Knickerbocker Plastic Co., Inc.

i KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO:, • INC. 1209 NLRB 1588, 1593 . In the case of Anderson;it is ,particularly apparent from his own statements prior to the strike that he would not cross a picket line. Accordingly, I believe the period for which backpay should be awarded Anderson should begin from the date he, in company with other strikers , first indicated to Respondent his availability, for, employment. With respect to implementation of the make-whole provisions of this order, the procedure outlined in F.-W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, shall be followed so far as relevant here, and Respondent shall be directed to make available to the Board upon request, 'payroll and other records appropriate for that purpose. Finally, I will recommend that Respondent post appropriate notices and furnish compliance reports. Upon the foregoing findings, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2 (2),'(6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section •2(S) of the Act: ^3.- All production and maintenance employees of Respondent at its Kerrville, Texas, plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees , guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 4. At all times material herein the Union has been the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of the employees in the aforesaid unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. Since -on or about September 26, 1959, Respondent, as demonstrated by oral statements and by other acts and conduct, has refused and is refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act. 6. By failing and refusing, upon request, to reinstate strikers to the same or sub- stantially equivalent positions held by them before the strike , Respondent has vio- lated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act. 7. By discharging Donald R. Anderson on April 7, 1960, because of his partici- pation in the strike and his refusal to cross the picket line, Respondent further violated Section 8 (a)(3) and (1 ) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 9. Respondent did not violate Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act by refusing to reemploy Thomas F. Peiser: [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Knickerbocker Plastic Co., Inc. and International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 727. Case No. 21-CA-1111. August 25, 1961 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On April 30, 1953, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding;' finding, inter alia, that the Respondent had violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act by discharging certain of its em- ployees,.heiein called claimants. The Board therefore ordered that the Respondent make the claimants whole for any loss of pay which they might have suffered 'as a result of the discrimination against 1 104 NLRB 514. 132 NLRB No. 106. 1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD them. On January 15, 1955, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit enforced the Board's Order.' On April 3, 1957, the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region of the Board issued backpay specifications and Respondent filed an answer thereto on May 20, 1957, and an amended answer on June 24, 1957. On June 13 and July 9,1957, the Regional Director moved that the Board find the specifications to be true. The Board, on October 15, 1957, issued its Findings and Order.' The Respondent, on October 25, 1957, filed an amendment to its amended answer. Between November 18, 1957, and January 29, 1958, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway for the purpose of determining the amounts of b tckpay due to the claimants. On June 30, 1958, the Trial Examiner issued liis Rilpplemental Intermediate Report, attached hereto, in which he recommended that specific amounts of backpay be awarded to certain of the claimants, and that no backpay be awarded to certain other claimants. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Supple- mental Intermediate Report, and supporting briefs. On September 16, 1958, the Board remanded the instant case to the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region for the purpose of making available to Respondent certain written statements of wit- nesses and to permit the Respondent to cross-examine certain wit- nesses. Between March 23 and April 3, 1959, a further. hearing was held before Trial Examiner Hemingway in accordance with the Board's remand order. The Trial Examiner, on July 10, 1959, issued his Second Supplemental Intermediate Report in which he recom- mended that the backpay awards of two claimants be modified,4 and that the backpay awards for other claimants, as found in his Supple- mental Intermediate Report, be adopted. Thereafter the General Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions to the Second Supplemental Intermediate Report, and supporting briefs.' The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Supple- mental Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs thereto, the Second Supplemental Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs thereto, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the find- ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the exceptions, additions, and modifications set forth below. 1. In agreement with the Trial Examiner, we find that the following claimants are entitled to the indicated amounts of backpay : N L R B. v. Knickerbocker Plastic Go , Inc, 218 F. 2d 917. s Knickerbocker Plastic Co., Inc, 118 NLRB 1607. Rachel S . Negrete and Jennie Carrisosa. 5 The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record , exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1211 Goff (Donley), Mary Ann----------------------------- $506 Anderson, Idell--------------------------------------- 699 Beard (Lane), Betty---------------------------------- 706 Bernal, Jeronima------------------------------------- 922 Borquez (Voss), Alice--------------------------------- 49 Butera (Hainsworth), Rosalie_________________________ 161 Cioni, Ursula---------------------------------------- None Corona, Socorro-------------------------------------- None Crain, Audrey---------------------------------------- 1,373 Danner, Donna--------------------------------------- 1,126 Delgado (Imperial), Esther S__________________________ 3,127 Ehlen, Mary C---------------------------------------- 1,100 Emery (Johnson), Dorothy____________________________ 185 Garcia (Lopez), Consuela_____________________________ 364 Gonzales, Mary --------------------------------------- 1,013 Imperial, Carmen_____________________________________ 294 Keene, Ruth E. (Estate of) ____________________________ 1, 519 Kelkar, Santosh______________________________________ 663 Leyva, Tillie----------------------------------------- 1,470 Littrell, Agnes M------------------------------------- 2,501 Lopez, Melba----------------------------------------- 4,372 Lowe, Ann------------------------------------------- 1,230 Marin, Genevieve D___________________________________ 1,296 Martinez, Margarita__________________________________ 1,291 Meadows, Dorothy____________________________________ 2,042 Negrete, Rachel S------------------------------------- 3, 213 Nogrady, Leslie J------------------------------------- 58 Norton, Elizabeth R---------------------------------- None Ortiz, Rojelia C-------------------------------------- 483 Owen (Nunez), Eustolia-------------------- ---------- 301 Perez (Convery), Antonia_____________________________ 1,622 Puente, Anna Rosa____________________________________ 1, 294 Puente (Leon), Francisca_____________________________ 1,114 Rillera (Del Pilar), Nadine____________________________ 1,884 Rodriguez, Rosemary--------------------------------- 3, 822 Russell (Bogaert), Bernice---------------------------- 245 Sanza, Margaret______________________________________ 1,714 Sepulveda, Nellie ------------------------------------- 680 Stratton, Aldyth------------------------------------- 785 Stratton (La Montagne), Elsie_________________________ 745 Tingle, Beulah_______________________________________ 467 Torres, Grace ------------------------------------------ None Anton (Vaughan), Bessie ----------------------------- 217 Capobianco, Anna A__________________________________ 705 Hughes, Charlotte____________________________________ 1,793 Norton, Mary---------------------------------------- 239 Ortiz, Rita------------------------------------------- 69 Wells, Betty----------------------------------------- 1,776 Witherell, Alta_______________________________________ 1,285 Benedict, Mary--------------------------------------- 42 Campos, Dorothy------------------------------------- 42 Lindbergh, Betty (Estate of)__________________________ 668 Martinez, Helen-------------------------------------- 28 1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Moses, Ida------------------------------------------- $20 Sartain (Luckenbill), Naomi-------------------------- 41 Sierra, Rosie----------------------------------------- 99 Kauschen , Doris------------------------ -------------- 278 Negrete, Lydia--------------------------------------- 150 Rodriguez (Alcala ), Virginia-------------------------- 88 2. We find merit in the General Counsel's exception with respect to Blanche Rounsavell, and disagree with the Trial Examiner's finding that she should not receive backpay for the strike period. This claim- ant was discriminatorily discharged by the Respondent on June 25, 1951, and thereafter, joined the strike, which began on July 9, 1951. As found by the Trial Examiner, she incurred _no willful loss of earnings in 1onlring for work. In these circumstances, and in accord- ance with established Board policy in cases of discriminatory dis- charge before the employee goes on strike, we find that she is entitled to backpay for the entire period from the date of her discharge to May 31, 1955, excluding only the quarters for which no claim is made!s Accordingly, we shall amend her schedule to reflect the addition of backpay for the period from July 9, 1951, to March 24, 1952. Her schedule is set forth in the Appendix. 3. We find merit in the Respondent's exceptions with respect to a willful loss of earnings by the claimants noted herein. Thus, contrary to the 't'rial Examiner, we find, as discussed below, that these persons incurred such losses by quitting certain jobs without compelling or justifying means. In this connection, Lovie I. Blakemore was employed during the strike by Windsor Supply Co., where she earned $1 an hour. Ruth Keene, also ,a claimant, drove Blakemore to work. When Keene quit her job at Windsor Supply Co., Blakemore, in the latter part of November, also quit her job, because she had lost her ride. In these circumstances, we find that it was incumbent on Blakemore to find other means of transportation. The record does not indicate that she could not have secured another ride or used public transportation. Elsie Contreras was employed by Clear Beam Television Antennas, where she earned $0.90 an hour. She quit this job about April 23,1952 ,7 claiming that she did so because she was afraid to operate a punch press, and she had witnessed an accident in which a boy lost several fingers on such machinery. She also gave as a reason for quitting that O Interior Enterprises, Inc, 125 NLRB 1289, 1290; Merchandiser Press, Inc, 115 NLRB 1441, 1442 We distinguish the case of Rounsavell from that of Goff, also an individual discriminatee, for the following reason The record shows, as found by the Trial Examiner, that Goff was not willing to return to work for the Respondent while the strike continued because she said as much to Respondent 's president in August 1951, when he offered to reemploy her Accordingly , we agree with the Trial Examiner that Goff should not receive backpay during the period from July 9 , 1951, to March 24, 1952 4 While there is some doubt as to whether Contreras earned $0 90 or $0.95 an hour, and the date of quitting is not clear, we accept the Trial Examiner 's figure of $0.90 and the quitting date of April 23, 1952 , as set forth in his Supplemental Intermediate Report KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1213 she had made only $0.90 an hour for the 6 months she had worked at Clear Beam. With respect to the press, on which she worked at times, she could not recall how long it was after the accident that she quit her job, and also there is no indication that she requested this employer to give her work which did not involve the punch press. Moreover,, we do not regard the Trial Examiner's assessment of this claimant as a sensitive and timid individual to be a sufficient basis for accepting her reasons as justification for quitting her job.' Benedetta Corrao was employed in April 1952 by Palm Footwear, Inc., where she earned $0.85 an hour. After a few days, she quit this job about April 14, 1952, for no apparent reason. Minnie Granata in the third quarter of 1952 was employed by Crest Laboratories, where she earned $0.97 an hour. After approximately a month, she quit about August 8, 1952, because she allegedly developed a pain in her side from bending over a conveyor belt. Although she was employed 2 days later at the Veterans Hospital in San Fernando, she quit this job after working 2 days, August 13 and 14, 1952, allegedly because of her work schedule and the time required for transportation. Anna Hamilton (Clanton) was employed in May or June 1952 at Cal-Ray Bakeries, where she earned $1.11 an hour. After time off for an operation, she continued to work at Cal-Ray until about Novem- ber 5, 1952,9 when she quit to care for a sick friend identified gas a Mrs. Amrilie. In September 1952, Sophia Kadi was,working for Southern Cali-' fornia Plastic Co., where she earned $0.90 an hour.10 About,Janu-, ary 12, 1953,11 she quit this job allegedly because she was required to handle hot plastic, which caused blisters and burns on her hands. Although other women performing this work wore gloves, she refused to wear them because she thought them cumbersome. On cross- examination, Kadi said she did not remember whether she gave her employer a reason for quitting, or that she told her employer about her hands, but she testified that she got tired. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's speculation that Kadi was justified in quitting this job because she may have had to stand for longer periods of time than when working for Respondent. Beatrice Muller was working on March 25, 1952, at United States Flare Corporation, where she earned $L10 an hour. After working 8 Contreras exhibited a propensity to quit jobs for a myriad of 'reasons. Between December 1951 and March 1954 , she had 11 jobs and quit 8 of them. Based on Hamilton's testimony , and on her social security records, which ' show edin- ings at Cal-Ray Bakeries for 5 weeks during the fourth quarter of 1952, ' we conclude that her date of quitting was about November 5, 1952. 10 Kadi's application to Southern California Plastic Co. shows that she was•'hired at $0 90 an hour . See Respondent's Exhibit No 28. li Based on Kadi's testimony and on her social security records, which show that, com- puted on her wage rate of $090 , she worked seven and a fraction days in Southern California Plastic, we conclude that her date of quitting was about January 12, 1953' 1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD about a month with a certain substance, she quit this job about June 8, 1952, because, she testified, the odor of this substance nauseated her. She testified that before she quit she made no effort to be assigned to other work. Also, there is no showing that the odor annoyed or ad- versely affected other employees. Cecelia Ramirez was employed in July or August 1954 at Fine Line Arts, where she earned $1.05 an hour. When this employer moved from Los Angeles to Beverly Hills, Ramirez took the day off to look for another job "because she had to get closer." She quit her job at Fine Line Arts on September 1954.12 Ramirez apparently did not ex- plore the public or private transportation possibilities, for she did not attempt to travel to the new location even 1 day nor did she testify as to an estimate of travel time or the inconvenience occasioned by such travel. It is true that she acquired another job almost immediately, but this job lasted less than 3 months. In these circumstances, we do not adopt the rationale supplied by the Trial Examiner to justify Ramirez' quitting her apparently permanent job at Fine Line Arts. Carmen Zamora was employed during the last quarter of 1951 at M & L Tool & Die Manufacturing Company, where she worked on the night shift. When she lost her ride and was unable to transfer to the day shift, she quit this job.13 There is no indication that public trans- portation was not available, and M & L Tool & Die was only seven blocks from her residence.14 Ida Granados (Marino) was employed in 1951 at Douglas Aircraft in' Santa Monica, where she earned $1.24 an hour. She quit working at, Douglas Aircraft in September 1951 to get married. Her next job was at Aircraft Die Cutters. After 6 months, she was earning $1.15 per hour. She quit her job at Aircraft Die Cutters because of the distance, the amount of busfare, and a claimed allergy to Fiberglas. She was next employed in the second quarter of 1952 by Joseph D'Adamo in Burbank, where she earned $0.75 an hour. From the foregoing, it is clear that the jobs which the above-listed claimants quit paid wages at least comparable to the ones they had held with the Respondent. None of these jobs appear to have been more burdensome than those with the Respondent, nor do they appear to have been unsuited to persons of the claimants' skill and experience. We find that in none of the cases discussed above has the claimant quit her employment for sufficient and justifiable cause. In all these cases, the claimants appear to have been motivated more by personal 12 We base Ramirez' date of quitting on her "Statement of Claimant for Purposes of Back Pay," which she gave to the Board . See Respondent's Supplemental Exhibit No. 38. 23 The record does not disclose Zamora's wage rate at M,& L Tool & Die Manufacturing Company, or the date she quit. Her social security records do show that she earned $255 at this company during the last quarter of 1951 (General Counsel's Exhibit No 65). '- We reject the rationale developed by the Trial Examiner to justify Zamora's quitting this job, seven blocks from her home, which is based on supposed difficulties not shown to have existed. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1215 convenience, preference, or accommodation than by necessity or diffi- culties inherent in the jobs which they quit. This is apparent on the face of many of the explanations and reasons assigned for quitting. In other cases, there is no corroboration of the alleged difficulties nor any assertion by the claimants that other employees were similarly affected because the work was malodorous or otherwise inconvenient or distasteful. On this record, we cannot mitigate the backpay dam- ages by finding that these jobs were unsuitable ways of earning a living, or that the claimants were justified in quitting them with no prospect of other employment. Once these claimants had obtained jobs, they could not voluntarily relinquish such employment under the circumstances herein involved without incurring what constitutes a willful loss of earnings for the period subsequent to their quitting.15 In these circumstances, we accordingly find that the quitting of their employment, as described above, by the following claimants is unjusti- fied, and that these claimants by such quitting thereby incurred willful losses: Blakemore at Windsor Supply Co.; Contreras at Clear Beam Television Antennas; Corrao at Palm Footwear, Inc.; 'Granata at Crest Laboratories; Hamilton at Cal-Ray Bakeries; Kadi at Southern California Plastic Co.; Muller at United States Flare Corporation; Ramirez at Fine Line Arts; Zamora at M & L Tool & Die Manufac- turing Company; and Granados at Douglas Aircraft. We further find that, as a result of such quitting, each of these claimants shall be deemed to have earned for the remainder of the period for which each is awarded backpay the hourly wage being earned at the time such quitting occurred. Therefore, an offset com- puted on the appropriate rate per hour will be deducted as interim earnings from the gross backpay of each of these claimants. This offset shall be made applicable from the date of the unjustified quitting throughout the remainder of the backpay period for each particular claimant. In this connection, where the claimant has secured other employment during the time that the offset is applicable, and if, on a quarterly basis, she earned a greater amount than the offset, the offset will not be applied, but the actual interim earnings will be deducted from gross backpay. If she earned less than the offset at employment secured subsequent to the quitting, also on a quarterly basis, the amount of the offset will be applied. The recommended backpay awards for these claimants set forth in the Supplemental Intermediate Report will be adjusted in accordance with the findings herein, as specified in the Appendix attached hereto. The record does not disclose the wage rate Zamora was earning when she quit her job at M & L Tool & Die Manufacturing Company. Ac- cordingly, we direct the Regional Director to recompute her backpay, u Ozark Hardwood Company, 119 NLRB 1130, 1138-1140 ; American Bottling Company, 116 NLRB 1303, 1305-1306 ; Missouri Transit Company, Inc., and its President, P. W. Fletcher, 125 NLRB 1316 , 1327-1328. 1216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD applying against her gross backpay an offset based on her hourly rate at M & L Tool & Die, applicable beginning March 25, 1952, and com- puted in accordance with the requirements noted herein in paragraph numbered 3. 4. We also find merit in the Respondent's exceptions to the backpay awards recommended for the claimants noted herein, and disagree, as discussed below, with the Trial Examiner with respect to these indi- viduals. Their adjusted backpay awards are included in the Ap- pendix attached hereto. Edith W. Adamson found no interim employment during the period of nearly 11/2 years for which the Trial Examiner found she should receive backpay. At the time of the strike she lived in Glendale. On September 28, 1952, not having found work and her husband having lost his job, Adamson moved from Glendale to Banning, California. This town had less than 7,000 population and only 2 bakeries, 2 dry goods stores, 4 or 5 grocery stores, and a shirt factory. Her husband obtained a job but Adamson was unable to secure work. About June 1953, she and her husband then moved to Cathedral City, California, a town with a population of about 2,000. During the 2 years she lived in this location, Adamson still found no work. In these circum- stances, we find that Adamson, by moving to Banning, where the job opportunities were less than in the Glendale area, removed herself from the labor market, and thereby incurred a willful loss. Accord- ingly, we shall disallow her backpay claim dating from September 28,1952. Juanita Alamillo (Carlin), for whom the Trial Examiner recom- mends backpay for three and a fraction quarters, had no interim earn- ings during that time. In a. signed statement which she gave to the Respondent's agent,16 she said that she quit a job in October 1951 at M & L Tool & Die Manufacturing Company because they would not raise her pay. She earned $1.25 an hour at this employment. She further stated that she quit another job, which was with Timm Air- craft , (listed as Timm Industries, Inc., on her social security record),17 paying $1.44 per hour. She quit this job in December 1951 to get married, and moved from Glendale to Los Angeles to be nearer her husband's place of employment. She attributed her lack of employ- ment thereafter to "The reasons previously stated." We do not adopt the Trial Examiner's speculation that by "'reasons previously stated' she may well have meant `for the reasons stated to the Board's field examiner who had previously questioned her."' Rather, we accept her statement at its face value. In these circumstances, we find that Alamillo incurred a willful loss of earnings. We therefore disallow her claim for backpay except for $44 due under Schedule V. 19 Respondent's Exhibit No. 21. 11 General Counsel's Exhibit No. 28. