough notices to each 17 Section 222 (f) ( 1) and ( 7) are as follows: (1) Each employee of any carrier which is a party to a consolidation or merger pursuant to this section who was employed by such carrier immediately preceding the approval of such consolidation or merger , and whose period of employment began on or before March 1, 1941 , shall be employed by the carrier resulting from such con- solidation or merger for a period of not less than four years from the date of the WESTERN UNION .'ELEGRAPH COMPANY 247 of the four'employees was a violation of the provisions of subsection (7) pro- hibiting for 4 years the furloughing of any employee employed before March 1, 1941, without his consent. It is further contended that neither the employees here involved nor the Union on their behalf consented to the furloughs. The acceptance under protest of branch manager jobs by three of these employees, it is claimed, merely goes in mitigation of damages, presumably in the same sense it would if they had procured employment elsewhere upon being furloughed. The Respondent contends that since Powers, Wilson, and Cilley were never out of employment they were not in fact furloughed, that "furlough," as used in the Act, is synonymous with "lay-off," that demotions as such are not pro- hibited by the Act, that the Union by its contract of April 1, 1946, consented to and made necesary the use of the furlough procedure for demotions, and that Heppe consented to his furlough by failing to apply for any other job with the Respondent. In meeting the Respondent's argument that the Union by its contract consented to use of the furlough procedure to effect demotions, the Union points to clause 24 (a) of its agreement which reads: Article 24 Force Reduction GENERAL (a) Each employee of the Company whose term of employment began on or before March 1, 1941, shall not be subject to force reduction, or have his compensation reduced, in any manner contrary to the provisions of Sec- tion 222 (f) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, March 6, 1943. The Respondent rejoins that this clause merely means that the Respondent would not violate Section 222 (f) of the Act. But, it argues, Section 222 (f), mentioned in Article 24 (a) of the contract, contains not only paragraphs (1) and (7), relied on by the Union, but also paragraph (9) which reads in part: . . . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any agreement not prohibited by law pertaining to the protection of employees may hereafter be entered into by such consolidated or merged carrier and the duly au- thorized representative or representatives of its employees selected accord- ing to existing law. Thus, the Respondent's argument continues, the parties, in conformity with the Act, made an agreement which permits, and provides the mechanics for, demo- tions and reductions in salary. This agreement tl)e Respondent claims it followed. The Union surrejoins that the obvious purpose of including clause 24 (a) in the contract was to indicate that the Union wanted to avoid the very contention approval of such consolidation or merger, and during such period no such employee shall, without his consent, have his compensation reduced or be assigned to work which is inconsistent with his past training and experience in the'telegraph industry. (7) No employee of any carrier which is a party to any such consolidation or merger shall , without his consent, have his compensation reduced, or (except as pro- vided in paragraph (2) and paragraph ( 8) of this subsection) be discharged or fur- loughed during the four-year period after the date of the approval of such consolida- tion or merger. No such employee shall, without his consent, have his compensation reduced, or be discharged or furloughed, in contemplation of such consolidation and merger, during the six-month period immediately preceding such approval . Paragraph (2) and (8) of subsection (f) are inapplicable here. 248,.; DECISIONS. OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that the Respondent now makes-that the contract was, a waiver , of certain,,, benefits conferred,by the Act. To unravel the, tangled skein of these arguments it will be desirable to start at the end,and work back. Assuming, without deciding,,that subsection ( f) (9) of Section 222 of the Act permits the Union for the employees to agree to, waivers. of protective provisions pf the, Act, the, undersigned finds that Section-24 (a) of the, Union's contract negatives an, intent-.to, permit, during the 4-year, protec- • . tive period of the Act, the furloughing of employees who were employed, prior to, March 1, 1941. If Article 24 (a) of the contract had included reference to. paragraphs (1) and (7) of subsection,(f) of Section 222 of the Act, no question could have been made of the meaning of this clause. But even as the clause reads; it is obvious that it refers to Section 222 (f) of the Act for its provisions protecting employees against furlough and reduction of compensation rather than to other provisions of subsection (f). Aside-from the question of consent, the contract is of no, concern in these pro- ceedings; so-no .determination will be made as to whether or not the Respondent, + in