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1217 Mae Boggs, for whom the Trial Examiner recommends pay for nearly 11/2 years, during that period earned only $42. While the strike was in progress, Boggs secured employment at Clear Beam Television Antennas in Burbank, at a rate of pay higher than that received from the Respondent. Thereafter, in October 1951, she quit the job at Clear Beam to move to a suburb of San Diego to care for her sick daughter-in-law. Although she registered with the State employment office in San Diego, and testified that she "kept coming," it does not appear how long she reported back to them. In addition, her testimony that in San Diego she looked every place she could for work is vague and indefinite. Further, although Boggs returned to Los Angeles after midyear 1952, it does not appear that she registered with the State employment office in Los Angeles in 1952 or at any time !thereafter before 1954. During this period, she secured only 5 days' employment. In the circumstances herein, we find that Boggs incurred a willful loss. of earnings, and we disallow her claim for backpay. Jennie A. Carrisosa, according to her social security records," was employed by Frances of Hollywood, a doll factory, during the last quarter of 1951 and during the third quarter of 1952. The testimony and affidavit of this claimant are conflicting as to the dates in the interim period on which she was laid off and was rehired by this em- ployer. We rely on her social security records, and find that she was unemployed during the first and second quarters of 1952. As noted in the Second Supplemental Intermediate Report, Carrisosa stated in a pretrial affidavit given to a Board agent that during the 6 months she was laid off she did not look for other work because she had a promise of recall from Frances of Hollywood. In agreement with the Trial Examiner, we find that a vague expectation of recall to Frances of Hollywood does not justify a failure to look for work. However, in disagreement with the Trial Examiner, we find that the 6 months' -layoff occurred in the first and second quarters of 1952, rather than in the second and third quarters of 1952. We therefore disallow Carrisosa backpay for the first and second quarters of 1952 and- award her backpay for the third quarter of 1952. Lettie A. Clifton, whose backpay period, as found by the Trial Ex- aminer, -covers four and a fraction quarters in 1952 and 1953, secured no employment during this period of over a year. Married and liv- ing with her husband, who was working, she failed to register at the California State employment office. She refused the job to which the Union referred her, giving distance as her reason. She described the trip as taking more than 11/2 hours, whereas the Trial Examiner esti- mated about 11/2 hours' total travel time. Although she testified that she kept in touch with the Union, she also stated that she personally went to the Union once in 1952 and did not not remember whether she is General Counsel's Exhibit No 13 1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD went twice. Her search for jobs consisted of answering newspaper ads by telephone, asking friends, and of visiting almost exclusively places of employment only within a distance comparable to that be- tween her home and Respondent (a 30-minute bus ride). She testified several times that she was seeking work "in her neighborhood." This is supported by the fact that, in addition to other plants, she applied a number of times to Santa Anita Pottery, located six blocks from her home, and to Van Do Kamp Bakery, seven blocks away. In all the ,circumstances herein, we do not believe that Clifton made a diligent search for interim employment. Accordingly, we disallow her back- pay, claim. Irene Minkler during her backpay period of over 11/2 years found by the Trial Examiner earned only $69. She, did not register with the State employment office, and went to this office only twice in 2 years. She contacted the Union only twice for assistance in obtain- ing work. She had no telephone either to answer newspaper ads or hear from jobs for which she had applied. Minkler attributed her lack of success in obtaining work to lack of experience, but there was no shortage of jobs at the time she was seeking employment," and she was not seeking work requiring any special skill. Moreover, she con- fined her search to one area, namely, Glendale and San Fernando Road. The Trial Examiner concluded her search was adequate but unproductive because of lack of attractiveness in appearance as a con- sideration in awarding her backpay. We do not adopt this statement or his statement that she had rather limited experience, as the record shows that she had performed assembly work for Respondent from 1948 to 1951. In these circumstances, we find that Minkler failed to make an adequate search for work. Therefore, we disallow her claim for backpay except for $59 resulting from her being reinstated at the incorrect rate. Grace Palmisano received the Respondent's offer of reinstatement on June 15, 1953. When she contacted the Respondent a few days later, she was told that she would start as "a new girl." Palmisano construed this to mean that her rate would be $0.80 an hour, which was the rate she earned while working for the Respondent prior to the strike. As she was then earning $1.231/2 an hour at Cal-Ray Bakeries, she did not accept the Respondent's offer of a job. • While the rate offered by the Respondent would have been higher had her seniority been taken into account, nevertheless the Respondent's offer tolled its liability for backpay, except for the difference between the $0.80 and the rate based on her seniority. In the circumstances, we shall modify her backpay award so that for each quarter, beginning June 15, 1953, she will be credited either with her actual interim earn- ' Figures and statistics prepared by the California Department of Employment, which were introduced into the record by the Respondent , indicate that, during the backpay period involved herein , there was no shortage of jobs in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. See Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 236 , 237, and 238. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC COir INC., ' 1219 ings, or with interim earnings based on $0.80 an hour, whichever amount is higher. Anthony Pavani during the period of over 'a year for which the Trial Examiner found he should receive backpay earned only $763. He did so by working for the most part on a job-to-job basis at the repair and restoration-of furniture. During this period he looked for work -with various employers, but, although he was a molder with the Respondent, he did not obtain such employment. Pavani had 12 years' -experience as a captain of waiters in a Los Angeles res- taurant. Yet, by his own admission, he did not want that kind of a job and didnot apply for it. We do not adopt the Trial,Exalniner's view that it must appear that Pavani could have procured such a job beforehe can be found to have incurred a willful loss by the failure to apply for it. It is incumbent on a claimant to seek a job for which he has extensive experience. We accordingly find that Pavani, in closing off such an. avenue of employment by deciding he did not desire this work, and by his failure to seek such a job, incurred a willful loss of earnings. We therefore disallow his claim for backpay. Meada Brunk had no interim earnings during the period of 21 months for which the Trial Examiner found she should receive back- pay. She did not register with the State employment service, although she looked over its'board to see if any jobs were listed. Although she testified, that she looked for jobs, she did not list any such employers on 'her "Statement of Claimant for Purposes of Back Pay," given to the Board agent. Also, by her own testimony, her job search was largely limited to employers within walking distance of her home. She testified -that' about 20 blocks was the area she could cover. We find, in these circumstances, that Brunk did not make a reasonable search for employment: Accordingly, we disallow her claim for backpay except *for $471 due under Schedule II. 5. The Trial Examiner recommended - that backpay awards be made to 14 persons who did not testify. As to seven of these, social security information on interim employment was available'20 but as to seven others, there was no testimony or evidence in any form'' In the circumstances of this case, we believe that the award of backpay to the 14 claimants who did not testify, in the amounts specified in the Supplemental Intermediate Report, is binding upon the Respondent. However, we desire to afford Respondent some reasonable opportunity to examine these claimants before the awarded backpay is turned over to them. Accordingly, the Regional Director is instructed to hold in escrow the amounts of backpay awarded to the claimants who did not testify, and to make suitable arrangements to accord the Respondent, 40 Bessie Anton (Vaughan), Anna A. Capobianco, Charlotte Hughes, Mary Norton, Rita Ortiz , Betty Wells , and Alta Witherell. ' Mary Benedict, Dorothy Campos, Betty Lindbergh (Estate of), Helen Martinez, Ida Moses, Naomi Sartain (Luckenbill), and Rosie Sierra. 614913-62--vol. 132-78 1220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD together with the General Counsel's representative, an opportunity to examine them as to their interim earnings and activities. The Re- gional Director shall make a final determination whether any interim earnings or other amounts,, in excess of those shown herein, are re- vealed which are properly deductible from a claimant's backpay award under existing Board precedent. Where so determined, the Regional Director shall make such deductions and return the amounts deducted to the Respondent. The Regional Director is further instructed to report to the Board when these matters have been finally resolved, and in any event, no longer than 1 year from the date of this Supple- mental Decision and Order, the status of these particular claims and awards at such time 22 In this connection, we find merit in the Respondent's exception that the General Counsel be required to produce the affidavits of claimants who did not testify but who are awarded backpay. Accordingly,, we hereby direct the General Counsel to make available to the Respond- ent upon request, the prehearing written statements, or copies thereof, of these claimants, relating to their backpay claims, at such time as these claimants shall appear to be examined, or testify in support of, their claims. ORDER On the basis of the foregoing Supplemental Decision and the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby, orders that the Respondent, Knickerbocker Plastic Co., Inc., North Holly- wood, California, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns,,shall pay to the employees involved in this proceeding as net backpay the amounts specified as due in this Supplemental Decision and Order. CHAIRMAN MCCuLLOCH and MEMBER BROWN took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Order. 22Brown and Root, Inc, et al, 132 NLRB 486. APPENDIX Edith W. Adamson Pursuant to section 4 of the Supplemental Decision and Order herein, Adamson's backpay schedule is amended to show that she received no backpay beginning Sep- tember 28, 1952. Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I ------------------------ $40 0 0 0 $40 II------------------------ 531 0 0 0 531 7/1-9/27 III------------------------ 573 0 0 0 573 IV------------------------ 0 0 0 0 0 Total, 1952-------------------------- ------------ ------------ --------;r -- ------------ 1,144 Due under Schedule I--------------- ------------ ------------ I ------------ ----------- 1,144 KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1221 Lovie I. Blakemore Pursuant to section 3 of the Supplemental Decision and Order herein, an offset against Blakemore's gross backpay is computed on the basis of $1 an hour beginning March 25, 1952. Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay. Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-3/31 I------------------------ $49 $40 0 $40 $9 II------------------------ 649 520 0 520 129 III---------------------'-j- 662 520 0 520 142 IV-------------- ---------- 650 520 0 520 130 Total, 1952-------------------------- 410 1953- I- ----------------------- 657 520 0 520 137 4/1-6/16 II----------------------- 561 440 0 440 121 Total, 1953-------------------------- ------------ 258 Due under Schedule I--------------- 668 Jennie A. Carrisosa Pursuant to section 4 of the Supplemental Decision and Order herein , Carrisosa's backpay schedule is amended to eliminate gross backpay for quartersI and II of 1952, and to accept the Trial Examiner 's original figures for quarter III of 1952. Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I------------------------- 0 0- 0 0 0 II------- ---------------- 0 0 0 0 0 III------ ----------------- $232 $228 0 $228 $4 Total, 1952---------------------- -- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ . 4 1953-1/1-2/21 I------------------------ 411 154 0 154 257 7/1-8/10 III------------------------ 257 232 0 232 25 Total, 1953-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 282 Due under Schedule I--------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 286 Due under Schedule III------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 80 Due under Schedule V-------------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- ------------ 30 Total due----- ---------------------- ----------- ------------ ------------ ------------ 396 1222 DECISIONS- OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Elsie Contreras Pursuant to section 3 of the Supplemental -Decision and Order herein, an offset against Contreras' gross backpayis -computed on the basis of $0.90 an hour beginning April 24, 1952. Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I------------------------ $53 $36 0 $36 $17 II------------------------ 678 468 0 468 210 III------------------------ 681 •468 0 468 213 IV------------------------ 664 485 - $28 457 207 Total , 1952- ------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 647 1953- I----------------------- 695 468 0 468 227 4/1-6116 II------------------------ 562 442 0 442 120 Total , 1953-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 347 Due under Schedule I--------------------- ----- - I -- -- ------------ ------------ ------------ 994 Due under Schedule V-------------------- ------------ ------ ----- ------------ ------------ 42 Total due--------------------------- ------------ ------------ ---- -------- ------------ 1,036 • This figure includes actual earnings of $122.40 earned at Clear Beam Television Antennas prior to April 24, 1952. Benedetta Corrao Pursuant to section 3 of the Supplemental Decision and Order herein, an offset against Corrao's gross backpay is computed on the basis of $0.85 an hour beginning April 15, 1952. Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-3/31 ------------------------ $53 0 0 0 $53 II------------------------ 678 •$386 0 $386 292 Total, 1952-------------------------- 345 1955- 1------------------------ 896 442 $15 427 469 4/1-4/30 II------------- ---------- 282 143 0 143 139 Total, 1965-------------------------- 608 Due under Schedule I--------------- 953 This figure includes actual earnings of $12 earned at Palm Footwear, Inc., prior to April 15, 1952. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1223 Ida Granados (Marino) Pursuant to section 3 of the Supplemental Decision and Order herein, an offset against Granados' gross backpay is computed on the basis of $1.24 an hour begin- ning March 25, 1952. Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I------------------------ $51 $50 0 $50 $1 II------------------------ 655 645 0 645 10 III------------------------ 662 645 $12 633 29 IV------------------------ 650 645 12 633 17 Total, 1952 -------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 57 1953- I------------------------ 657 645 12 633 24 II------------------------ 663 645 12 633 30 III------------------------ 727 645 14 631 96 'IV------------------------ 736 645 51 594 142 Total, 1953-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 292 1954- I------------------------ 792 645 34 611 181 II------------------------ 777 645 0 645 132 III------------------------ 789 678 0 678 111 IV------------------------ 776 645 0 645 131 Total, 1954-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 555 1955- I------------------------ 855 734 0 734 121 Total, 1955-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 121 Due under Schedule I--------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ----------- 1,025 Minnie Granata Pursuant to section 3 of the Supplemental Decision and Order herein, an offset against Granata's gross backpay is computed on the basis of $0.97 an hour beginning August 9, 1952. - Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-3/31 ------------------------ $47 0 0 0 $47 II------------------------ 632 0 0 0 632 III------------------------ 667 '$452 0 $452 215 IV------------------------ 664 504 0 504 160 Total,1952-------------------------- 1,054 1953- I------------------------ 695 504 0 504 191 4/1-6/15 II------------------------ 552 422 0 422 130 Total,1953-------------------------- 321 Due under Schedule I--------------- 1,375 'This figure includes Granata's actual earnings of $165 earned at Crest Laboratories prior to August 9, 1952. 1224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Anna Hamilton (Clanton) Pursuant to section 3 of the Supplemental Decision and Order herein, an offset against Hamilton's gross backpay is computed on the basis of $1.11 an hour beginning November 6, 1952. Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952- II_ ______________________ $687 $196 0 $196 $491 III_______________________ 640 313 0 313 327 IV----------------------- 695 '577 0 577 118 Total, 1952------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 936 1953- I----------------------- 595 577 0 577 18 II----------------------- 675 577 0 577 98 III----------------------- 642 577 0 577 65 IV_______________________ 661 577 0 577 84 Total, 1953 ------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------- ---- 265 1954- I- ---------------------- 822 577 0 577 245 II - ---------- ------------ 816 577 0 577 239 III----------------------- 837 577 0 577 260 IV_______________________ 827 577 0 577 250 Total, 1954 ---------------------- - ---- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 994 1955- I I- ---------------------- 913 577 0 577 336 4/1-4/30 II_______________________ 304 186 0 186 118 Total, 1955-- ------------------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 454 Due under Schedule I--------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 2,649 'Based on Hamilton 's social security records, General Counsel's Exhibit No. 30, her interim earnings for the fourth quarter of 1952 include actual earnings of $222 earned at Cal-Ray Bakeries prior to November 6, 1952. Sophia Kadi , Pursuant to section 3 of -the Supplemental Decision, and Order herein, an offset against Kadi's gross backpay is computed on the basis of $0.90 an hour beginning January 13, 1953. Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-3/31 ------------------------ $50 0 0 0 $50 II---------- ---- 672 0 0 0 672 III----------------------- 691 $76 0 $76 615 IV------------------------ 696 646 $18 628 67 Total,1952 -------------------------- 1, 404 1953- I------------------------ 703 `455 0 455 248 4/1-6/15 II------------------------ 557 389 0 389 168 Total,1953 __________________________ 416 Due under Schedule I --------------- 1, 820 This figure includes actual interim earnings which Kadi earned at Southern California Plastic Co. prior to January 13. 1953. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO ., INC. 1225 Beatrice Muller Pursuant to section 3 of the Supplemental Decision and Order herein , an offset against Muller's gross backpay is computed on the basis of $1.10 an hour beginning June 9, 1952. Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarto backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-3/31 ------------------------ $50 $44 0 $44 $6 II------------------------ 636 "487 0 487 149 III------------------------ 662 572 0 572 90 IV------------------------ 662 572 0 572 90 Total, 1952--------- -------------- 335 1953- I------ ----------------- 662 572 $41 531 131 4/1-6/15 I II------------------------ 554 475 30 445 109 Total, 1953------------------------ 240 Due under Schedule I--------------- 575 This figure includes Muller's actual interim earnings of $346 34 earned at United States Flare Corpora- tion prior to June 9, 1952 Grace Palmisano Pursuant to section 4 of the Supplemental Decision and Order herein , beginning June 15 , 1953, an offset computed on the basis of $0.80 an hour is credited against Palmisano's gross backpay. Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952- I------------------------ $624 $115 0 $115 $509 II----------------------- 668 0 0 0 668 III------------------------ 687 366 0 366 321 IV------------------------ 695 435 0 435 260 Total, 1952------------`------------- ----- ------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,758 1953- I------------------------ 703 693 0 593 110 II------------------------ 675 552 0 552 123 III------------------------ 642 710 0 710 0 IV------------------------ 641 601 0 601 40 Total, 1953 --------------------------- ------ s ----- ------------ ------------ ------------ 273 1954- I------------------------ 846 582 0 582 264 II------------------------ 816 416 0 416 400 III------------------------ 837 416 0 416 421 IV------------------------ 827 416 0 416 411 Total, 1954 ------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,496 1955- I----------------------- 699 416 0 416 283 II-----------------_-s--- 292 134 0 134 158 Total, 1955 -------------------------- -----------` ------------ ------------ ------------ 441 Due under Schedule I ----------- ------------ ------------ 3,968 1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Cecelia Ramirez Pursuant to section 3 of the 'Supplemental Decision and Order herein, an offset against Ramirez's gross backpay is computed on the basis of $1.05 an hour, beginning October 1, 1954. Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I--------------------- $51 $34 0 $34 $17 II--------------------- 655 454 - 0 454 201 III--------------------- ' 662 433 0 433 229 IV--------------------- 650 439 0 .439 211 Total, 1952-------------------------- - - ------------ ----------- -------- 658 1953- I---------------------- 219 163 0 163 56 II--------------------- 442 282 0 282 160 III--------------------- 727 308 0 308 419 IV--------------------- 738 160 $25 135 601 Total, 1953-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,236 1954- I--------------------- 792 0 0 0 792 II--------------------- 777 0 0 0 777 III--------------------- 789 175 30 145 644 IV_____________________ 776 546 20 526 250 Total, 1954 ------------------------ ------------ ------------ -------- -------- 2,463 1955- I---------------------- 699 546 40 506 193 4/1-4/30 II--------------------- 279 176 0 176 103 Total, 1955--------------------------- ------------ -------- ------------ ------------ 296 Due under Schedule I--------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 4,653 Due under Schedule V-------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ----------- 29 Total due --------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 4,682 Blanche Rounsavell Rounsavell's backpay is computed from June 25, 1951, to May 31, 1955, including the strike period, but excluding quarters for which no claim was made. This adjustment is made pursuant to section 2 of the Supplemental Decision and Order herein. Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1951-6/25-6/30 II------------------------ '$42 0 0 0 $42 III------------------------ 603 0 0 0 603 IV------------------------ 608 0 0 0 608 Total, 1951 -------------------------- 1,253 1952- I--- --------- ------------ 646 0 0 0 646 II------------------------ 655 0 0 0 655 IIL----------------------- 662 0 0 0 662 Total, 1952-------------------------- ------------ ------------ 1,963 'Based on the specifications. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1227 Period Gross Interim earnings Net _ Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1953- - I------------------------ $657 $5 0 $5 $652 Total, 1953-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 652 1955- 4/1-5/31 I------------------------ II------------------------ 699 562 274 438 0 0 274 438 425 124 Total, 1955------------------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ 549 Total, 1953 and 1955------------------ Total, 1951 and 1952 ------------ ------------ ------------ ----------- ----------- ------------ 1,201 3.216 Total due under Schedule I---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 4,417 Under the Supplemental Decision and Order herein, backpay has not been awarded to Juanita Alamillo (Carlin) except for $44 due under Schedule V, not to Meada Brunk except for $471 due under Schedule II, and not to Irene Minkler except for $59 resulting from her being reinstated at the incorrect rate; and no backpay has been awarded to Mae Boggs, Lettie A. Clifton, and Anthony Pavani. In these circumstances, the Appendix contains no amended backpay schedules for these six claimants. List of Claimants as to Whom Backpay Has Been Recomputed and Amounts of Backpay Due Edith W. Adamson ------------------------------------------------ $1,144 Juanita Alamillo (Carlin)------------------------------------------ 44 LovieI . Blakemore------------------------------------------------ 668 Mae Boggs------------------------------------------------------- None Meada Brunk----------------------------------------------------- 471 Jennie A . Carrisosa------------------------------------------------ 396 Lettie A. Clifton--- ----------------------------------------------- None Elsie Contreras --------------------------------------------------- 1,036 Benedetta Corrao--- ---------------------------------------------- 953 Ida Granados (Marino) -------------------------------------------- 1,025 Minnie Granata-- ------------------------------------------------- 1,375 Anna Hamilton (Clanton )----------------------------------------- 2,649 Sophia Kadi-------------=---------------------------------------- 1,820 Irene Minkler---------------------------------------------------- 59 Beatrice Muller--------------------------------------------------- 575 Grace Palmisano -------------------------------------------------- 3,968 Anthony Pavani -------------------------------------------------- None Cecelia Ramirez-------------------------------------------------- 4,682 Blanche Rounsavell ----------------------------------------------- 4,417 Carmen Zamora-------------------------------------------------- •To be determined by the Regional Director. SUPPLEMENTAL INTERMEDIATE REPORT Table of Contents (") age I. Statement of the Case------------------------------------------ 1228 II. Findings and Conclusions--------------------------------------- 1234 A. The backpay period---------------------------------------- 1234 1. Commencement-------------------------------------- 1234 2. The termination of backpay liability-------------------- 1235 B. Amounts due under Schedules I to V-------------------------- 1236 1. The individual dischargees----------------------------- 1236 2. The strikers and strike sympathizers discharged by Re- spondentin July 1951----------------------------- 1239 1228 DECISIONS -OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. Findings and Conclusions-Continued Page a. Those to whom telegrams of July 10 and 11, 1951, were sent------------------------------------------ 1239 (1)' Those for whom testimony was given concern- ing search for interim employment---------- 1239 (2) Those for whom no evidence was offered except social security information on interim em- ployment-------------------------------- 1306 (3) Those for whom claims were made only under Schedules II to V and for whom no testimony or other evidence was offered-------------- 1308 b. Those who were not sent discharge telegrams----------- , 1309 SUPPLEMENTAL INTERMEDIATE REPORT 1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On April 30, 1953, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued its Decision and Order in the above-entitled case,' finding that the Respond- ent had committed unfair labor practices in contravention of Section 8(a)(1), (2), (3), (4),' and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act, and ordering, among other things, that the Respondent offer to Mary Ann Goff, Blanche Rounsavell, and to all employees discharged on July 10 and 11, 1951, immediate and full reinstatement, to their former or substantially equivalent positions and restore the medical and hospitalization insurance benefits enjoyed by them prior to the dates these benefits were discontinued; to make whole each of said employees for any loss of pay each may have suffered by reason of the discrimination found; and, in the event any of the discharged strikers incurred medical and hospitalization expenses which would have been covered by the canceled medical and hospitalization plans, to make them whole therefor. On January 15, 1955, the Board's Order was enforced by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals.2 - On April 3, 1957, pursuant to Section 102.51a of the Rules and Regulations of the Board, Series 6, as amended, the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region of the Board issued and caused to be served on the Respondent backpay specifica- tions. Thereafter, following extensions of time, the Respondent on May 20, 1957, filed an answer to said specifications. Eliminating unnecessary and repetitious verbiage in the answer, I would summarize it as denying each allegation of each schedule in several different ways in the same and in separated paragraphs,3 and, with the exception of allegations pertaining to the records of the Respondent, it denied all allegations of the specifications from pages 1 to 4 thereof except those in the first paragraph. In addition to these denials, the Respondent pleaded what it called affirmative defenses, four of them challenging the power and authority of the Board to conduct these proceedings, one alleging that the specifications were based on false and fraudulent statements and representations of claimants made to the Board, two raising an issue on due process, one alleging that the Intermediate Report, Board Order, and court decree were ambiguous, indefinite, and uncertain in identify- ing the employees allegedly discharged on July 10 and 11; and that none of the per- sons named in the specifications were identified in such report, order, and decree as employees so discharged, and that therefore none of such persons named in the specifications were entitled to backpay or other benefits under the court's decree. On June 13, 1957, the said Regional Director moved the Board to find the alle- gations of the specifications to be true on the ground that the Respondent's answer "fails to comply with the requirements of Section 102.51c (b) [new Section 102.54(b) ] of the Board's Rules and Regulations and is sham and frivolous," and further moved 1 104 NLRB 514. 2NLRB. v. Knickerbocker Plastic Co., Inc, 218 F. 2d 917 (C.A. 9). 8 The answer stated that the Respondent denied that any of the employees listed In the specifications made "due and diligent efforts to secure employment during the periods for which compensation is sought herein, and [alleged that], consequently, all such alleged losses of pay and other benefits constitute losses 'wilfully incurred' by said em- ployees. . . Although the foregoing is In the form of a denial, I take it to be an affirmative defense, because the burden is on the Respondent to show failure of those named in the specifications to make a reasonable search for employment. Alaska Chapter of The Associated General Contractors of America, Inc, 119 NLRB 663, footnote 21. The Respondent also pleaded the same defense affirmatively. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1229 the Board-to strike. the "alleged affirmative defenses on they grounds that they are improper and in no way meet the allegations of the Specifications and do not con- stitute defenses thereto." On June 24, 1957, the Respondent filed an amended answer 4 wherein it admitted certain matter previously denied, but generally denied the correctness of the figures in the columns for each claimant headed "Gross back pay for 40 hour week," "Over- time pay,". and "Total gross. back- pay," "insofar as such figures conflict with the figures shown in Exhibit A" to the amended answer. In this exhibit, the Respondent listed a number of employees, quarters of years, and a single column of dollar amounts. - The amended answer does not explain or demonstrate how these figures were reached or whether the overtime pay figures were properly omitted. Certain matters in the specifications which were denied in the answer were, in the amended answer, denied on grounds of lack of knowledge only. Denials and affirmative de- fenses were commingled. Although disclaiming' knowledge of identity of specific persons covered by the court's decree, the amended answer alleges that "all former employees who went out on strike herein were offered reinstatement unequivocally on or about December 12, 1951, and again on or about June 15, 1953, but [that they] failed and refused to return to work at Respondent's plant thereafter." In addition to denying the allegations of the specifications regarding medical and hospitalization expenses, the Respondent's amended answer denied that its 1952 and subsequent in- surance plan was the same as the 1951 plan, denied that its 1952 plan continued through the alleged backpay period, but attached a copy of its 1952 plan, which, it alleged, was a "copy of the plans for the periods in question"; denied that it dis- criminated in respect to any employee listed in Schedule Ill as a reinstated striker who was not paid the scale for such employee's job, and alleged that such employees were placed in the job and at the pay rates as to which the specifications complained "for the reason that these were the jobs and rates these employees formerly had." Other allegations of the specifications were denied. The same affirmative defenses (in some cases with embellishments) were repeated in the amended answer and, in addition, the amended answer pleaded certain argumentative matters. On July 9, 1957, the Regional Director renewed his motion that the Board find the allegations of the specifications to be true on the ground that the Respondent had not complied with Section 102.51c (b) [new Section 102.54(b)] of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 6, as amended, and renewed also his motion to strike the affirmative defenses on the ground that they "nowhere meet the allegations" of the specifications. On October 15, 1957, the Board issued its Findings and Order, in which it made observations and a decision as to each of the following points: 1. Paragraph A of Schedule I of specifications (This is a paragraph explaining the manner in which the figures in Schedule I, attached thereto, were reached.) The Board found in substance that the amended answer was somewhat ambiguous, but that the Respondent's statement in opposition to the General Counsel's motion made it clear that the Respondent admitted the accuracy of the computations of gross backpay except, as modified by figures listed in the exhibit attached to the amended answer and merely questioned that the claimants would have worked throughout the backpay period had they not been discharged, an issue separate and distinct from the accuracy of the gross backpay figures "as a statement of the wages which the claim- ants would have received during particular quarters had they actually worked during those quarters." Without alluding to the fact that the Respondent had not explained how it arrived at the gross backpay figures listed in the exhibit to its amended answer (which did not mention overtime pay), the Board decided that its Rules had not been violated. 2. Respondent's denial of knowledge as to the identity of the persons ordered reinstated The Board said: ". .. as the Board and the Court identified those entitled to re- instatement and back pay (other than Goff and Rounsavell) as `all of the employees discharged' on certain dates, the Respondent's position is in effect'that it does not know whom it discharged on those dates." Absent any explanation of such lack of knowledge, we do not deem' this a sufficient answer. .. . . The' Board gave the ' Because denials, averments, and sometimes argumentative matter are commingled in the Respondent's amended answer, some difficulty is encountered in defining the issues 1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent 10 days in which to file an amendment to its amended answer either "(a) stating which of the 79 persons for whom back pay is claimed in the specifications were, or were not, discharged on July 10 or 11, 1957, or (b) explaining why it is unable to furnish such information." 3. Claims for benefits under the 1952 insurance plan, alleged in the specifications to be in effect during 1952 and throughout the balance of the backpay period The Board said: "While apparently denying in its Amended Answer that its 1952 plan was in effect during such periods, Respondent attached to its Amended Answer a copy of the plan, dated January 10, 1952, which it admits was in effect during the back pay period." The Board therefore found that the Respondent had admitted that the 1952 plan was applicable during 1952 and during the balance of the backpay period covered by the specifications. 4. Claims of certain reinstated employees for backpay because of the alleged dis- criminatory failure of the Respondent to pay them the rate of wages to which they were entitled upon reinstatement The Board said: "It is not entirely clear whether the Amended Answer denies the correctness of the amounts alleged to have been actually paid or merely asserts that such amounts were not discriminatory." Because of language in Respondent's opposition to the General Counsel's motion, however, the Board concluded that the Respondent had "admitted that the wages alleged in Schedule III to have been paid are those actually paid to the employees involved." The Board did not expressly decide whether or not the Respondent had admitted that a different rate of pay (as alleged in the specifications) should have been applied to the named employees, but decided that the Respondent "disavows any attack on the accuracy of the figures, and states that its sole contention is that the amounts paid were not discriminatory." 5 5. Vacation pay The Board decided that the amended answer admitted that the persons named in Schedule V of the specifications had earned vacation pay in 1951 in the amounts stated therein. Insofar as the amended answer merely claimed that these persons were not identified in the court decree as backpay beneficiaries, the amended answer was found defective and was held to admit the amounts due to the parties named. No proof of these debts, therefore, is required. The remainder of the amended answer was unaffected by the Board's Findings and Order. On October 25, 1957, the Respondent filed an amendment to its amended answer, in which it repeated its denial that the Board or circuit court had decided that any of the 79 persons [the 79 is exclusive of Goff and Rounsavell] named in the speci- fications was discharged or was entitled to backpay; averred that it could not state that such persons were the persons intended by the Board's Decision and Order to be included among those designated as "discharged on July 10 and 11, 1951"; and, after disputing the authority of the Board to require it to make any admission as to the identity of any specific persons, the Respondent, in this amendment, listed the names of 37 persons alleged to have been terminated "other than by discharge, connected with the strike,.the Respondent's unfair labor practices. . . . but terminated solely because each of said persons for other reasons of their own no longer desired to be employed by Respondent." 6 5 Since discrimination is a conclusion to be drawn from all the facts, a clearer issue might have been possible if the specifications had merely alleged that the named re- instated employees were not paid at the rate paid to comparable employees for the same job as required by the Board's reinstatement Order. The function of this proceeding is not to determine if a new discrimination has occurred but only if the original one has been entirely rectified. Regardless of the Respondent's intent, whether guilty or innocent, the discrimination would not be rectified unless the reinstated employee received the rate he would have been receiving had he not been discharged discriminatorily. 9 Most of the names on this list were names of persons to whom the telegrams of July 10 and 11 (found by the Board and the court to constitute dischargees) had been sent. This sworn amendment to the amended answer "expressly alleges," not merely alleges on information and belief, that such persons were terminated because they no longer desired to be employed by the Respondent . Since , the Respondent professes to KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1231 Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Los Angeles, California, before the duly designated Trial Examiner between November 18, 1957, and January 29, 1958. The General Counsel, and the Respondent were represented by counsel. The original Charging Party was represented by a representative. At the opening of the hearing, the Respondent moved for a continuance of 2 weeks. The motion was denied. Next, the Respondent requested the Trial Examiner to take up, as motions, certain of its affirmative defenses as pleaded in its amended answer. The first of these defenses contested the authority of the Board to issue the specifications herein, to provide for a hearing before its own Trial Examiners, to promulgate or enact its Rule 102.51a to h [new Section 102.54 to 102.59], Series 6, as amended, to provide for rejection of the contents of an answer deemed unsatis- factory to the Board, to provide for the rejection of any allegation whatsoever in an answer, and to require the Respondent to provide affirmative contents in answers because the foregoing allegedly deprives the Respondent of due process. The pur- pose of this motion was apparently to get the Board to declare the court, rather than itself, the proper tribunal in which to determine the issues herein. The motion was denied. The second defense or motion, which contested the legality of the "prepara- tion and prosecution of the `Specifications,"' and contended that they constituted a violation of the due process and separation of powers provisions of the Constitution of the United States, was likewise denied. The next, which took issue with the power and right of the Board to provide what an answer should contain, was like- wise denied. Additional motions challenging the Board's 'authority were denied. Also denied was a motion for a bill of particulars, the effect of which would have placed upon the General Counsel the burden of proving that the persons named in the specifications had not incurred a willful loss. A blanket motion for permission to inspect affidavits and sworn statements of all the persons named in the complaint was denied. Thereafter, the position of the Respondent was sought to be clarified by a discus- sion on the record which made it clear that, except for the figures listed in its amended answer, the Respondent did not take issue with the accuracy of the figures in Schedule I of the specifications (computation of net backpay) if anything was due but denied only that anything was due to the persons named therein. The figures in Schedule II (medical, hospital, and death benefits) were stated by the Respondent not to be conceded except that it made no denial as to Ruth Keene or Francisca Puente Leon. But the General Counsel relied on the lack of any proper answer to Schedule II and offered no proof as to payment of the dollar amounts shown for most of claimants therein listed. The Board had not, in its Findings and Order of October 15, 1957, specifically ruled on the sufficiency of the amended answer with respect to such payments. The amended answer, with respect to Schedule II, so far as applicable to payment of the amounts listed is, to say the least, ambiguous. It "incorporates by reference . . . each and every admission, allegation and denial contained in Paragraphs I, TI and III of this Amended Answer with the same force and effect as though set forth in full herein. . ." From there on, the language of the amended answer (a denial'that "any of the sums set forth in Schedule II as to each and every alleged employee listed therein represent any medical or hospital expenses or death benefits suffered by reason of the discrimina- tion against said alleged employees.. .") is a negative pregnant, in effect admit- ting that the sums were paid by the claimants but denying that the sums were caused to be paid as a result of the Respondent's discrimination. Neither an inapplicable denial incorporated by reference, not specifically directed to medical and hospital expense claims, nor the negative pregnant denial is a "specific denial" that the claim- ants paid the amounts claimed as would be required under the Board's Rules and Regulations, Section 102.54(b) [until May 14, 1958, Section 102.51c(b)], Series 6, as amended. In the discussion on the record, I stated that I felt that the Respondent should, under the circumstances, assume the burden of raising the matter of pay- ment of such bills in the questioning of claimants who were witnesses. The Re- spondent, in the course of the hearing, failed, in most instances, to question witnesses about such claims. Under the circumstances, I find that payments of the amounts so claimed are, in effect, admitted. The Respondent stated that it did not contest the accuracy of the figures in Schedule III (amounts allegedly due to reinstated employees for failure to pay proper wage rate) but was not admitting discrimination and was denying only that have knowledge of the facts, it should, under the Board's Rules and Regulations, Sec- tion 102 51c(b) [new Section 10254(b)], Series 6, as amended, have furnished the details of these facts 1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD such persons were entitled to anything under the court's decree. On December 12, 1957, during the course of the hearing, the General Counsel, relying on various acts (occurring after the Board's Decision and Order of 1953 was issued), which were contended to be unfair labor practices which evidenced bad faith vitiating the Respondent's offer of reinstatement of June 13, 1953, took the position that the Re- spondent in admitting the correctness of the figures in Schedule III (the Respondent having expressed a willingness to concede the amounts due without admitting a dis- criminatory intent) automatically made out a prima facie case of discrimination for the General Counsel which the Respondent would have the burden of disproving. Respondent's counsel thereupon moved to amend the amended answer by denying that the persons named in Schedule III were entitled to the higher rate claimed. I ruled that I would grant the motion on condition that the Respondent, in its proposed amendment, give all the information available from the Respondent's records neces- sary to show (or render determinable) what rate should have been paid to the named claimants upon their reinstatement. The Respondent thereafter never tendered the proposed amendment in the approvable form. I find therefore that the amounts claimed to be due under Schedule I'I'I are in fact due and owing. 1 find it unnecessary, however, to decide whether or not the lower rate of pay paid to such employees necessarily resulted from a new discriminatory motive. I find only that, with respect to the seven employees named in Schedule III, the Respondent did not fully comply with the Board's Decision and Order, regardless of whether the reason for payment of the wrong rate was clerical error or discriminatory design.? Explanation of Rulings on Identity of Strikers and Respondent's Contention That It Does Not Know the Identity of the Discharged Strikers The focal point of the Respondent's defense is its contention that neither the Board nor the court adequately defined the scope of the remedy requiring reinstate- ment and backpay because it did not name. the dischargees. An examination of the Board's Order which was enforced by the court's decree discloses that, in addition to the remedy with respect to Goff and Rounsavell, the Respondent was required to offer reinstatement to, and was to make whole, "all of the employees it discharged on July 10 and 11, 1951.. " A question is raised as to whether this was intended to be synonymous with "all strikers and strike sympathizers who did not work before the end of the strike or refused to cross the picket line while it existed." In evidence in the original hearing was an exhibit marked "General Counsel's Exhibit No. 244" which listed the names of 138 employees to whom, on July 10 and 11, the Respondent sent copies of the telegram which the Board found was intended to effect a discharge. Additional evidence of such intent was found by the Trial Examiner and the Board in the Respondent's letter of ' July 26, 1951, sent to "all employees who had received the wire but not returned to work prior to July 26," notifying them of termination of their hospital and, medical insurance, and in the Respondent's personnel record for such employees which contained a notation "7/31/51 strike" which meant that such employee was "automatically terminated" when he or she did not return to work after having received the wire. As to those who were sent telegrams, no doubt can exist regarding identity. The Respondent's theory apparently is that certain of the employees were absent from work on and after July 9, 1951, for reasons other than the strike and that they had either already voluntarily severed their employment relations before being sent the July 10 and 11 telegrams or, if not, were discharged because of their absence previous to and not merely on July 9. The Respondent did not in its pleadings attempt to show the date or cause of severance of such employees. Some of the persons whose names are listed in the amendment to the Respondent's amended answer were apparently absent from work'before July 9, 1951, because they were on sick leave or vacation .8 The Respondent, however, still carried them on the roster of employees on July 8, 1951; so apparently, before the day the strike ' Cf Columbia Pictures Corporation and Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc, et al, '82 NLRB 568, 582. 