any way violated its agreement with the Union by, the manner in which re- ductions in compensation or demotions were accomplished. It is necessary only to determine whether or not the Respondent furloughed the four employees in violation of the Act. The Act does not prohibit demotions or reassignments of employees if they are assigned to work which is not inconsistent with their past training and experience in the telegraph industry. It does prohibit furloughs. Whatever meaning may be given to the word "furlough" in the collective bar- gaining agreement, as used in the Act "furlough" obviously means "lay off." This being so the giving of a furlough notice to an employee would not in itself be a violation of the Act if the employee were not actually laid off pursuant thereto. Counsel for the Union argues that, since the Respondent could not, under the•Act, furlough the employees here involved, it had no right to make use of the furlough force reduction provisions of the contract as to them. This argument supports a charge of violation of the contract, not a violation of the Act. , For the purposes of this case, it is immaterial how the Respondent de- moted employees as long as it did not violate the Act. Since the Respondent did not in fact furlough (lay off) Powers, Wilson, and Cilley, it necessarily did not furlough them in violation of the Act. Heppe's situation is different. The Respondent did not demote or reassign him. The Respondent contends that it had no more intent to lay off Heppe than any of the others, but that Heppe would not "play ball," that under the contract it could nDt demote him without giving him a furlough notice, and that after giving him such notice it could not reassign him until he bid into some other job and his seniority rights to such job were agreed on with the Union. Whether or not the Respondent's interpretation of the contract requirements are correct, the Respondent under the Act had no right to lay a man off for refusing to take the initiative in a reassignment or demotion. The Act requires the Respondent to give employment to each employee employed before March 1, 1941, for a term of 4 years from the date of approval of the merger. This places upon the Re- spondent the burden of assigning jobs to such employees. If the Respondent could not demote or reassign a man without violating the contract, a premise not clearly established, then the contract would act as a bar to such demotion or reassignment. There is nothing in the Act that prohibits the making of a con- tract which precludes the Respondent from demoting or reassigning certain em- ployees. However, what the contract did or did not permit is immaterial here. WESTERN' UNION' TELEGRAPH COMPANY 249 Since the Respondent failed to furnish employment to Heppe and gave effect to its furlough notice, it did furlough him in violation of the Act. The Respondent contends, however, that it did offer Heppe employment in its letter of November 21, 1946. Read in context with the whole letter and in the light of the events preceding it, the offer in the letter-"The company stands ready to offer you employment in accordance with its obligations under the Com- munications Act of 1934, as amended, and in accordance with the provisions 'of the A. F. L. contract"-means no more than that, if Heppe would take the initiative in bidding on a job, the Respondent would then determine what could be done. This is not tantamount to giving him employment consistent with his past training and experience in the telegraph industry. If the Respondent could not find another job for Heppe which was consistent with his experience, it was obliged under the Act to keep him employed in the same position. Since the undersigned has found that the Respondent furloughed only Heppe in violation of the Act, the Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint` is granted 'to the extent that it alleges that Powers, Wilson, and Cilley were fur- loughed or discharged in violation of the Act and is denied as to the allegation that Heppe was furloughed or discharged in violation of the Act. (c) Facts regarding reductions in compensation At the time of the approval of the merger Cilley was employed by Postal as a city sales manager on a 39-hour-a-week schedule. After the merger, he became a commercial representative. At that time Powers and Wilson were commercial representatives with the Respondent. Their usual hours, and Cilley's after the merger, were 381/2 hours a week except in the summer when they'were 38. These hours varied some, because commercial representatives had to take special as- signments about six times, more or less, during the year, and such assignments re- quired them to put in extra hours beyond 381/2 18 In return for the time they worked beyond their customary hours, they were, before the 1946 union contract, allowed compensatory time off, but no record was kept of their hours and no effort was made to balance accurately their extra time and their compensatory time. Commercial representatives were all carried as exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and were not normally paid for overtime. At the time of the approval of the merger and thereafter, they were