8 In the 1953 hearing, for example, Elizabeth Norton testified that she was on vacation until July 23, at which time she returned and joined the strike. Yet on July 10, while Norton was on vacation, the Respondent sent her one of the aforementioned telegrams and on her personnel record is found the notation regarding termination, "7/31/51 Strike" (transcript in court, p. 528). She did not receive it until she returned from her vacation. According to testimony in the 1953 hearing (transcript as certified to court, pp. 512-513), Leslie Nogrady (misspelled Nogardy) was on sick leave as of July 8, 1951 With no evidence offered that the Respondent had ascertained that Nogrady would not return after his recovery, it sent him a telegram such as has been held to constitute a discharge and his personnel record contained the same type of notation as appeared on KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1233 started, the Respondent had not considered these employees to have severed their employment relation, and the telegram itself does not mention, failure to report for work for any extended period theretofore which might have justified termination. It mentions absence only on the day the telegram was sent, the same as for all those believed by the Respondent to be strikers. Thus, it is apparent, as the Board appar- ently found, that all those to whom the Respondent sent such telegrams were sent them because the Respondent believed such persons to be strikers or strike sympa- thizers. As the Board found all such persons to be discharged on account of the strike, whether as strikers or sympathizers, the issue could not be relitigated in the backpay hearing. Apparently the evidence in the original hearing did not disclose that certain other employees who had not received the aforementioned wire (presumably because they were absent on vacation or sick leave at the time the strike commenced) failed to return to work after the commencement of the strike and that some such employees were terminated for that reason as evidenced by receipt of the aforementioned letter of July 26 and by notations on their personnel records, reading, "7/31/51 Strike." For example, the names of about 18 employees listed on the third amended charge are not listed on General Counsel's Exhibit No. 244 as employees to whom telegrams were sent on July 10 and 11, 1951. Of these 18, the names of 8 are found in Schedule I of the specifications (backpay). As previously stated, the Respondent, in its amendment to its amended answer, which was filed as a consequence of the Board's ruling on the General Counsel's motion hereinbefore described, listed 37 names of persons claimed by the Respondent not to have been discharged because of the strike. The Respondent gave no details such as might be presumed to be available from its records as to employees whose employment had been terminated before the strike, such as that a certain named employee had resigned on a certain specified day or was discharged for inefficiency or insubordination or the like, on a specified day. Normally, this would be required under the Board's Rules and Regulations. Furthermore, of the 37 named in the amendment to the amended answer, 2 were not named in the specifications as persons for whom claims were being made,9 and of the remaining 35 named persons, all but 5 were shown on General Counsel's Exhibit No. 244 in the original hearing to have been sent the telegrams of July 10 and 11 which the Board found constituted a dis- charge.10 By the amendment to its amended answer, therefore, the Respondent sought to relitigate the status of 30 discharged strikers or strike sympathizers to whom such telegrams had been sent. During discussions in which a clarification of the issues was sought, I ruled that no issue was raised as to the status of any person listed in the specifications whose name was not also listed in the amendment to the Respondent's amended answer as a person claimed not to have been discharged on July 10 or 11, 1951. This included a few employees to whom the telegram of July 10 and 11, 1951, was not sent but who were not denied in the amendment to the amended answer to be discharged strikers." Furthermore I ruled that, as to the 30 listed in the said amendment whose names were also listed in General Counsel's Exhibit No. 244 (original hearing) as persons to whom the telegrams of July 10 and 11, 1951, had been sent, the denial was ineffective, because the Board had already decided the issue. Accordingly, I found that their status as discharged strikers was not in issue in the backpay hearing. There remained, then, the five persons whose status had been put in issue by the said amendment and who had not previously been identified as discharged strikers.12 the record of the discharged strikers who were written off the Respondent's records with the date and reason given as "7/31/51 Strike." There is no evidence as to when his sick leave would have expired . Other evidence concerning the Respondent's practice of terminating absent employees [see 1953 transcript, pp 490-492, 516-517, 527] would indicate that except for the strike, they would not have been so written off the books on July 31, 1951 Winona Ruth Coates (Coats) (see original transcript, p. 620) and Genevieve Velarde 11 The names of all of these also appeared on General Counsel's Exhibit No 249, a list of employees as of July 8, 1951, the day before the strike 11 Later in the hearing the Respondent was given an opportunity to amend its amended answer to deny that these persons were discharged strikers, on condition, however, that the Respondent state the date of their terminations and reasons therefor as shown by Respondent's records. Respondent never availed itself of the opportunity so afforded. 12 Meada Brunk, Virginia Rodriguez (Alcala), Ida Granados (Marino), Lydia Negrete, and Doris Kauschen. The name of each of these five persons had been listed in the third amended charge, but no specific finding was made by the Board with regard to any of the strikers listed there except those to whom the aforementioned telegram had been sent 1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The General Counsel argued that the amendment to the amended answer did not cure the defect of noncompliance with Section 102.51c(b) and (c) [new Section 102.54(b) and (c)] of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 6, as amended, because the amendment failed to give the dates of discharge or to explain why the persons named therein were discharged if not because of their being strikers. The Board's Findings and Order of October 15, 1957, however, did not specify that the Respondent should furnish any information other than to state the names of those of the 79 persons named in the specifications whom the Respondent contended were not "discharged on July 10 or 11, 1957 [1951]," and that the Respondent pur- ported to do. I notified the parties therefore, that as to the five persons previously mentioned, I would receive an offer of proof from the Respondent and would pass on the offer when made. As it transpired, I received all the evidence offered regard- ing the status of the said five. At the close of the General Counsel's evidence, counsel for the General Counsel took issue with Respondent's amended answer to the extent of the figures supplied therein for the second quarter of 1953, pointing out that the Respondent's figure actually did not show earnings for the full quarter but only to the week ending on June 14, 1953. He therefore asserted that the figures shown in the specifications, Schedule I, for the second quarter of 1953 are the correct figures. On all the data furnished by the Respondents on the basis of which the backpay figures were computed, I find that the General Counsel's figures are correct for the second quarter of 1953. The Respondent made no further attempt to alter these figures. At the close of the General Counsel's case-in-chief, the Respondent made motions to dismiss as to all employees listed in Schedule IV (claimants not yet located) and as to all claimants who did not testify. I denied both motions. Respondent also moved for a 2 weeks' continuance. I granted the Respondent 11/2 days' continuance. At the close of the hearing -1 heard oral argument. Time was granted within which to file briefs but they were not filed within the extension of that time which was granted. The General Counsel moved to amend the specifications in minor matters, such as the spelling of names. The motion was granted without opposition. The Respond- ent moved to dismiss the specifications in their entirety on grounds urged throughout the hearing. The motion was denied. Repetition of other Respondent motions previously ruled on adversely to the Respondent were again denied. II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. The backpay period 1. Commencement The specifications compute backpay for the discharged strikers from December 13, 1951, the date of the removal of the picket line. This was done apparently because the Trial Examiner at the original hearing, in his Intermediate Report which the Board adopted, stated: It may be noted that although the strike ended in March 1952, picketing ceased in December 1951. Thus, it may be that some, if not all, of the discharged strikers were available for employment on and after December [13], 1951. In that event, the period for the tolling of back pay for willful losses will terminate in December 1951, for as dischargees there was no duty on their part to- apply for reinstatement.13 No finding was made by the Board differentiating between discharged strikers and discharged strike sympathizers who, although not strikers themselves, refused to cross the picket line.14 In the absence of evidence in the backpay proceedings which would identify the latter separately from the former, or of evidence of an individual application for reinstatement between December 13, 1951, and March 24, 1952 (the date found to be the termination of the strike), or some other evidence of Is The necessity for an application for reinstatement, required of economic strikers, is not required here because the discharged employees were unfair labor practice strikers and the Union had requested reinstatement. See N L R B. v Sunrise Lumber & Trim Corp., 241 F. 2d 620 (C.A. 2). In the Instant case, the Board in effect held that backpay should accrue after March 24, 1952, unless it was shown that individual strikers were available for employment by the Respondent after the picket line was removed, on December 13, 1952. 14 Of course, the sympathizers are entitled to the same remedy as the strikers. Concrete Haulers, Inc., Wamix, Inc., and Red-D-Mix, Inc, 106 NLRB 690, footnote 11. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1235 availability for employment by the Respondent before the termination of the strike on March 24, 1952, I am obliged to find that the claimants would not have been willing and available to return to the Respondent 's employ until after the end of the strike. Consequently, in computing the backpay herein, 'I shall, with respect to discharged strikers and strike sympathizers, start with March 25 , 1952, unless the facts otherwise warrant. 2. The termination of backpay liability On about June 13, 1953 , the Respondent wrote the following form letter: Dear : We wish to remind you that on or about December 10, 1951, representatives of Knickerbocker Plastic Co. Inc., met with Mr . Skagen of the International Association of Machinists, who was then representing striking employees of this company. At that meeting, Mr. Skagen officially was notified that Knickerbocker Plastic Co. Inc. would immediately reinstate, without prejudice, any of its employees or former employees then on strike under the auspices of the IAM. In response to that notification a number of our employees returned to work. In order to conclude this matter, you are hereby notified that we are still offering to you immediate and full reinstatement to your former position, or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to any seniority, or any other rights and privileges which you previously enjoyed. Kindly inform us within seven (7) days after the receipt of this letter whether or not you desire to accept this offer. This offer will remain for one week from the date you receive this letter; and if you do not accept the offer and report for work within that time, it will be deemed that you have rejected the offer. Very truly yours, KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC COMPANY, INC. (Signed ) W. O. Hersey W. O. HERSEY, Vice President. WOH/cp REGISTERED MAIL This letter, which will be called the Hersey letter , was mailed to approximately 107 individuals by registered mail with return receipt requested. A list of names and addresses of such individuals in the form of a post office application for registered mail was introduced in evidence . Although not all the letters to the claimants were received, it is conceded that they were sent to the persons listed, and at the addresses shown, on the post office application for registered mail. The evidence is not con- clusive that the addresses shown thereon were the last known addresses available to the Respondent. Some of the claimants , when on the witness stand, were asked their residence addresses while employed by Respondent. Some were asked if they had received the letter and, if they denied that they had received it or testified that they did not remember, some were shown the return receipt and asked to identify the signature thereon. In some cases the witnesses were asked none or only part of the foregoing questions . I have taken into account such evidence as was, pre- sented, including the list of names and addresses appearing in the third amended charge. The General Counsel contended that the Hersey letter was not a good-faith offer of reinstatement, although it appeared to be so on its face, because of extrinsic evidence tending to show that some of the reinstated strikers were not paid the rate which they should have received upon reinstatement, because some of the strikers who responded to the Hersey letter were not immediately reinstated but were told they would be notified when to return to work and were not given em- ployment until 6 or 8 weeks later, and because one or two were told they would have to start as new employees. Presumably for the same purpose, the General Counsel adduced evidence that some reinstated employees were asked or required to join the labor organization which the Board had already found to have been assisted in violation of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act. The evidence did not prove that no one who responded to the Hersey letter was given immediate reinstatement . It showed only that some were not. Likewise the evidence did not show that all those who received the Hersey letter but failed or refused to accept it knew that some employees were not receiving the rate of pay to which they were entitled according to their original seniority or that some had been asked or required to join the assisted union when they returned. 614913-62-vol. 132-79 1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As a general proposition, if an employer in good faith mails an offer of reinstate- ment to an employee who had been discriminatorily discharged, addressed to the employee's last known address, the Board tolls backpay from the date of the attempt to deliver such offer,15 even though the letter might not speak as an offer until it is received and might not discharge the employer's ultimate responsibility to reinstate the employee who received the offer tardily. It is not true, as appears to be con- tended by the General Counsel, that the offer gave only 7 days from the date of the letter. A reading of it discloses that it gives 7 days from the date of receipt thereof in which to accept. I am not persuaded that the offer of reinstatement, unconditional on its face, is to be deemed one in bad faith and ineffective to toll backpay because certain unfair labor practices had not been remedied at the time the offer of reinstatement was made.16 It has been the consistent policy of the Board from the outset to discourage strikes, even unfair labor practice strikes; and, consistent with that policy, the Board has withheld the remedy of backpay for the time during which strikers, even unfair labor practice strikers, make themselves unavailable to work for their employers. Individual employees, should not, any more than strikers, attempt to rectify unfair labor practices other than by the processes of the Board. In furtherance of this policy, the Board, at an early date, adopted the practice of cutting off backpay from the date of the offer of reinstatement as to individuals who refused the offered re- instatement unless their employer, for example, would recognize the union they had chosen to represent them, and this was held true even though the employer's refusal to recognize such union was found to be an unfair labor practice.17 I have found no subsequent cases which have indicated any change in this policy.18 Unless, therefore, additional evidence in a given instance warrants a departure from the general proposition, I shall, in computing backpay to individual claimants, toll the backpay from the date of attempted delivery of the Hersey letter at the last known address of the claimant. B. Amounts due under Schedules I to V 1. The individual dischargees Mary Ann Goff (Donley) Goff was discharged on June 18, 1951. She received no offer of reinstatement from the Respondent before June 1955, although the Board order required the Respondent to offer her reinstatement. Goff makes no claim, however, for backpay after October 1, 1952. In its Decision and Order in the unfair labor practice case,19 the Board noted that Goff joined the strike of July 9, 1951. At such time, therefore, Goff became unavailable for employment with the Respondent and backpay is tolled for the dura- tion of the strike. Although she sought other employment even while she served on the picket line, it is apparent that she was not willing to return to work for the Respondent while the strike continued, because she said as much to President White of the Respondent on August 31, 1951, when he offered to reemploy her, as the Board found. As noted in the Board's decision, this rejection did not relieve the Respondent of the duty to renew its offer after the strike when the Union made an offer on her behalf to return to work; so White's offer did not terminate the backpay obligation. As the General Counsel adduced no evidence of willingness of Goff to return to work before the termination of the strike, I compute her backpay from June 18 to July 9, 1951, and from March 25 to September 30, 1952. Following her discharge Goff made diligent search for work, registering at several union locals and making efforts on her own. Despite some general and almost reck- less testimony by Frances Gibson, the Union's dispatcher who testified as a witness for the Respondent, that the Union was able within a week or two to place anyone who really wanted to work, the evidence is clear that the Union failed to find em- ployment for Goff in the 4 months succeeding her discharge, during which time Goff reported to the dispatcher every week. During this period she made application at one place where she appeared about to be accepted until after Goff, in reply to a 15 N L R B. v Jay Company, Inc., 227 F. 2d 416 (C.A. 9). 16 See Kitty Clover, Inc., 103 NLRB 1665, 1667. 17 Hemp & Company of Illtinois, 9 NLRB 449. (Remedy as to employees named Hughes, Wilmot, and Kreider.) 18 See Coca-Cola Bottling Company of St. Louis, 95 NLRB 284, and cases there cited. 19 104 NLRB 514, 539. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1237 question concerning where she had had previous experience , gave the information that she had worked at the Respondent's. Her interviewer excused himself and, when he returned to Goff, he announced a decision not to hire her. In addition to seeking employment through the Union, Goff registered at the California State em- ployment office, sometimes herein called the unemployment office, immediately after her discharge, and she reported there each week while unemployed. There is no evidence that Goff at any time ceased to look for a job before April 1952 when she obtained a job-her first one since her discharge-at Rheem Manu- facturing Company in Downey, California , a distance of about 25 miles from her home in Glendale 20 She drove this distance daily for about 5 weeks,21 at the end of which time she quit. She testified that her reason for quitting was that it was too far to go, that it took her about an hour to get to work and sometimes took as long as 2 hours to return in the evening because of traffic congestion . From the time of her quitting at Rheem, Goff was unemployed until, in August 1952, with the assist- ance of the Union, she got a job with Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, in Burbank, California, where she has worked ever since. During the balance of the claim period, she traveled about 8 or 10 miles from her residence to her job at Lockheed. A question of willfully incurred loss is raised as a result of Goff's quitting her job at Rheem at a time when she had no other employment lined up. Great distance and inconvenience conceivably could be a valid reason for rejecting employment without its resulting in a finding of willful loss . Perhaps the same result might follow if such employment were taken for only a few days to determine the feasibility of commuting at such a great distance. But here, Goff worked at Rheem for approxi- mately 5 weeks, commuting daily the 50 miles round trip, and putting up with the inconvenience each day during that time. No explanation was offered as to why commuting became unbearable only at the end of 5 weeks . No problem of health was raised. As commuting had not become unbearable enough to cause Goff to quit her job at Rheem earlier , an explanation going beyond that of mere excessive distance would appear to have been in order. However, none was given . In view of this, one might infer that Goff had an additional reason for quitting her job at Rheem , which, coupled with the distance, caused her to quit . But the nature of any additional reason that might have existed does not appear and cannot be evalu- ated. Under the circumstances, I do not feel justified in recommending any back- pay for the period between May 5 and August 1, 1952. In August 1952, Goff pro- cured employment at Lockheed and her backpay will resume at that time. Claim is made for reduction in gross earnings elsewhere by the amount of ex- penses incurred in looking for employment and additional expenses incurred inci- dental to such other employment . These expenses include automobile mileage of 50 miles a day at 7 cents per mile for 5 weeks, while at Rheem, which is allowable because she had had no expense in going to and from work at the Respondent's plant 22 The claim of $50 for expenses of looking for work, shown in the specifica- tions as deducted from earnings in the second quarter of 1952 should not be allowed in view of my conclusion that Goff gave up her employment at Rheem for a reason which does not appear to be adequate. As the employment at Rheem apparently came early in the second quarter of 1952, the claimed expenses or most of them must have followed her period of employment at Rheem and would not have been incurred had she not quit her job. Because of Goff's voluntary termination of her employment at Rheem, a question is raised as to whether or not expenses incurred at Lockheed are allowable. No claim is made for expenses incurred in looking for work in the third quarter of 1952, claim is made only for allowance of expenses incurred on the job . The rates at Rheem and at Lockheed were practically the same-maybe slightly higher at Lock- heed. The saving on mileage at the job at Lockheed was about $13.30 a week or $106.40 in the 8 weeks of the third quarter of 1952. To the extent of this savings, Goff may be allowed other expenses such as for tools and clothing while working at Lockheed. A claim for union dues at Lockheed was dropped by the General Counsel when it appeared that membership in the Union was not required there as a condition of employment. 20 Goff testified that the distance was 40 miles . Claim is made , however, only for 25 miles ( 50 miles round trip), and this appears to be more accurate from my inspection of maps in evidence. 21 Goff testified that she was employed there for about 2 months From the specifica- tions, her rate of pay, her earnings at Rheem, and all the evidence , I find that she worked for about 165 hours in 5 weeks' time at Rheem. 22 See Kartarzk, Inc., 111 NLRB 630, 635, footnote 7. 1238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Goff's Backpay Period Gross Interim earnings N Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible Net et backpay expenses 1951-6/18-30 II------------------------ $88 0 0 0 $88 7/1-7/6 III------------------------ *35 0 0 0 35 Total, 1951 --------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 123 1952-3/25-31 I------------------------ 47 0 0 0 47 4/1-5/6 I I -------------- 225 $229 $87 $142 83 8/1-9/30 III------------------------ 407 260 106 154 253 Total, 1952 --------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 383 Due under Schedule I --------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 506 *In its amended answer, the Respondent alleges that the correct figure for gross backpay for the entire quarter is $518 But for the period from July 10 to September 30, according to Schedule I, Exhibit 1B, her earnings would have been $518 96 This does not reflect the full quarter. I have computed the amount she would have earned between July 1 and 9, 1951, on the basis of her hourly rate of $1.10 an hour for the 4 working days in this quarter before the strike started (July 4 being excluded as a holiday). Blanche Rounsavell Rounsavell was discharged by the Respondent on June 25, 1951. She was offered reemployment in June 1955. The specifications show that the backpay claim ends on May 31, 1955, and that no claim is made for the last quarter of 1952, for the last three quarters of 1953, or for the year 1954. At the time of her discharge, Rounsavell was over 50 years of age. In looking for work, she found her age a handicap, as many employers would take no one over 35 years of age. Having no private means of transportation, she used public trans- portation and walked when searching for employment. Her search for employment was made for the most part in the business sections of Glendale, Burbank, and the adjoining area of Los Angeles. The Respondent takes the position that no search for employment is adequate that does not extend to the entire Los Angeles "labor market area" which, it asserts, covers such areas as Santa Monica and Los Angeles Interna- tional Airport to the west, Wilmington and Long Beach to the south, East Los Angeles and Norwalk on the east, as well as most of the suburban areas to the north. The north-south diameter of this area would be in the neighborhood of 35 miles. At the time of Rounsavell's discharge, public transportation consisted largely of trolley cars. The areas where Rounsavell made her search for employment, mostly along San Fernando Road, an interstate highway running through northeast Los Angeles, Glendale, Burbank, and other San Fernando Valley towns, is heavily industrialized. Fully canvassing this area for a job would be a lengthy operation. Rounsavell's difficulty in getting a job was not in any limitation in the number of employers within a distance of 5 or 6 miles from her residence where she could seek work, but in her age 23 and the fact that she had been discharged by the Respondent. Not only -do I fail to see any necessity for her to go to more distant points, such as Santa Monica and Long Beach, when seeking employment with no definite pros- pect of jobs, but if she were charging to the Respondent her expenses incurred in looking for work, I conceive that the Respondent might well claim that transporta- tion costs to such distant points would have been unnecessarily incurred as long as possible employment opportunities closer to Rounsavell's home had not been fully explored. It does not appear that Rounsavell ever exhausted such possibilities or that she ceased looking for work in ,the areas in which she sought employment. In addition to canvassing the area for a job, Rounsavell registered at, and regularly checked with, the California State employment office, checked newspaper advertise- 21 Other witnesses testified that certain aircraft plants did not hire women over 35 years of age. This alone could have discouraged Rounsavell from going to the International Airport and Santa Monica regions where the best prospects of employment might have been aircraft plants. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1239 ments, and checked regularly with the Union. I find that she incurred no willful loss in failing to travel to greater distances in looking for work 24 Rounsavell finally got a job at Weber Aircraft Corporation in Burbank in October 1952. She held this job until the end of December of the same year, when there was a mass layoff. She was again unemployed and making the foregoing efforts to find work until 1953, when, through a friend, she procured employment with the Weather- head Company, where she continued to work most of the remaining backpay period except for a period of 3 months in 1954 when she was off because of an accident,25 and about 3 months in 1955 when there was a layoff, and during which time she was unable to procure other employment, using diligent efforts. Rounsavell, as well as Goff, joined the strike on July 9, 1951. Her backpay will, therefore, not accrue from that date to March 24, 1952. Rounsavell's Backpay Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1951-6/25-30 7/1-7/6 II------------------------ III------------------------ $47 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 $47 38 Total, 1951 -------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 85 1952-3/25-31 I------------------------- II------------------------- III------------------------ 51 655 662 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 655 662 Total, 1952 -------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,368 1953- 1 I------------------------- 657 $5 0 $5 652 Total, 1953-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 652 1955- 4/1-5/31 I------------------------- II------------------------- '699 562 274 438 0 0 274 438 425 124 Total, 1955-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 549 Due under Schedule I-------------- ----------- ------------ ------------ ------------ 2,654 *This is the figure averred to be correct in Respondent's amended answer, which the General Counsel did not dispute. 2. The strikers and strike sympathizers discharged by Respondent in July 1951 26 a. Those to whom telegrams of July 10 and 11, 1951, were sent (backpay period starts March 25, 1952, end of strike, unless available for employment by Respondent on earlier date) (1) Those for whom testimony was given concerning search for interim employment Edith W. Adamson No evidence was adduced to show that Adamson would have been available for employment by the Respondent before March 24, 1952, when the strike ended and the Union notified the Respondent that the striking employees were unconditionally offering to return to work. I shall, therefore, compute her backpay from March 25, 1952. Following the beginning of the strike, Adamson, who was then 54 years old, registered at the State employment office for work and went there once or twice a week, got in touch with the Union, and at their suggestion went to Weber Aircraft Company, where she apparently filed an application but never heard from them, and 26 See Efco Manufacturing, Inc., 111 NLRB 1032 at 1035 and 1036. 25 This came during a period for which no backpay is claimed. 20 Names in parentheses are names acquired by marriage after beginning of 1951 strike. 1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sought work at department stores and bakeries. All her efforts to find work were without success. She testified that she did have work for a period of about 4 to 6 weeks, the date of which she placed at the end of 1951 or early part of 1952, when she worked for some friends operating under the name of All American Paint Strainer Company in Glendale. Adamson was not only uncertain as to when she had worked there, but could not remember the amount she had earned either. No earnings there are shown on her social security record for the backpay period. The General Coun- sel took the position that this work occurred before the backpay period which he con- tended started on December 13, 1951. There is certainly no evidence to show that she worked there after March 24, 1952.27 On September 28, 1952, Adamson, not having found work and her husband being out of a job, concluded that they could live cheaper in a smaller town, rented their house in Glendale for $75, and moved to Banning, California, where they were able to rent a house for $50. Banning is a town of less than 7,000 population. There her huband procured a job and they remained there for about 8 months. Adamson sought work in Banning at the stores and bakeries. She testified that there are two bakeries, two dry goods stores, and four or five grocery stores there. She found no work. There is a shirt factory in Banning, but the only jobs available for women were as seamstresses and Adamson was not qualified for this work. In June 1953 Adamson and her husband moved to Cathedral City, California, where her husband would be closer to the work which he had procured. Cathedral City is a town of about 2,000. Here again Adamson looked for work at bakeries, 10-cent stores, and department stores, but found no work during the period before the end of June 1953. On June 13 the Respondent mailed to Adamson at her Glendale address a copy of the Hersey letter offering her reinstatement, and she received this letter on June 23, 1953, at Banning. Adamson chose not to return to the Respondent because she did not want to leave her husband and the distance was too great to commute 28 The Respondent contends that Adamson removed herself from the labor market by moving to Banning where work opportunities would be less than in the Glendale area. The General Counsel on the other hand contends that but for her discharge at the Respondent she would have been able to continue to reside in Glendale and would never have gone to Banning. There might be some merit in the Respondent's position if Adamson had been under 35 years of age, but after that age a woman has pro- gressively more difficulty in finding employment. At 55, when she moved to Banning, her opportunities would be quite limited even in Glendale. At that age the chance of employment in factories was slight. It is impossible to say that at that age her oppor- tunities to find work would be any better in Glendale than in Banning. In 1956 an agent of the Respondent came to Banning and wrote down a statement in his own language as a result of his conversation with Adamson. In this statement, which Adamson signed, appeared language indicating that Adamson was limiting her search for employment to jobs like the one she had at Respondent, that she did not need a job but just wanted to work for some extra money, and that her husband did not want her to do heavy work. Adamson testified that she did not read the state- ment before she signed it but that the Respondent's agent read it to her and that she presumed the reason for this was that she did not have her reading glasses with her at the time. She testified that the statements above mentioned were not statements in the form in which she had given them and that they actually created a false impres- sion. She testified that she was not limiting her search to work only like the work she had had at the Respondent, although she could not do heavy work, and that she was not looking for work merely to get some extra money but in fact needed it be- cause her husband was earning only about $1 or $1.05 an hour and furthermore be cause he lost his job before they moved to Banning. Adamson's testimony concerning the places where she sought employment is sufficient to indicate that she was not limiting her search to jobs exactly like the one she had at Respondent. From all the evidence, I am satisfied that Adamson was making a reasonable search for interim employment and that she did not sustain a willful loss 29 27 In testifying concerning this employment, Adamson named the company as All Paper Paint Straining Company. I note that in Adamson's application for employment at Respondent, dated April 10, 1951, she listed under previous employment All Paper Strainer Company for the period between January 29 and March 30, 1951. It is quite probable that this is the same period of employment that Adamson testified came in the latter part of 1951 or the early part of 1952. 28 I cannot speculate that Adamson and her husband would or would not have returned to Glendale had the Respondent's offer been received earlier. 20 Respondent sought to impeach Adamson's testimony by introducing a copy of Adam- son's application for employment at the Respondent where she stated her education to KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. Adamson's Backpay 1241 Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-3/31 I------------------------ $40 0 0 0 $40 II------------------------ 531 0 0 0 531 III------------------------ 582 0 0 0 582 IV------------------------ 586 0 0 0 586 Total,1952 -------------------------- 1, 739 1953- I------------------------ 586 0 0 0 586 4/1-6/23 II --------- 592 0 0 0 592 Total, 1953 -------------------------- 1,178 Due under Schedule I --------------- 2,917 Juanita Alamillo (Carlin) At the time that the picket line was removed from the Respondent's plant (De- cember 13, 1951), Alamillo was employed by Timm Industries. She testified that she was laid off at that plant in the latter part of December 1951. In a statement which Alamillo signed for an agent of the Respondent 30 she was quoted as saying that she quit Timm to get married. The pertinent portion of this statement, which was prepared by the Respondent's agent when he was questioning her reads: In September of 19511 left the picket line and went to work for M & L Tool & Die, 422 W. Magnolia, Glendale 4, Calif. at 1.25 per hour[.] I quit M & L Tool & Die in October of 1951 because they wouldn't increase my pay and I went to work for Timm Aircraft on San Fernando Rd. at $1.44 per hour. I quit in December of 1951 to get married to Martin Carlin, who was working at O'Keefe and Merritt on Olympic Blvd. in L.A. and we moved to Record Street in L.A. to be nearer my husband's place of employment. I have not been further employed since quitting Timm Aircraft for the reasons previously stated. Taking the last sentence literally, one might conclude that when Alamillo said she had not been employed since December 1951 she meant because she got married and moved from the vicinity of Timm Industries. However, Alamillo had already given a statement to a representative of the Board before the Respondent's agent questioned her. Thinking that the latter was from the Board, she told him that she had already given a statement, as in fact she had. When, therefore, Alamillo referred to "reasons previously stated" she may well have meant "for the reasons stated to the Board's field examiner who had previously questioned her." In view of her testimony concerning registration with the State employment office, I conclude from all the evidence that the latter meaning is the proper one 3' No evidence was offered to show that Alamillo had abandoned the strike before March 24, 1952; so her backpay would not start before March 25, 1952. At this time Alamillo registered at the unemployment office 32 and received unemployment com- be 2 years of high school, whereas she admitted she had only a common school education. I do not consider the misstatement in the application to constitute an impairment of her testimony under oath. as Alamillo claimed that he represented himself as from the Labor Board. Whether or not the agent did so represent, Alamillo believed that he did, and presumably the Re- spondent's agent allowed her to have such impression. ' In one other instance the same agent of the Respondent wrote a summary of the answers given him in a manner which suggests to me that he attempted to slant the statement in favor of the Respondent. 82 She testified that she applied in March 1952 . I Infer that she registered in the latter part of March after the end of the strike. 1242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pensation for 6 months, after which time she stopped looking for work because she was expecting a child about the end of the year. She testified that in that period of time she looked for work almost every day. I take official notice of the fact that Alamillo could not lawfully have continued to receive unemployment compensation unless she returned to the State employment office once a week and exerted indi- vidual efforts to secure employment 33 There is no evidence that she was given any referrals or rejected any offers. Her first child was born on December 31, 1952. Thereafter in late February 1953, Alamillo again started looking for work, but her search was without success. On June 13, 1953, the Respondent mailed to Alamillo a copy of the Hersey letter, offering reinstatement. The letter was received by her on June 17 after being for- warded to her at her latest address, but she did not accept the offer. I find that the Respondent's obligation ended at that time. Alamillo's Backpay Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I------------------------ $54 0 0 0 $54 II------------------------ 685 0 0 0 685 III------------------------ 690 0 0 0 690 IV------------------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ Total,1952 -------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,429 1953- I-- ---------------- ------ (*^ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 4/1-6/17 II------------------------- 595 0 0 0 595 Total, 1953 -------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 595 Due under Schedule I --------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 2,024 Due under Schedule V-------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 44 Total due- -------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 2,068 *No claim Idell Anderson No evidence was offered to show that Anderson was available for employment before the end of the strike. Her backpay will therefore be computed as starting on March 25, 1952. Two periods were excluded from the backpay claim before May 15, 1953, when Anderson completely withdrew from the labor market. The first period excluded is from May 15, 1952, to July 31 of the same year. The second period of exclusion is March 15 to April 15, 1953 .34 Between March 25 and May 15, 1952, Anderson was unemployed. During that time she was registered with the State employment office and independently searched for work every day. In the early part of May 1952 she obtained employment at -Sidney Williams Company in Glendale, California, but was laid off on May 15. Following that date and until July 31, 1952, no claim is made. Her next employment, at Permofiux Corporation, started in August 1952. She continued there until about March 15, 1953, when she became ill and was away from work for a month. When released by her doctor, she telephoned Permofiux about employment. Her job was filled and she was not again reemployed. For about a month thereafter she was registered at the State employment office and sought work. At the end of that period, May 15, 1953, Anderson ceased looking for work. She was not offered rein- statement until after that date. No showing was made of willful loss incurred by Anderson. 88 See Deerings California Code, UI § 1253, et seq. 84 The ending date of the last period was corrected during the hearing from June 1 to April 15, 1953. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. Anderson's Backpay 1243 Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I------------------------ $44 0 0 0 $44 II------------------------ 280 $101 0 $101 179 III------------------------ 391 296 0 296 95 IV------------------------ 586 523 0 523 63 Total, 1952-------------------------- ------------ ----- ------------ ------------ 381 1953- I------------------------ 488 383 0 383 105 4/15-5/15 1 II------------------------ `213 0 0 0 213 Total, 1953-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 318 Due under Schedule I--------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 699 "On a comparative basis Anderson's gross backpay for the full quarter would have been $ 640 (the same as Rounsavell) The specifications are correct, therefore, in claiming one-third of this amount, or $213. The change in dates of excluded periods does not alter this. Betty Beard (Lane) buring the backpay period, Beard, when out of work, diligently sought work. As a member of a union in the furniture industry she was referred to jobs by her local whenever she was out of work and when work was available. The specifications commence Beard's claim on December 13, 1951, but no evidence was offered to show that Beard would have been available for employment before the strike was terminated on March 24, 1952. During part of the first quarter of 1952, at least, Beard was employed at Belvedere Manufacturing Company in Los Angeles until she was laid off. The record does not show the date of Beard's layoff, whether before or after March 24, 1952. No earnings are shown for her during the second quarter of 1952, so I infer that she was not working at Belvedere on April 1. I infer that Beard was unemployed between March 25 and 31 and will start her claim on March 25 without deduction for interim earnings in the first quarter of 1952. Several quarterly periods are excepted from Beard's backpay period, among others the last two quarters of 1952 and the first two of 1953. The page of the specifications which shows her interim earnings lists Sealy Mattress Co. as an employer in the second quarter of 1952 but shows no interim earnings therefrom. If she was hired by Sealy in June 1952 (which does not appear) she received no payment until the third quarter which is an excepted quarter. During the periods not excepted, I find no willful loss incurred. Beard testified that in the month of December in a year she could not fix she suffered injuries in an automobile accident which kept her out of work for 2 months, that this was while she worked at Sealy Mattress Co., and that after recovering she returned to Sealy for a while but found the work too heavy for her because of aftereffects of her injuries and gave it up on advice of her doctor. From available evidence, I conclude and find that her accident was in December 1952. Her quitting at Sealy would there- fore have been in the first or second quarters of 1953. Both of these quarters are excepted from the backpay specifications. On cross-examination Respondent's counsel asked,Beard whether or not she had received the Hersey letter. Beard denied that she had received such letter. She was then shown a return receipt bearing the names "Betty Beard" and "Edna M. Beck" on the lines for the signature of addressee and addressee's agent. Edna M. Beck was identified by Beard as her sister-in-law with whom she did not live but whose address in Compton she had used as a mailing address. Beard at first testified that she did not know if the signature on the return receipt was that of her sister-in- law. Later she said she believed it was but was not sure. The letter was addressed to Beard at an address in Huntington Park. She was not asked whether or not she had ever lived there, but if the letter was signed for by Beard's sister-in-law, it was apparently forwarded to an authorized mailing address. As Beard's memory did not appear to be too sharp, I find it likely that she could have forgotten receiving the 1244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD letter. In any event, however, I find that it was received at a mailing address author- ized by Beard. The Respondent's liability for backpay, therefore, ended on June 19, 1953, the date of delivery of the letter. As Beard has no claim for the first half of 1953, it will be unnecessary to include that year in the following computation which I find to be the backpay due her. Beard's Backpay Year Period Quarter Gross backpay I Gross Interim earnings Deductible expenses Net Net backpay 1952-3/25-3/31 I-------------------------- $51 0 0 0 $51 II-------------------------- 655 0 0 0 655 Total, 1952-------------------------- 706 Due under Schedule I--------------- 706 Jeronima Bernal No evidence was adduced to show that Bernal was available to work for the Respondent before the end of the strike. Before her first employment Bernal did not register with the State employment office but she did get references from the Union and she searched for work on her own. It does not appear that she rejected any offers of employment. In the second quarter of 1952 Bernal procured a job driving a delivery truck for Macias Bakery. Although this job paid less than her job at the Respondent would have paid, Bernal did not, while there employed, seek another job. The job was a steady one, however, and the pay was not so poor that I would deem her to have incurred a willful loss in not seeking other employment.35 On June 13, 1953, the Respondent sent to Bernal by registered mail a copy of the Hersey letter at her last known address. The letter was not delivered because Bernal had moved and the letter was returned to the Respondent. By sending this letter to Bernal's last known address, the Respondent made a bona fide effort to offer reinstatement and its liability for backpay was suspended as of the date of attempted delivery.36 In the normal course of the mail, such attempt to deliver would have been made on June 15, 1953. Bernal's backpay will be tolled from that date. It does not appear that at any time before the end of the backpay period, as computed in the specifications, Bernal learned of the offer of reinstatement or sought to return to the Respondent, so there is not question of resuming it again later. Bernal's Backpay Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-3/31 I----------------------- $44 0 0 0 $44 II------------------------ 560 $288 0 $288 272 III------------------------ 586 432 0 432 154 IV------------------------ 586 408 0 408 178 Total, 1952-------------------------- 648 1953- I---------------- ------- 586 468 0 468 118 4/1-6/15 II--------------- -------- 545 389 0 389 156 Total, 1953 -------------------------- 274 Due under Schedule I--------------- 922 as See East Texas Steel Castings Company, Inc., 116 NLRB 1336, 1344-1345. 