paid a weekly salary regardless of the time put in. On the Respondent's records an hourly rate was. however, shown for commercial representatives. According to pay- roll records in evidence, it appears that the hourly rate for commercial represent- atives was initiated in about 1941. Before that, commercial 'representatives were carried at'a monthly or weekly rate. Although their customary schedule was 381/z hours per week, their hourly rate was carried on the same 48-hour basis as employees whose weekly schedule, before the date of the Fair Labor Stand- ards'Act, had actually been 48 hours. After the passage of that Act, the latter employees had their schedules reduced so that, with time and a half pay for hours in excess of those fixed in that Act, they continued to receive the same weekly ,pay-as they had received before for 48 straight time hours. 'The "48 " used for 1e Heppe, who is not involved in the complaint, of reduction in compensation, had, about 25 special assignments during the year which required extra hours ' work. ' But'-he was allowed compensatory time off; and twice during his, period - of employment when he had exceptional matters, to cover, and had put, In,25'and 48 hours extra, he was paid for his extra hours. 250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD establishing an hourly rate for the commercial representatives had no such rela- tion to their actual working hours and was, therefore, an arbitrary flgure.10 In November 1946, when Wilson, Cilley, and Powers were demoted to branch managers, the hourly rate of pay of each was reduced. They were no longer exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ; so they became entitled to time and a half for all time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The customary week for branch managers was 451/3 hours. The 5% hours in excess of 40 hours, paid for at the rate of time and a half, is the equivalent of 8 hours straight time ; so as branch managers they received the equivalent of 48 hours' straight time pay for 45% hours' work. Of course if they worked more than 45% hours they were paid accordingly on an hourly basis. As a result of their demotions, the three men received less than they had been receiving as commercial representatives, but their weekly and hourly pay as calculated by the Respondent on a 48-hour basis was still more than the weekly and hourly pay they had received on the date of the approval of the merger, the date on which a floor was placed under their compensation by the Act. (d) Contentions and conclusions as to reduction in compensation Independently of the furlough question, no claim is made that the reduction in compensation from that which the three men were getting as commercial representatives before November 19, 1946, to the compensation they received as branch managers was a violation of the Act. It is agreed that the reduction in compensation prohibited by the Act is a reduction below the compensation being paid to each employee on September 27, 1943, the date of approval of the merger. Since the weekly compensation and hourly rate (as shown by the Respondent's records) for the three employees on September 27, 1943, was not more than their compensation after their demotions in November 1946, the Respondent contends that the employees have not had their compensation reduced in violation of the Act. . G. C. counsel and counsel for the Union, on the other hand, contend that weekly compensations should not be the basis for comparison, since the workweek of commercial representatives was shorter than that of branch managers, and there- fore weekly compensations do not reflect the real wages of the employees. Fur- ther, they contend that the hourly rate shown on the Respondent's records for these men as of September 27, 1943, was not the true hourly rate. They claim that the September 27, 1943, earning rate of Powers and Wilson should be cal- culated by dividing their weekly compensation by 381/2, and Cilley's by 39, their ordinary and customary weekly hours in September 1943, and that the hourly rate thus obtained should be compared with their regular hourly rate after their demotions. Thus calculated, their compensation would be found to have been reduced. The Respondent argues that it is impossible to fix an exact hourly rate for employees such as commercial representatives who are exempt from the pro- visions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and that only weekly compensation 19 Cilley was carried on Postal records as on a 433,E-hour week although he testified that his customary hours were from 9 a. m. to 5 p. in. Monday to Friday and 9 a. M. to 1 p. in. on Saturday, which would be 39 hours excluding lunch hours Monday to Friday. His hourly rate on the date of approval of the merger was $1 .0418 and his weekly compensa- tion was $46.88. ' (This is without a "party increase adjustment .") Cilley's pay-roll control card at Postal shows that his hourly rate was changed from a 48 -hour basis to A 433,§-hour basis as of August 10 , 1942. In March 1946 be'returned from military service which he had entered on November 6, 1943. On his return, his rate was left unchanged but his compensation was readjusted on a 48-hour basis, thus increasing his weekly pay. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY 251 should be compared. This argument is based on the premise that commercial representatives are not on a schedule of a fixed number of hours per week, inasmuch as they are required to put in as much time as the job requires. Evi- dence of special assignments after customary hours and other deviations in time schedule are pointed to as supporting this argument. Because no overtime pay was given employees exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and since they were not docked for being late or absent with permission, the hourly rates given them by the Respondent are of little significance. Such employees are, for all practicable purposes, on a weekly, not an hourly, pay basis. But branch managers, on the other hand, are on an hourly rate, and if any comparison is to be made between the compensation of branch managers and that of commercial representatives, their rates of com- pensation must be reduced to a common denominator. The Respondent contends that weekly compensation is the proper basis of comparison. But weekly com- pensation fails to take into account the amount of time worked to earn the weekly pay. It would be possible, of course, to compare the weekly earnings of the employee as a branch manager at his hourly rate for the first 38% hours of his workweek with his weekly pay as a commercial representative. But this would disregard the fact that branch managers get time and a half after 40 hours,"and, on a 45%-hour a week schedule, they benefit financially by the addi- tional hours. The hourly rates used by the Respondent would not be a common denominator in view of the fact that, for commercial representatives, the hourly rate was based upon an arbitrary figure of 48. The Union and G. 0. counsel suggest a comparison between the hourly rate used for branch managers and an hourly rate for commercial representatives determined by dividing their weekly pay by the number of hours they customarily worked. That would de- termine the true hourly rate for commercial representatives, but the hourly rate used by the Respondent for branch managers would be their true rate only for the first 40 hours. After that their rate of earning is 50 percent higher. The undersigned believes that the only satisfactory solution will be to com- pare the actual rate of earning in each job, by computing it on a basis of the normal workweek of each 2° The recorded hourly rate of Powers and Wilson as of September 27, 1943, will therefore be multiplied by 48, and the product will then be divided by 381/2; in the case of Cilley, his hourly rate will be multiplied by 43% and the product divided by 39. The quotient thus obtained will be compared with a figure obtained as follows: The hourly rate shown on the records for each of the three men in their jobs as branch managers will be multiplied by 48 and then divided by 45%. By this! formula the earning rates of the three men, including retroactive increases, are approximately as follows : Commercial representa- tives, September 1943 Wilson ------------------------------------- Powers------------------------------------- Cilley-------------------------------------- Branch managers, November 1946 Respondent's rate Actual rate Respondent's rate Actual rate 1 14 1 42 1.35 1.43 1 11 1 38 1.23 1.30 1.0418 1.21 1.26 1.33 30 The fact that commercial representatives may have had irregular hours occasionally is no obstacle, because extra hours were more or less balanced by compensating time off and there was not much deviation from the customary 38%-hour week. ; 252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Wilson------------------------------------- Powers------------------------------------- Oilley------------------------------------- - Commercial representa- tives, September.1943 Branch managers, ,April 1947 - Respondent's rate Actual rate Respondent's rate Actual rate 1 14 1 42 1.40 1.48 1.11 1.38 1.28 1.36 1.0418 1.21 1:31 1! 39 Gilley, was restored to the position of commercial representative on May 27, 1947. The other two remained branch managers until after September 26, 1947, the expiration date of the period of protection provided by the Act. From the foregoing it appears that the only one who suffered a reduction in compensation below that guaranteed by the Act was Powers. As in the case of the furlough issue, the Respondent argues that the Union, by its contract consented to the use of the down-grading system and so incidentally consented to reductions in compensation where it was necessary to down grade an employee. The undersigned has already found that Section.24 (a) of the Union's contract negatives any such consent.. Neither the Union nor the em- ployees consented to the reduction. - , In September 1946 and in July, 1947 the: Respondent and the Union came to agreement on seniority and rate of,pay after certain increases were given. One raise was 5 cents per hour, the other, 13 cents. The Respondent points to, the fact that each of these men got such, hourly increases multiplied by 48 and argues that the Union therefore consented to the use of that rate and cannot ask that the rate be computed on a