48 Jay Company, Inc, 103 NLRB 1645, enfd. 227 F. 2d 416 (C.A. 9). KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1245 Lovie I. Blakemore During the strike, in October and November 1951 , Blakemore and Ruth Keene, two of the discharged strikers, worked at Windsor Supply Co. Keene quit her job because she could not work at the pace required and Blakemore quit because Keene was her means of transportation . Keene, who was about 9 years older than Blake- more, died in 1954. According to Blakemore, if she be credited, she and Keene had looked for work thereafter, riding in Keene's car as long as it had gasoline and then walking from that time on . Blakemore did not, herself, have any other employ- ment before the last quarter of 1952, although she testified that she registered at unemployment offices in Van Nuys, North Hollywood , and Burbank between December 1951 and the time she was next employed toward the end of 1952. If Blakemore went looking all over for a job with Keene, it may be wondered -why she did not , like Keene, find employment at Jeanette Robinette Ceramics in North Hollywood in the first quarter of 1952. However, there is no evidence that an opening existed for more than one employee then. At one time in the late 1930's Blakemore had been an operator in a beauty parlor and had suffered "chemical poisoning" of her hands while giving cold waves , leaving the skin of her hands dry and scaly. She testified that this condition made it im- possible for her to work with anything chemical , and, to her, metallic aluminum was "chemical ." In the last quarter of 1952, through the unemployment office in Burbank, California, Blakemore got a job with Clear Beam Television Antennas Co. Atter working there for 5 hours, Blakemore told the man who employed her that she had a letter from her doctor saying that she could not work in chemicals, that she had had to come to Clear Beam "on account of the Employment Office," and that she could work no longer. She quit. On a later date , a man passed through the trailer court where Blakemore and her husband lived and asked if anyone there wanted work. Expecting to work on plastics, Blakemore took the job, which was at R & R Tool & Die Co. in Burbank. She testified that the work there was also on aluminum and that she quit after 8 hours, telling her employer that she had suffered with her hands for years and "I could not go through all that again." Blakemore was not again employed until September 17, 1953, when she got em- ployment at a Burbank school cafeteria , first as a helper and later as a cook. Her husband was employed as a custodian at the same school. At a time which was not fixed, but which I infer during the period of Blakemore's employment at the cafeteria , Blakemore's husband was seriously ill and had an operation. In the fall of 1954 Blakemore quit her job at the cafeteria because she had an attack of high blood pressure. She took sick leave but never returned, telling her supervisor that she could not do "that heavier work ." A suggestion from these facts is that Blakemore did not much want to work and took employment only at a time when her husband was unable to work himself. However, before I could make a finding that such was the fact I should need more evidence , especially evidence of the period of incapacity of Blakemore's husband. But in any event such evidence would be of only retroactive value, characterizing Blakemore's attitude toward employment during an earlier period, for I find that the Respondent's liability for backpay ter- minated on June 16, 1953, when Blakemore received the Respondent 's Hersey letter and did not reply thereto. On the evidence as it stands , I am not prepared to find that Blakemore failed to make an adequate search for employment or willfully incurred loss. In addition to registering at the unemployment office, Blakemore testified that she filed applica- tions for employment with Lockheed and Weber Aircraft in Burbank, had a tele- phone installed so she could answer calls and attempt to get work , and looked for work as often as 4 days -a week all day long, sometimes walking 5 miles or more a day. Blakemore admitted that she had handled aluminum cooking utensils in her job at the cafeteria but claimed that this was not as bad as the "raw" aluminum which she had to handle at Clear Beam and at R & R Tool & Die and that she was able to keep going in the school job by bathing her hands in oil at night. Although Blakemore was able to work for 2 months in 1951 at Windsor Supply where she handled aluminum, I am not in a position to determine without expert testimony what pain she may have suffered there or at Clear Beam or R & R. Respondent's counsel asked Blakemore if she would submit to an examination by Respondent's physician. Blakemore agreed, and counsel for Respondent stated that the examina- tion would be given . However, no further evidence was offered thereafter con- cerning Blakemore's condition or concerning her ability to withstand the handling of aluminum objects. Thus, although I suspect that Blakemore may not have sought work diligently and might have been able to keep the jobs she did obtain, 1246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I am not convinced that the Respondent has sustained its burden of proof to show willful loss.37 Blakemore testified that she did not accept the Respondent's offer of reinstatement because she had been told by a representative of the Union that conditions would be the same or worse. For reasons stated in section If, A, above, I find that the exist- ence of unrectified conditions, unrelated to any discrimination against Blakemore, does not deprive the offer of reinstatement of its effectiveness. As no evidence was offered to prove that Blakemore would have been available to work for the Respond- ent before the end of the strike, Blakemore's backpay period will run from March 25, 1952, to June 16, 1953. Blakemore's Backpay Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I------------------------ $49 0 0 0 $49 II------------------------ 649 0 0 0 649 III------------------------ 662 0 0 0 662 IV------------------------ 650 $14 0 $14 636 Total, 1952 -------------------------- --- ----T -- ---- ------------ ------------ 1,996 1953- I-------------- --------- 657 0 0 0 657 4/1-6/16 II------------------------ 561 0 0 0 561 Total, 1953-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,218 Due under Schedule I--------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 3,214 Mae Boggs Claim is made for Boggs for the period beginning on December 13, 1951, and ending on April 30, 1955. No showing was made that Boggs was available for employment by the Respondent before the end of the strike. Although at that time Boggs was in San Diego, living with her son and daughter-in-law, there is no evidence that she would not have returned to the Respondent's employ if an offer of reinstatement by the Respondent had been made to her. For about 3 weeks in October 1951 while the strike was still in progress, Boggs, was was then about 62 years old, procured employment at Clear Beam Television Antennas in Burbank, California, at a rate of pay higher than that received at the Respondent. Although Boggs' testimony was characterized by incomplete and indirect answers and lacked chronological continuity in places, I deduce that, while she was working at Clear Beam, she was informed by her daughter-in-law, who lived in San Diego and who apparently was chronically unwell, that the latter could use Boggs there. Boggs left her job at Clear Beam in October 1951 and went to Lemon Grove, a suburb of San Diego, to live with her son and daughter- in-law. On November 15, 1951, she registered for work at the State employment office in San Diego. Boggs testified that she did not apply for unemployment compensation but only for a job. However, whether or not she realized what she was doing, she filled out a form at that time entitled, "Notice of New Claim Filed, State of Calif. Dept. of Employment." In this form, Boggs gave the Respondent's name as that of her last employer instead of Clear Beam. In answer to the question appearing on this form, "Why did you leave your last employer?" Boggs stated, "Quit to move to San Diego," and in reply to "Date you left last employer" she wrote "6-10-S1." The Respondent sought to use these statements of Boggs for the purpose of showing that Boggs was not a striker but had quit the Respondent's employ a month before the strike to move to San Diego. I rejected an offer of proof by the Respondent to show that Boggs was not discharged by the Respondent, because her status as a discharged striker was not in issue,38 although as evidence 7 Alaska Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., 119 NLRB 663. sa The Respondent in its answer , amended answer, and amendment thereto in these proceedings failed to take issue with Boggs' status as a discharged striker. I note that Boggs' name was listed as an employee on the roster of employees as of July 8, 1951, in General 'Counsel's Exhibit No. 249 in the original hearing and that Boggs was one of those KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC . 1247 of Boggs' registration with the State employment office in San Diego, I received the claim form in evidence. Boggs returned to the State employment office in San Diego a week after her registration there and she testified that she "kept coming," but for how long does not appear. I infer that she meant that she returned periodically while she was in San Diego. In addition, she testified that she looked every place she could for work. Although this testimony is not specific, I find that, in the absence of any showing of willful loss, it suffices to show that Boggs was in the labor market and seeking work. At some time while in that area, Boggs moved to an address on Texas Street in San Diego, as Boggs testified, to be closer in, in case she got a job. It was this address that was listed for her in the third amended charge. At some time after midyear 1952, Boggs returned to Los Angeles to live with a daughter there. Evidence as to dates of her registration with the State employment office in the Los Angeles area is vague. I am unable to find that Boggs registered there in 1952 or at any time thereafter before 1954. She did, however, after her return to the Los Angeles area, seek work on her own and applied for work through a couple of private agencies. Through one of these she was able to get a 4 days' trial at California Plasteck, Inc., sometime during the third quarter of 1952, but at the end of the trial period, she was released. She found one other job in 1952 which lasted for 1 day. After that she was not again employed during the claim period. On June 13, 1953, the Respondent mailed to Boggs, at the address at which she lived on Texas Street in San Diego, a copy of the Hersey letter offering her reinstatement. As she had not lived there for nearly a year before it was mailed, Boggs did not receive it. I find, however, that it was the last address known to the Respondent and that it sufficed under the Board's doctrine to toll backpay from the date of attempted delivery. The latter date is not in evidence but I find that in the ordinary course of the mail delivery would have been attempted by Tuesday, June 16, 1953. Hence, I shall use that date as the final date for backpay. The Respondent may contend that Boggs suffered a willful loss by giving up her job at Clear Beam in October 1951 on the theory that if she had not quit there she might have been employed throughout the backpay period. No evidence was offered, however, from which this could be established as more than speculation. Inasmuch as the Respondent is not liable for backpay during the strike period, Boggs would have been under no obligation then to mitigate losses. On the facts presented, I find that the Respondent has failed to show that Boggs willfully incurred any loss during the period for which the Respondent is obliged to pay. Bogg's Backpay Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter 0 backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-3/31 ------------------------ $53 0 0 0 $53 II------------------------ 678 0 0 0 678 III------------------------ 681 $42 0 $42 639 IV------------------------ 664 0 0 0 664 Total, 1952-------------------------- 2, 034 1953- I------------------------ 695 0 0 0 695 4/1-6/16 II------------------------ 562 0 0 0 562 Total,1953-------------------------- Due under Schedule I--------------- 1,257 3,291 who received a discharged telegram. Even if Boggs' "notice of new claim" were admissible for the purpose for which the Respondent sought to make use of it, I should not find that the facts therein were binding. It appears to me that the form was filled in without a full realization of its nature and that the date "6-10-51" could easily have been an in- advertent mistake in the number of the month, and that it should have been "7-10-51." Furthermore, the Respondent was not Boggs' last employer, so obviously more than one error appeared therein. 1248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Alice Borquez (Voss) No claim is made for Borquez for backpay under Schedule I of the specifications but claim is made under Schedules III and V. On June 13, 1953, the Respondent sent Borquez a copy of the Hersey letter offering her reinstatement. The letter was apparently returned- undelivered. If the Re- spondent sent the letter to the last known address of Borquez, the Respondent's obligation for backpay would have been tolled as of the date of attempted delivery, but until an offer of reinstatement is received by the discriminatee the Respondent is not relieved of its obligation to reinstate the employee who has been discriminatorily discharged and who has been ordered reinstated 39 Borquez' employment record at the Respondent shows that she was rehired on September 25, 1953. Before she was reemployed, according to Borquez, she had a conversation with the day-shift foreman of the Respondent in which the latter told her that she would be hired as a new employee. She was started at the rate of 95 cents an hour, and on October 8 was raised to $1 an hour, although, if she had been reinstated as ordered, she would have been entitled to $1.15 throughout on the basis of her previous seniority.40 She remained with the Respondent only until October 23, 1953. The claim under section III is established in the amount of $32. As decided by the Board in its Findings and Order of October 15, 1957, the Respondent did not effectively deny the amounts due and owing under Schedule V of the specifications, subject only to the Respondent's contention that the parties named therein are not discriminatees entitled to relief under the court's decree. As I find that Borquez (Voss) is one of those who was discharged as found in the Board's original Decision and Order in this case, she is entitled to the relief claimed Due under Schedule III ------------------------------------------ $32 Due under Schedule V ------------------------------------------- 17 Total amount due to Borquez ------------------------------- 49 Rosalie Butera (Hainsworth) The Respondent did not contest, but conceded, this claimant's claim: Butera's Backpay Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952- I----------------- ------- $560 $421 0 $421 $139 II------------------------ 560 538 0 538 22 Total, 1952___ ----------------------- 161 Due under Schedule I_______________ 161 Jennie A. Carrisosa Carrisosa worked for a doll factory called Frances of Hollywood in the latter part of 1951. The work was seasonal and she was laid off in December. Following her layoff she went to the Union, which referred her to Weber Aircraft Corporation. Because of lack of requisite experience she was not hired. Thereafter Carrisosa sought work independently. She testified that in 1952 she twice applied to the Respondent for employment and was turned down. Later she corrected the date of her second application to the Respondent to January 1953. She never did, how- ever, fix the date of her first application and there is no means of determining whether it preceded or followed March 24, 1952, the date the strike ended. For 59 Jay Company, Inc, 103 NLRB 1645 at 1647. Borquez was one of those who was sent the discharge telegram on July 10, 1951, and her record shows as reason for her termina- tion, "Strike." to Columbia Pictures Corporation and Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc, et al., 82 NLRB 568 at 582. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1249 want of such proof, I have no reason to believe that, before the end of the strike, she was available for employment with the Respondent. Hence, I conclude that her backpay would not start before March 25, 1952. Evidence that Carrisosa may have made efforts to procure employment were not given in detail for the period between March 25, 1952, and her second employment by Frances of Hollywood. As the latter usually had periods of production before the Christmas and before the Easter seasons, inquiry might have been made by counsel to determine whether or not Carrisosa had had an opportunity to work for Frances of Hollywood before Easter in 1952 and turned it down. But whether or not Frances of Hollywood was in production before Easter in 1952 does not appear and it does not appear that, if there was production, it would have continued after March 25, 1952. The burden of proof is on the Respondent to show willful loss or inadequate efforts to procure interim employment.41 In this case I find no such evidence of willful loss or with- drawal from the labor market in the first half of 1952 as would justify suspension of backpay. After reemployment by Frances of Hollywood in July 1952, Carrisosa, in the last few days of the month, had to quit for reasons of health, and she was out of the labor market unitl sometime early in January 1953, when she was released by her doctor. In this month she made application for work with the Respondent without avail and sought work at several other places before she got a job with United States Flare Corporation in the last of January or first of February. While working at the last-mentioned job, Carrisosa caught a chest cold and quit working. She was out about 1 week before she got a doctor's release around March 1. She did not, however, return to United States Flare, and there is no evidence that during March 1953 she sought any employment at all. I conclude that for the balance of the first quarter she withdrew herself from the labor market. No claim is made for the second quarter of 1953. The specifications compute Carrisosa's pay on the basis of a complete quarter for the first 3 months of 1953. In the face of the evidence I do not believe she should be entitled to backpay for March 1953. Likewise the specifications made no deduction from backpay for the week that Carrisosa was out with a chest cold. The General Counsel's theory is that Carrisosa's cold resulted from working conditions at United States Flare which did not exist at the Respondent. Whereas at the Respondent Carrisosa could eat lunch in the plant at noon, at the United States Flare she was required, whether she brought her lunch or bought it, to eat at the company cafeteria in a separate building and to go out in the open in order to reach the cafeteria. There was a great deal of rain during that period, and it is the General Counsel's theory that the requirement of going out in the open at lunchtime in rainy weather was the cause of Carrisosa's illness and that she would not have contracted that illness had she been working at the Respondent's plant where she could remain inside at noon. I believe that this theory depends too much on speculation if not on a false premise. The evidence does not negative the possibility that the virus infection contracted by Carrisosa might have come from persons having no connection with her employer-that it might have come from persons in her own home or from persons in markets where she may have been shopping or in places of amusement. Hence, I cannot conclude that Carrisosa would in any event have been available for employment with the Re- spondent during that week. Accordingly, I shall exclude from the backpay period the last 5 weeks of the first quarter of 1953. At sometime after her illness, whether in April or July 1953 is not clear,42 Carrisosa returned to Frances of Hollywood and was there until she received a letter inviting her to return to the Respondent. The identity of the letter and the date of receipt is not established. Carrisosa could not remember whether it was either of two forms of letters in evidence, one dated June 12, 1953, and the other dated July 30, 1953, but she denied having received more than one. She testified that, upon receipt of the letter, she went at once to talk with Walter Cook, the Respondent's personnel manager, that she talked with him on a Thursday and re- turned to the Respondent's employ on the following Monday. The Respondent's records indicate that she was reemployed on August 10, 1953. The Respondent introduced in evidence a return receipt purporting to show that one Frank S. Carrisosa, Jr., had, on June 16, 1953, receipted for a registered letter addressed to Jennie Carrisosa. However, Jennie Carrisosa was not asked to identify the signature 41 Alaska Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America , Inc., 119 NLRB 663, footnote 21. 42 It is immaterial, as no claim is made for the second quarter of 1953 1250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the signer and it is not even clear that the signer dated the receipt 43 The post- mark on the return receipt is illegible. Proof of mailing Respondent's letters to a long list of employees was offered by the testimony of one of several employees who addressed letters. The testimony creates an inference that the Respondent actually mailed an offer of reinstatement to Carrisosa in June. The Respondent made no effort to prove that it had not sent to Carrisosa a copy of the July 30 letter, a letter sent to certain employees who had responded to the Hersey letter but had not been immediately reinstated, notifying them to report for work in August. On all the evidence I conclude that Carrisosa accepted the Respondent's offer of reinstatement but was not actually reinstated until August 10. Hence, Carrisosa's backpay will be computed to early August 1953 as shown on the specifications. .. When she was interviewed by Cook, according to Carrisosa's testimony, Cook told her that the CIO was in the plant and that she would have to join it in 30 days. Carrisosa accepted employment anyway. - Schedule III of the specifications shows that the Respondent did not pay Car- risosa the rate she allegedly should have received after her reemployment by the Respondent. The Board in its Findings and Order of October 15, 1957, found that the Respondent's amended answer did not deny the figures shown in Schedule III but only denied that it owed the amounts as a result of discrimination and the Respondent at the hearing stated that it was willing to concede the figures to be correct if it was not held to admit a discriminatory cause. Without finding that the Respondent withheld from Carrisosa any amount due because of a discriminatory intent, I find that the amount shown in Schedule III, $80, is due and owing to Car- risosa by virtue of the Board's original Decision and Order and by virtue of the court decree. Also owing is $30 vacation pay under Schedule V of the specifications. Carrisosa's Backpay Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-31 I------------------------- - $56 0 0 0 $56 II------------------------- 718 0 0 0 718 III------------------------- 232 0 0 0 232 Total,1952-------------------------- ----------- ------------ ------------ ----=------- 1.006 1953-1/1-2/21 I------------------------ 411 $154 0 $154 257 7/1-8/10 III------------------------ 257 232 0 232 25 Total, 1953-------------------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- 282 Due under Schedule I--------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ----------- 1,288 Due under Schedule III------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ so Due under Schedule V-------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 30 Total due--- -------- -------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,398 Ursula Cioni No claim is made for backpay for Cioni before March 23, 1953. She had been employed by Gladding McBean & Co. in August 1951 and took maternity leave of absence on May 8, 1952. She returned from maternity leave on March 25, 1953, according to that company's records, and worked until April 23, 1953, when she took an "illness leave of absence" which was to expire on May 23, 1953. Her employee status there was terminated on June 4, 1953, but she was rehired on October 20, 1953, and left again on February 22, 1954, because she lost her baby sitter. Claim is made for backpay for the remainder of 1954 as well as for the period in 1953 after March 23, but for the reasons given hereafter I believe it is unnecessary to resolve the issues concerning backpay in 1954. 