basis of 381/2 instead of 48. Since the Respondent's „records were already established on a .basis of 48, there was no occasion for the parties then to think in any other terms. Had they, dealt on a basis of 381/2 for computing hourly rates, the increase asked by the Union or granted by the Re- spondent might have been larger. , Moreover, use of the- Respondent's recorded rates as,a basis, for reaching agreements on raises, is unrelated to the matter of determining true earning rates for comparative purposes to see whether the Act has been violated..,The decrease in compensation ,was not one agreed to by the Union but was one, for which the Respondent assumed sole responsibility. In making it, the, Respondent was obliged to give effect to the provisions,of the Act ,.for the,,benefit of the, employees. - In respect, to Powers they] failed to do, that. .By,reducing his compensation below, that which,-,he, had on September 27, 1943, the Respondent has violated Section 222 . (f) (1) , and (7) of the Act. ;The ,Respondent's motion to.dismilss, the, complaint with respect to, the, allegation of reduction in compensation is granted except as,tu Powers. IV. THE REMEDY The undersigned has, found that.the Respondent has violated the Act, first, by furloughing Heppe and, second, by reducing the compensation of Powers. If Heppe had not been, wrongfully furloughed, he might still be employed, and he might have benefited - by- certain_ privileges- and.-immunities-existing at the expiration date of the.protective period of the Act, September 26, 1947. In,order, therefore, to restore,Heppe to thei1situation he would have been in but for the illegal furlough, the Respondent should offer him reinstatement and should 21 Although the Respondent would have, been,free to discharge Heppe on or after ,,§gptem- ber, `'27,.' 1947, there is nothing, in the evidence to ,warrant a presumption that he would 'have "been discharged . or 'furl'oughed at , that , time. The Lsituation , here is not unlike that WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY 253 accord him all the rights , privileges, and immunities which he was entitled to from November 19, 1946, to the date of the offer of reinstatement. In addition thereto, the Respondent should make Heppe whole by paying to him a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned in the employment of the Respondent from November 19, 1946, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings elsewhere during that period . When Heppe was furloughed, he sought other equivalent employment and succeeded in getting a contract of employment early in 194722 but the employment under that contract did not commence until April 1, 1947. Between January and April 1, 1947, Heppe appar- ently made no effort to find other employment , for he testified that during, that period he spent his time at home . Employment equivalent to that to which Heppe was suited would have been virtually impossible to procure on a temporary basis. For this reason the undersigned concludes that Heppe did not wilfully incur a loss by failing to seek work in the 3 -month interval. Since Powers' real , compensation was, in 1946, reduced below the real com- pensation which he was earning in September 1943 in violation of the Act, the Respondent should make him whole by paying him the difference between his real earning rate as of September 27, 1943 , and his real earning rate after his demotion in November 1946 for the period from November 20, 1943, to September 26, 1946, both inclusive, determined in the manner illustrated in the next pre- ceding section of this report. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following: CONcwsloNs OF LAW 1. The Respondent , Western Union Telegraph Company , is a merged carrier within the meaning of Section 222 (a ) (4) of the Act as a result of its having acquired on October 7, 1943 , the properties, facilities, equipment, and holding of Postal Telegraph Cable Company in a merger or consolidation approved on September 27, 1943, by the Federal Communications Commission. 2. The four employees named in the complaint are employees whose rights,, privileges and immunities are guaranteed by Section 222 (f ) (1) and (7) of the Act. 3. By furloughing Henry P. Heppe on November 19,, 1946 , the Respondent has, in violation of the Act, deprived him of the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed him by Section 222 (f ) (1) and ( 7) of the Act. 4. By-reducing the compensation of James F. Powers below that guaranteed, by the Act, between November 20, 1946, and September .26, 1947, the Respondent has, in violation of the Act,-deprived him of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by Section 222 (f ) ( 1) and ( 7) of the Act. 5. The Respondent has not, in violation of the Act , furloughed B. D. Wilson, James F. Powers, or Robert M. Cilley. 6. The- Respondent has not, in violation of the Act, reduced the compensation of B. D. Wilson, Robert M. Cilley, or Henry P . Heppe, during their employment. arising in Matter of Edward G. Budd Manufacturing Company, 66 lQ. L. R' 13' . 612,, affirmed 162 lr'. (2d) 461 (C. C. A. 6), where'" cider for reinstatement of a'foieumanwae left in ' effect by the Supreme Court althougli ' the Wagner Act, under which the'rights of foremen were protected , had been superseded by the Taft-Hartley , Act, under which their rights are not protected. 332 U. S. 840, granting limited certiorari. - _, 22 Heppe testified that he, got this contract "shortly , after the end of the year.',, The undersigned infers that it was made early in January 1947. 254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS Upon the basis of the foregoing , findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon 'the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the Re- spondent, the Western Union Telegraph Company, its successors and assigns shall : 1. Offer Henry P. Heppe immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equivalent position without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges.' 2. Pay to said Heppe a sum of money equal to that which he would have earned as a commercial representative with the Respondent from November 20, 1946, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings u during said period. 3. Pay to'James F. Powers a sum of money equal to the difference between his real earning rate as of September 27, 1943, and his real earning rate on and after November 20, 1946, for the period from November 20, 1946, to September 26, 1947, both inclusive, using the formula set forth in Section III (d) above. 4. Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Penn- sylvania) ,in writing within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of this Intermediate Report of what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report the Respondent notifies the said Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommenda- tions, the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Re- spondent to take the action aforesaid. It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that the Respondent in violation of the Act furloughed B. D. Wilson, James F. Powers, and Robert M. Cilley, and insofar as it alleges that the Re- spondent in violation of the Act reduced the compensation of B. D. Wilson, Robert M. Cilley, and Henry P. Heppe, during their employment. As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, Series 5, effective August 22, 1947, any party may, within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original-and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or b4iefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board. In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid Rules and Regulations , the findings , conclusions, recommendations and recom- L See Matter of The Chase National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto Rico Branch, 65 N. L. R. B. 827, for meaning of "substantially equivalent position." 24 Matter of Crossett Lumber Co., 8 N. L. R. B. 440, 497-8. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY 255 mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclu- sions and order, and all objections and exceptions thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. Dated April 26,1948. JAMES R. HEMINOWAY, Trial Examiner. APPENDIX A The Western Union Telegraph Company NOTICE OF TEMPORARY DISCONTINUANCE OF EMPLOYMENT Place--------------------------------------------- Date-------------------- Name of employee-------------------------------- Title-------------------- 1. You are hereby notified of the temporary discontinuance of your employ- ment after--------------------------------------- on account of reduction of force. 2. In consideration of the fact that this termination of your employment is involuntary on your part, the continuity of your service will be protected, within prescribed limitations, until such time as the Company may again have need for your services and you re-enter its employ, but in no case does this protection extend beyond two years. 3. In the meantime you are free to engage in such other occupation as your interests may require. Should you be called upon to resume your employment with the Company, you are expected to report for duty within a reasonable time (fifteen days, under ordinary circumstances), failing which the continuity of your service will, be considered broken. 4. While out of the Company's employ, you will not be eligible for benefits under the Employes' Benefit Plan. 5. This form should be preserved until you are re-employed by the Company, when it is to be surrendered to the proper authority. 6. You are handed two copies of this form. One copy, signed by the Employ- ing Official, requires no further entries and is to be retained by you. The other copy is to be returned to the Employing Official and should be signed by you and contain all the information respecting addresses. The second address is for use in case your present address should be changed. ---------------------------------- (Signature of Employing Official) Signature of employe------------------------------------------------------ Present address----------------------------------------- Tel. No----------- Second address ------------------------------------------------------------ Re-employed at---------------------------------- Date--------------------- -------------------------------- (Signature of Employing Official)