43 On the dateline between "June 16" and "1953" there appears to be a name or initials suggesting that someone else besides the signer dated the card. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1251 On June 13, 1953, the Respondent sent to Cioni at her correct address a copy- of the Hersey letter offering her reinstatement. Although Cioni testified that she. could not remember having received it, she testified that the signature on the return receipt therefor looked like that of her husband. The receipt was dated, June 15, 1953. I find that the Hersey letter was received at Cioni's address on June 15, 1953. Cioni obviously did not accept the offer. The respondent's backpay obliga- tion, therefore, did not extend beyond June 15, 1953.44 By dividing the amount shown as earned by Cioni by the number of days she. worked from March 25 to April 23, 1953, I figure that she was earning about $1.56. an hour at the time. Cioni testified that she thought she was receiving $1.30 an hour at Gladding McBean. I infer that if her rate had been that, it was increased before March 1953 or that she earned overtime pay. Either rate, however, would have exceeded the rate that she would have been receiving from the Respondent at that time 45 It is the General Counsel's contention that Cioni is entitled to backpay for the full second and third quarters of 1953 because the work at Gladding McBean was heavier than it had been at the Respondent's and was too strenuous for Cioni on account of postnatal weakness which would not have prevented her from handling the lighter work at the Respondent's plant (assembly) where she had been able to sit down or stand as she pleased. As I have found that the Respondent's liability was terminated on June 15, 1953, the only issue presented is whether or not Cioni is entitled to backpay for the time preceding that date and within the claim period. Cioni testified that when she quit at Gladding McBean in 1953, following her re- turn there after the birth of her child, she looked for other work "similar to Knicker- bocker, a little on the lighter side, rather than heavy tile work." Although she testified that she "went out looking for work two or three times a week" and named areas and some places where she had sought work, she did not testify that she com- menced looking for work immediately after leaving Gladding McBean. In July or August 1953, Cioni tried to get back her job at Gladding McBean. Her "illness, leave of absence" having expired, she could not then have returned as a matter of right. She testified that, after she had called there a few times, her foreman finally had an opening (in October). So far as the record shows, Cioni's search for work two or three times a week could all have followed her attempt to return to Cladding McBean. She testified that she went to the State employment office in Glendale, but the date is not in evidence and she was not asked whether or not she registered there or kept her registration, if any, active. She testified merely that they did not send her on any jobs. She did not apply for unemployment compensation, she testi- fied, because she knew she "couldn't get any," as she had not made "enough earnings for the year." I am not convinced that, between April 23, 1953, when Cioni quit at Gladding McBean, and June 15, 1953, the date of the termination of the Respondent's liability for backpay, she made diligent effort to find other employment. I am satisfied that Cioni received the Respondent's reinstatement offer in June 1953. If, as she testi- fied, she had been looking for "work similar to Knickerbocker, a little on the lighter side," she in all probability would have responded to the Respondent's offer, but obviously she did not. Furthermore, I am not completely satisfied that Cioni quit at Gladding McBean in April 1953 because she was still too weak following child- birth. In the first place, the record nowhere gives the date when the child was born. So far as appears, it could have been born 5 or 6 months or more before March 25, 1953. Before returning to Gladding McBean on March 25, 1953, Cioni had been. out on maternity leave for 101/2 months. It seems improbable that this period of time did not include an adequate recuperative period. But when she did return, if she had been too weak to do the work, that weakness would have been apparent in, the first few days after her resumption of work, yet she apparently was able to do the work for 4 weeks before quitting.46 41 N L R B. v. Jay Company, Inc., 227 F. 2d 416 (C.A. 9). 45 The specifications claim $45 for the period between March 23 and 31 with no interim, earnings. Presumably Cioni would have been paid in April for that period worked at either the interim employer or the Respondent. I consider, therefore , that they offset each other. 46 A notation in the company 's records regarding the illness leave of absence starting April 23, 1953, states "Doctor's orders," but the record does not disclose the source of that information. It may have been Cioni's explanation to her foreman for asking an illness leave of absence and may or may not have been true. Likewise, if there were• 614913-62-vol. 132-80 1252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD For the period during which Cioni was in the labor market in March and April 1953 (that is, while working at Gladding McBean), her net earnings (allowing for this purpose the deductible expenses claimed) exceeded the amount she would have earned at the Respondent during the same period.47 On the entire record, there- fore, I find that Cioni has no backpay coming to her. Lettie A. Clifton Clifton was 55 years old at the time the strike began. She was never again em- ployed by any employer. Married and living with her husband, who was working, she failed to register at the California State employment office. She testified that she failed to do so because she did not know that she could apply for a job without apply- ing for unemployment compensation and that she thought she was ineligible for the latter because she had gone out on strike. Even at the end of the strike she did not register with that office, whether through ignorance of her rights or indifference is not too clear. Shortly after the commencement of the strike , Clifton sought the assistance of the Union in getting a job. The Union referred her to a prospective job on Los Angeles Street in Los Angeles. The name of the prospective employer, address, type of business, and other details are lacking. Clifton merely described the location as away out on Los Angeles Street. This would best describe a short interrupted segment of that street lying between 58th and 59th Streets, south of the downtown area. According to available evidence, this means that Clifton would have had to board a streetcar at the northern limits of Los Angeles, from where, under normal traffic conditions it would have taken 40 minutes to reach the downtown area; then she would have had to continue on for an estimated 35 or 40 minutes to Slaussen Boulevard. She should, additionally, have had to walk or ride a connecting line for about 4 blocks at the employer's end. Clifton described the trip as taking more than 11/2 hours 48 but whether or not that time estimate was limited to the streetcar ride or included the walk or connecting ride at the end is uncertain . It is uncertain also under what traffic and weather conditions she made the trip. When she reached the employer, she was offered a job, but she declined it because of the distance from her home. There is no evidence as to whether or not the job would have been a full-time job or whether or not it was for a temporary or indefinite time. It is the Respondent's position that all the discharged employees not only should have accepted any offered employment anywhere in the entire Los Angeles basin as far south as Long Beach and as far north as Sunland and San Fernando, with a similar distance east and west, wherever there was transportation, but should actively have searched for work in that entire area. I am not prepared to accept this proposition as a generality regardless of individual circumstances . Taking into account Clifton's age and sex, the fact that adverse weather and traffic conditions might substantially increase the normal travel time required to go from Clifton's house to the location described on Los Angeles Street, and the fact that Clifton was married and could not, as easily as a single person , pick up and move to a location nearer to a new job, I am not persuaded that she acted unreasonably in declining the offer of the afore- mentioned job in 1951.49 Although Clifton did not register with the State employment office, she made a daily search for work, read newspaper advertisements and telephoned in response to them , and personally visited numerous places within a traveling distance com- parable to that between her home and the Respondent's plant. Her age was against her at most places. If she was not turned down on account of her age, she returned to some of the closer business places repeatedly to learn if prospects of getting a job there had improved. The fact that Clifton had been steadily employed for 9 years, the last 4 at the Respondent's before her discharge by the Respondent, tends to support her testimony that she really wanted to work and sought a job. On June 15, 1953, Clifton received from the Respondent the Hersey letter offering her unconditional reinstatement. Upon receipt of the letter, Clifton telephoned the orders from a doctor, there is no evidence that they had any connection with a postnatal condition 47 Cioni's receipts from Cladding McBean in April 1953 for work performed between March 25 and April 23 were $275 For a comparable period at the Respondent she would have received in April $217 48 This contrasts with 30 minutes it took her to reach the Respondent's plant from her home. 49 See Garcia v. California Emp Stab. Com, 71 CA 2d 107, 161 P 2d 972. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1253 Respondent, spoke with an unidentified office girl , and asked to speak to Hersey. The girl told Clifton that Hersey was not in. Clifton said she was calling in response to a letter she had received and would like to speak with Hersey and learn what he had to offer. Clifton testified that she gave the office girl her name and telephone number. This was her last communication with the Respondent. The letter which Clifton received was clear enough on its face and , on the evidence, I see no reason ,to place on the Respondent the burden of repeating its offer. Clifton had the choice of accepting the offer or not. As she did not accept it, I find that the Respondent's ,liability for backpay was terminated on June 15, 1953. No evidence was offered by ithe General Counsel to show that Clifton would have returned to the Respondent's ,employ before the end of the strike . I shall therefore compute her backpay as commencing on March 25, 1952. Although the gross backpay figures include a calculation of time off for illness, they do not include time off for absences for other reasons. In 1952 Clifton was unavailable for employment for about a week when her mother-in -law died. It does not appear at what time of the year this occurred . In the absence of such evidence, I shall deduct the time from the end of the first quarter of the year, thus eliminating any backpay for that quarter. According to the Respondent's amended answer, the specifications overestimated Clifton's gross backpay for the second quarter of 1953 by nearly $100. The General Counsel contests ,this claim of Respondent. The Respondent's figure appears to be the same as is shown in Exhibit No. 1B of the specifications . That figure either does not include pay for the full quarter, as is alleged by the General Counsel, or omits overtime pay figured under Exhibit No. 2 of the specifications . That overtime would have been payable in the second quarter of 1953 appears from the Respondent 's computation of backpay for Goff and Rounsavell shown in Exhibit No . 1D of the specifications . The Respond- ent's answer offers no explanation of the figure shown in its amended answer. I find that the specifications showing Clifton's gross backpay are correct . This figure is used below in prorating Clifton's pay. Clifton's Backpay Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952- II------------------------ $560 0 0 0 $560 III------------------------ 586 0 0 0 586 IV----------------------- 586 0 0 0 586 Total, 1952------------------------- 1, 732 1953- 1------------------------- 586 0 0 0 586 4/1-6/15 II- ----------------------- 532 0 0 0 532 Total,1953-------------------------- 1,118 Due under Schedule I--------------- 2, 850 Elsie Contreras - In December 1951 , Contreras had a job with Clear Beam Television Antennas in Burbank. She kept the job until about April 23, 1952,50 when she quit. In her testimony she gave varied explanations for quitting. At first she testified that she quit because she was afraid to run a punch press after witnessing an accident in which a boy lost several fingers on the punch press. Then, while still being ex- amined by counsel for the General Counsel , she volunteered that she quit because she was making only 90 cents an hour for the 6 months that she was at Clear Beam and that she could not recall how long it was after the above -mentioned accident that she quit . On cross-examination, she mentioned only the aforementioned acci- so Her rate of pay was 90 cents an hour and she received $122 50 in the second quarter, which means she worked for 17 days at 8 hours a day In that quarter. 1254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dent as the reason for quitting.51 I conclude that the low rate of pay was an under- lying cause for her quitting and that her witnessing of accidents precipitated her ac- tion in quitting at the time she did. Contreras appeared to be a sensitive and some- what timid individual and, whether or not her fear was justified, her quitting for the- reason given is not unjustifiable53 How long she was out of work thereafter does not appear, but clearly she did not remove herself from the labor market. She testified that she looked for work, going by bus three or four times a week. At some point in the second quarter, she got a job with Wallace Slade, a manufacturer- of rubber toys, at a rate of $1 or more. Since the time interval between the jobs does not appear and since Contreras obtained work at a higher rate of pay than she had been receiving at Clear Beam, the Respondent is not in a position to claim. that backpay should be terminated because of Contreras' quitting at Clear Beam.53 She testified that she left Wallace Slade because Slade was impatient with the girls, yelled at them, and made them nervous, and that six or seven girls quit while she was working there. From her earnings, I judge that she was employed there less. than 2 weeks. I conclude that the job may have required more skill than that- possessed by Contreras. Contreras testified vaguely that she registered at the California State employment office "in 1951 or 1952" in San Fernando, that she went there two or three times but mostly looked on her own, and that at sometime between 1951 and 1955 she got unemployment compensation. In the third quarter of 1952, Contreras was employed at Howe Foundry & Machine Co. Whether this employment preceded or followed a job at Pacific Mercury Television Manufacturing Corporation is not clear. In any event, Contreras worked at Howe Foundry for several weeks until she was laid' off. She kept the job at Pacific Mercury in Van Nuys only 2 days while she had the benefit of a ride to work with a friend. The next day, she testified, she tried to get there by bus but found that schedules were not such as would enable her to reach work at 7:30 a.m. as required.54 Having examined bus schedules in evidence, I conclude that, while bus schedules from Van Nuys toward San Fernando Road,. funneling into Los Angeles, were frequent, those in the opposite direction in the morning were not favorable. Furthermore, Contreras lived in Pacoima and would have had to take two buses on different lines, and Contreras testified that she could' not make connections at the junction point which would enable her to reach Pa- cific Mercury by 7:30 a.m. I find no willful loss incurred by Contreras in quitting this job. In the fourth quarter of 1952, Contreras was employed at three different em- ployers. Of one of these she recalled nothing except that she may have worked, there. She had probably worked at this place for no more than 3 days in the fourth quarter of 1952, anyway, judging from her reported pay. Whether before or after this short employment the record is not clear, but she got a job with Landsverk Electrometer Co., and held it for the better part of that quarter of 1952. She testi- fied that she voluntarily gave up this job because it became too complicated for her- Having observed the witness, I would judge that her education and level of intelli- gence would not fit her for more than routine work of an uncomplicated nature such as she performed while employed by the Respondent. Hence, I credit her testimony that she was unable to choose combinations of dies necessary to form particular molds as required in her job at Landsverk. I find no willful loss therefore as a re- sult of her leaving this job. Following her employment at Landsverk, Contreras went to a private employment agency and got a job with Western Lace & Line Co. She paid a fee to the em- ployment agency which is allowed.55 Her work at Western was to watch over them m On cross-examination she testified that she left Clear Beam because every week some- one got hurt, that a boy had five fingers cut off and that later another girl lost a thumb. Then she testified that she left right after the boy got hurt She failed to explain how, if she left then, she learned about the girl who later lost her thumb. It is possible, of course, that she learned of It by hearsay later. 52 East Texas Steel Castings Company, Inc., 116 NLRB 1336, 1367 Ea East Texas Steel Castings Company, Inc, ibid., 1364 "From her pay, I conclude that, if she worked more than 2 days, it was not over 2 or 2% hours. If Contreras did, as she testified, go to Pacific Mercury the third day, she- apparently quit or was discharged before the end of the day. It appears likely that she arrived late the third day and was paid off when she informed her supervisor that she was unable to get to work on time by bus. sa The specifications put this expense in the third quarter of 1952 Contreras' testi- mony was that she paid the fee while at Western Lace & Line and mentioned no other fee I shall put it in the fourth quarter of 1952, instead of in the third quarter KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC . 1255 operation of five machines at a time, keeping them running and, if any stopped, rectify whatever caused it to stop. Contreras testified that she was unable to keep up with all the machines and would get blamed if anything went wrong. She was released by the employer. I conclude that Contreras was not agile or skilled enough to perform the job to the satisfaction of her employer. The job was not comparable to that which she had held at the Respondent and I find no reason to toll backpay because of her discharge at Western. This job did, however, last some- thing over 3 weeks, going into the first quarter of 1953. Although Contreras worked at three different places in the last quarter of 1952, I note that her compensation would indicate that she lost little time between jobs. After the Western Lace & Line job, Contreras got a job at Ply-Mold Co., in the first quarter of 1953,56 handling Fiberglas insulation. She gave this job up after 2 weeks or so because, she complained, she was unable to sleep nights because the Fiberglas got on her arms and made her itch, and she could not get it off. Contreras' next job was with Waval-Thermal, a manufacturer of shampoo and hair wave products, where she packed and filled bottles by machine. This job she held during the second quarter and most of the third, when she was laid off with other girls, presumably because of lack of work. Although the finding will not affect the computation, I note that she returned to Waval in the second quarter of 1954 and remained there for the balance of the claim period covered by the specifications (in the second quarter of 1955), indicating that she was willing to remain and capable ,of remaining in one place when the work was not too complicated for her 57 On June 16, 1953, Contreras received from the Respondent a copy of the Hersey letter offering her reinstatement. At this time she was working for Waval and ap- parently was satisfied to remain because she did not respond to the Respondent's offer. From her work record, her testimony, her attitude on the witness stand, and all the evidence, I conclude that Contreras wanted and sought work and that she would have had steadier employment in jobs where the conditions were more nearly com- parable to those at the Respondent. Accordingly, I find that Conrteras did not willfully incur any loss. However,"as no evidence was adduced to show that she would have abandoned the strike and been available to the Respondent before March 25, 1952, and as she failed to return when a bona fide offer of reinstatement was made to her, I shall compute her backpay as beginning on March 25, 1952, and end- ing on June 16, 1953. Contreras' Backpay Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-31 I________________________ $53 $36 0 $36 $17 II________________________ 678 198 0 198 480 III________________________ 581 186 0 186 495 IV________________________ 664 485 $28 457 207 Total, 1952-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ----------- 1,199 1953- I__________________________ 695 136 0 136 559 4/1-6/16 II 562 ---- 442 ---- 0 -- 442 120 Total, 1953-------------------------- ------------ ------------ - ------------ ------------ 679 Due under Schedule I--------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,878 Due under Schedule V-------------------- ------------ --- ---- 42 Total due--------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,920 51 The time interval between jobs does not appear. w In this regard I also note that she was employed by the Respondent for something like 2 years before the strike, 1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Socorro Corona No claim was made for any backpay for Corona before January 1, 1955. Before that date, to wit, on June 13, 1953, the Respondent sent to Corona, at her last known address, a copy of the Hersey letter, offering her reinstatement. Corona positively denied receipt of a letter from the Respondent offering her reinstatement. When shown a copy of the Hersey letter and asked if she received it, she testified that she could not remember. The Respondent introduced in evidence a return receipt bearing Corona's admitted signature and the same registry number as was shown on the Respondent's post office application for registration opposite Corona's name. This application is one which was prepared for mailing of the Hersey letter. I find that the Hersey letter was sent to and received by Corona, who did not thereafter get in touch with the Respondent. I find, therefore, that nothing is due to Corona for backpay. Benedetta Corrao 58 Corrao was one of the strikers named in the third amended charge 59 who was not also named on General Counsel's Exhibit No. 244 in the original hearing as one to whom a discharge telegram was sent. However, following the Board's Findings and Order of October 15, 1957, requiring the Respondent to identify those of the claimants that it contended were not discharged strikers, the Respondent in its amendment to its amended answer neither named Corrao nor furnished any expla- nation as to why it was unable to furnish information concerning her discharge. The Respondent moved before me to be allowed to amend its amendment to its amended answer so as to include Corrao in the list of names already there. I had previously offered the Respondent an opportunity to amend as to a number of claim- ants on condition that, in this amendment, it be stated what the Respondent's records showed with reference to their termination. The Respondent failed to avail itself of this opportunity. Because of that, I denied the Respondent's motion to amend as to Corrao without the furnishing of such information. On the record as it stands, Corrao is not denied to be a discharged striker entitled to backpay. No evidence was adduced to show that Corrao was available for employment by the Respondent before the end of the strike' on March 24, 1952. Her backpay will, therefore, accrue from 'March 25, 1952. At this time she was unemployed and looking for work. Her efforts consisted of telephoning prospective employers and traveling around the area of Glendale and Pasadena by bus and streetcar. By calculating the number of days she worked in the second quarter of 1952 from her rate of pay, total earnings, and testimony of intervals between jobs, I conclude that she obtained employment at Palm Footwear, Inc., in Glendale, in early April 1952. However, she quit this job for no reason given after a few days and did not get another job until about 2 weeks later at H. K. Driscoll Engineering in Glendale. As the burden is on the Respondent to show willful losses and as the Respondent did not show that Corrao's quitting at Palm was not justified, I make no deduction because of her quitting. I deduce that Corrao got her job at Driscoll on April 28, 1952, and remained there for the balance of the second quarter. Then she quit because of the illness of her mother and was out of the labor market for about 6 weeks, at the end of which time she returned and procured a job with the Weather- head Co., where she worked, except for a layoff in 1955, until the end of the alleged backpay period. No claim is made for backpay after the second quarter of 1952 until the first quarter of 1955, during which the layoff just mentioned -occurred. Corrao had not been recalled by Weatherhead until after the end of the backpay period on April 30, 1955. As there is no evidence that the Respondent ever offered Corrao reinstatement before 1955, I shall include the 1955 period shown in the specifications in computing her backpay. During the period of the layoff from Weatherhead, Corrao searched for work by bus or streetcar two or three times a ss Spelled "Carrao" In some places in the specifications. ss Her name was misspelled, but her address as there shown was correct That portion of the transcript of the original hearing in which the General Counsel took the position that all employees named in the third amended charge were strikers was not certified to the court. Corrao's name was on the roster of employees of July 8, 1951, as shown on General Counsel's Exhibit No. 249 in the original hearing. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1257 week. She testified that in this way she incurred expense of about $1 a day searching for work. However, her testimony did not make it clear that this was an everyday expense rather than a day's expense incurred on the 2 or 3 days each week when she used bus or streetcar transportation. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the $46 claimed as expense in 1955, which appears to be based on 46 days of layoff between late February and the end of April in 1955, is excessive, especially as no expenses can be claimed for the second quarter, in which no interim earnings are shown. I shall therefore reduce the amount of expense claimed to $15. Corrao's Backpay Period Interim earnings Gross Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible Net backpay expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I------------------------- $53 0 0 0 $53 II------------------------- 678 ----- $383 --- 0 --- $383 ------ 295 Total, 1952------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ - 348 1955- I------------------------- 896 282 $15 267 629 II------------------------- 282 --- 0 ----- 0 -- 0 - 282 Total, 1955-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ - 911 Due under Schedule I--------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,259 Audrey Crain Claim is made for Crain for backpay under Schedule I, with excepted periods, and for hospital and medical expenses incurred in the first quarter of 1953 and the second quarter of 1954. As there is no evidence that Crain would have been avail- able for employment by the Respondent before the end of the strike, I compute her backpay as beginning on March 25, 1952. At this time Crain was unemployed and looking for work. She sought assistance of the Union and the State employ- ment office and in addition searched on her own initiative. In the second quarter of 1952 she got a job with Duratile of the West, in Los Angeles, and remained there until the plant closed for a 2-week vacation period in the third quarter of 1952. Crain again went to the State employment office, which sent her to Permoflux Corporation, where she got a job in the same quarter. She continued at Permoflux until the first quarter of 1953. On March 13, 1953, Crain took time off for part of the day to go to a doctor about sinus trouble and on her way back to work she stopped at Gladden Products Corporation in Glendale and procured a job at a higher rate of pay. She started there on March 16, 1953. I find no willful loss incurred by Crain. Counsel for the Respondent did not ask Crain if she had received the Hersey letter nor did he ask her to identify her signature on a return receipt bearing date of June 15, 1953, but on the Respondent's case, he introduced in evidence the several sheets listing the names and addresses of employees on a post office request for return receipt for registered mail. This was established to be the list used for sending out the Hersey letter on June 13, 1953. Crain's name was listed thereon with the same registration number shown on the return receipt card bearing her name (if not signature) and the date of June 15, 1953. The address to which the Hersey letter was sent was the same as the address listed for Crain in the third amended charge. I consider this prima facie proof of the fact that the Hersey letter, offering Crain reinstatement, was sent by the Respondent to Crain at her last known address. I find that this terminated the Respondent's obligation for backpay after June 15, 1953. That portion of the claim under Schedules I and II which follows that date is there- fore disallowed. 1258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Crain's Backpay Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I------------------------ $53 0 0 0 $53 II------------------------ 678 $167 0 $167 511 III------------------------ 681 443 0 443 238 IV------------------------ 664 528 0 528 136 Total, 1952-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 938 1953- I I------------------------ 374 226 0 226 148 II------------------------ (') Total, 1953-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ----------- 148 Due under Schedule I--------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,086 -Due under Schedule II-------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 287 Total due--------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,373 *No claim. Donna Danner No claim is made for backpay for Danner until June 11, 1952. That is approxi- mately the date she returned to the labor market following an operation early that year. About that time in June, Danner registered at the California State -employment office. Thereafter she reported there almost every day. Independently, she answered help wanted advertisements, called the Union, and went about apply- ing for work at various business houses. Through the employment office she secured a job at Central Electronics in Los Angeles in late August 1952 and continued -to work there until May 1953. At this work she incurred expense of $15 for aprons and tools. In May 1953, work at Central Electronics was beginning to get slack, and it looked to Danner as though the business would not survive; so she quit to -look for other work. In a few days she obtained another job, this time at Electronic Specialty, also in Los Angeles. She retained this job until August 1953, when she left it for a better paying job which lasted for 3 years, long after the end of the claim period. On June 17, 1953, Danner received from the Respondent a copy of the Hersey letter offering her reinstatement. She did not respond, choosing not to accept the offer. I find that this offer terminated the Respondent's liability for backpay after June 17, 1953. The Respondent sought to establish that Danner had a nervous disposition which kept her from retaining a job for any substantial time and that this, rather than the reasons given by Danner, caused her unnecessarily to give up gainful employment and cause willful loss. I find no merit in this contention. I note that Danner had worked for the Respondent for about 5 years before her discharge in 1951. Except for the period from June to August 1952, while she was looking for work, she was steadily employed between August 1952 and March 1956, except for, at most, a few days between jobs. I find that Danner was justified in leaving Central Electronics even for a lower paying job in order to be assured of steady work. In addition to the backpay due her, Danner has a right to hospital and medical payments in the amount of $417 under Schedule II of the specifications. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. Danner's Backpay 1259 Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-6/11-6/30 II----------------------- $152 0 0 0 $152 III----------------------- 690 $350 $15 $335 335 IV----------------------- 678 629 0 629 49 Total, 1952 -------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 556 1953- I------------------------ 685 676 0 676 9 4/1-6/17 II------------------------- 595 451 0 451 144 Total, 1953 -------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 153 Due under Schedule I--------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 709 Due under Schedule II-------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 417 Total due- -------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,126 Esther S. Delgado (imperial) No evidence was adduced to show that Delgado was available for employment by the Respondent before the end of the strike on March 24, 1952. Her backpay will be computed from March 25, 1952. At this time and until sometime in October 1952, when the business closed down, Delgado was working at Home Foundry & Machine Co.80 While working there, Delgado spent 50 cents a week more for transportation than she had at the Respondent. After termination of her employment in October 1952, Delgado registered at the Union and at the unemployment office for work and two or three times a week drove her own car to different communities in San Fernando Valley, including Glendale, Burbank, Van Nuys, North Hollywood, and the town of San Fernando looking for work. Claim is made for $1.50 a day while looking for work. Delgado testified that this was based on a $1 a day cost of gasoline and 50 cents for lunch while driving around, and occasionally a little more for oil for her car. The cost of lunch is not properly chargeable to the Respondent as she presumably paid for her lunch whsle working there. I am unable to compute the deductible items to reach the figures shown in Schedule I and have recomputed them on the basis of 50 cents a week during the time she was employed up to mid-October 61 and an average of $2.50 a week for the time that she was employed, since she sometimes went out looking for work twice and sometimes three times a week. In February 1953, Delgado got a job at Pacific Mercury, but she was employed there for only about 31/2 weeks and then was laid off. She again made a search for work, incurring expenses in the amount previously mentioned. In April 1953, with a friend, Delgado returned to the Respondent, asked a woman in the personnel department if they were hiring, and when she received an affirmative reply, she and her friend filled out applications on which was listed, among other information, Delgado's current residence address. When she noticed from the information given on Delgado's application that Delgado had worked for the Respondent up to ea Part of the time when, according to Delgado 's testimony, she was working at this concern, her wages appear to have been charged to Atec Controls. Delgado did not remem- ber having worked for the latter. I note from the social security, schedule in evidence that the two businesses are next door to each other. Delgado spoke of Home Foundry as Howe Foundry apparently after the owner. The social security schedule shows William E Howe and George Silliman as the proprietors of Atec I conclude that her employment was continuous until she ceased working for both of these concerns. e1 On the basis of her earnings , I figure that Delgado was laid off on October 23, 1952, and that her next job started in the latter part of February 1953. 1260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the time of the strike, the interviewer questioned Delgado, asking, "You were here at the time of the strike ?" Delgado replied that she had been , whereupon the interviewer said, "Well, I'm sorry, you can't be rehired . That is company rules." However, speaking to Delgado 's friend, the interviewer said that she could start working if she wanted to. Apparently soon after this, Delgado got employment at Bardwell & McAllister, Inc., in Burbank and worked there until near the end of the third quarter of 1954. In June 1953, the Respondent sent Delgado a copy of the Hersey letter , offering her reinstatement , but this was sent to an address at which Delgado was not shown to have lived. Even if Delgado had ever lived there , that was not the last known address for Delgado, for her 1953 address was shown in her application for employ- ment at the Respondent in April 1953 . Delgado never received the letter. 1 find that backpay should not be tolled by the mailing of the Hersey letter to Delgado. In the third quarter of 1954 Delgado was laid off at Bardwell & McAllister. She testified that it was weeks before she got her next job, during which time she registered at the unemployment office and made an extensive search for work, but looking at her earnings for the third quarter, one sees little room for lost time. In late September 1954 Delgado got a job at Carol Campbell Enterprises , Inc., in North Hollywood and she was still working there when she was recalled by Bardwell & McAllister. She returned there and continued until April 30 , 1955, the end of the backpay period. The evidence shows that throughout the backpay period, when she was out of work, Delgado made reasonable search for work and incurred no willful losses. Delgado's Backpay Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I------------------------ $50 $40 $1 $39 $11 II------------------------ 655 340 8 332 323 III------------------------ 662 448 8 440 222 IV------------------------ 650 164 25 139 511 Total, 1952 -------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,067 1953- I------------------------ 657 153 25 128 529 II------------------------ 663 528 0 528 135 III------------------------ 727 520 0 520 207 IV------------------------ 736 676 0 676 60 Total, 1953 -------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ----------- 931 1954- I------------------------ 792 593 0 593 199 II------------------------ 777 529 0 529 248 III------------------------ 789 620 0 620 169 IV------------------------ 776 591 0 591 185 Total, 1954-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- ------------ 801 1955- I I- ------------------------ 848 605 0 605 243 4/1-4/30 II------------------------- 277 201 0 201 76 Total, 1955 -------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 319 Due under Schedule I--------------------- - ----- - ----- ------------ ------- - - ------- 3,118 Due under Schedule V -------------------- ------------ ----------- ------------ ------------ 9 Total due ----------------,----------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 3,127 KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1261 Mary C. Ehlen Ehlen testified that when she arrived at work on July 9, the day the strike started, she did not want to cross the picket line and so she did not return. She was one of those who received the discharge telegram sent on July 10 and 11, 1951. On Janu- ary 13, 1952, a month after the picket line was removed, Ehlen returned to the Re- spondent and was told she had "automatically" been dropped from the payroll and she was not rehired. Since the evidence indicates that Ehlen was not waiting for the end of the strike before she became available to work for the Respondent, I conclude that she would have been available for work upon the removal of the picket line had the Respondent made her an unconditional offer of reinstatement and I therefore find that backpay was tolled for her only until December 13, 1951. Following that date, Ehlen, a woman of 50 years at the time of the hearing, sought work but was unsuccessful until about June 23, 1952, when she obtained a job with The Garrett Corporation, remaining there until some time in the third quarter of 1954, when she was laid off. No claim is made for backpay between July 1, 1952, and June 30, 1954, during the time she was working at Garrett. After her layoff at Garrett, Ehlen registered with the State employment office, went to employment agencies, and made diligent search for work. She worked for 1 day as a Christmas wrapper in a downtown Los Angeles store but had to quit because of a chronic foot ailment and weak ankles and because the job required her to be on her feet all day, a condition not true in her job at the Respondent's before her discharge. Again Ehlen made a search for a job but was still out of work until the Respondent offered, and she accepted, reinstatement in 1955. The Respondent in June 1953 sent to Ehlen at her proper address a copy of the Hersey letter offering her reinstatement. Ehlen denied having received the letter. A return receipt in evidence discloses that one Mary O. Ehlen signed as agent for Mary C. Ehlen. The return receipt was dated June 15, 1953. Under the Board's rule, whether or not Ehlen received the letter, her backpay should be tolled on June 15, 1953.62 As no claim was made for backpay for the last half of 1952 or for the year 1953, Ehlen's backpay is shown only to the end of the second quarter of 1952. Ehlen's Backpay Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1951-12/13-31 IV------------------------ $97 0 0 0 $97 Total, 1951-------------------------- 97 1952- I------------------------- 511 0 0 0 511 II------------------------- 537 $45 0 $45 492 Total, 1952 -------------------------- 1,003 Due under Schedule I--------------- 1,100 Dorothy Emery (Johnson) Backpay is claimed for Emery for the period between December 13, 1951, and September 30, 1952. As there was no evidence that Emery was available for em- ployment by the Respondent before the end of the strike on March 24, 1952, her backpay will be computed as starting on March 25, 1952. At that time Emery had been unemployed since January 11, 1952. After the last date, she registered with the State employment office and returned every week or two, meanwhile searching for work, herself, every day. She averaged 50 cents a day expense for carfare while seeking work. 61 N.L.R.B. v. Jay Company, Inc., 227 F. 2d 416 (C.A. 9). 1262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On April 7, 1952, Emery procured a job with Lockheed Aircraft Corporation in Burbank, California. In this job she incurred an expense for tools in the sump of $15. This expense plus her bus or carfare for the second quarter will be deducted from her interim earnings at Lockheed. Emery's Backpay Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I------------------------ $54 0 0 0 $54 II------------------------ 685 $611 $18 $593 92 III------------------------ 687 648 0 648 39 Total, 1952--------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ----------- 185 Due under Schedule I--------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 185 Conseuela Garcia (Lopez) No claim is made for Garcia before January 1, 1952. Inasmuch as she was apparently not available for employment at the Respondent before the end of the strike on March 24, 1952, I find that her backpay period commences at that time. At that time Garcia was employed by Creameries of America, Inc. She continued at this job until late in the year 1952 when she was laid off for lack of work. Garcia testified that it was close to December when she was laid off. On all the evidence, I find that it was November 1952. No claim was made for backpay during the third quarter of 1952. After her layoff at Creameries, Garcia testified she looked for work every day, in Glendale only, for about a month, that then she registered at the California State employment office, and that the latter after a while sent her to Chetron, where she secured employment. I consider it likely that Garcia confused the amount of time that elapsed between her layoff at Creameries and the time she registered at the employment office with the amount of time she was unemployed between her last employment in 1951 and her job at Creameries in 1952, because from the social security summary in evidence, it appears that Garcia earned money at both Creameries and Chetron in the last quarter of 1952 in an amount that indi- cated she was not out of work for more than 2 weeks before she got the job at Chetron. Despite her testimony that she searched for work only in Glendale, I find no willful loss. She testified not only that she looked every day at two or three places of business but went to different ones each day. So long as possible employ- ment opportunities in the neighborhood were not exhausted, I consider it not un- reasonable that Garcia confined her search to an area close to home where she would be able to walk to work. When the employment office sent her to Chetron, she took a bus for the 5- or 6-mile ride to work, so it is apparent she was not exclud- ing more distant areas as places to work but first sought to exhaust the possibilities of closer employment.63 While at the Respondent, Garcia had walked 5 or 6 blocks to work. Thus, she might have been entitled to claim bus fare for the time she was at Chetron as a deductible expense, but she did not do so. I find no willful loss. Garcia continued to work for Chetron until after she had received the Respondent's, offer of reinstatement on June 15, 1953. At that time Garcia decided not to return to the Respondent, and I find the latter had no obligation for backpay thereafter. ° As stated in Efco Manufacturing, Inc., 111 NLRB 1032 at 1035, the dischargee "is not required to exert extreme care to save the Respondent money, but only use reasonable- diligence in seeking appropriate employment." KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. Garcia's Backpay 1263 Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-3/31 "------------------------ ------------ ------------ II------------------------- $709 $654 0 $654 III------------------------- (t) ------------ ------------ ------------ IV------------------------- 692 0 543 149 Total, 1952-------------------------- 204 1953- I------------------------ 725 613 0 613 112 4/1-6/15 II---------------------- 575 527 0 527 48 Total, 1953--------------------------- 160 Due under Schedule I--------------- 364 • Earnings exceeded backpay for period covered. t No claim. Mary Gonzales Before the picket line was removed from the Respondent's plant in December 1951, Gonzales had procured employment at Weber Aircraft. Thereafter she worked only for that company except during periods of layoffs. When she was out of work she registered at the State employment office and went around looking for work every day. She incurred no willful loss. When she had worked for the Respondent she was able to walk to work. At Weber Aircraft she paid for a ride in the automobile of someone else at the rate of $3 a week. Weber was about 81A miles from her home. Although Gonzales could not remember when she received it, she remembered that she had received from the Respondent an offer of reinstatement. The Respond- ent introduced in evidence a return receipt showing delivery of the registered Hersey letter on June 15, 1952. Gonzales did not reply to this letter because, at the time of receipt of the offer, she was working for Weber Aircraft, and because, as she testified, she had previously made application, before she started at Weber, to return to the Respondent and the latter had told her it had no job for her. I find that the earlier refusal to reinstate Gonzales does not prevent the later unconditional offer of reinstatement from terminating the Respondent's liability for backpay.64 The fact that Gonzales has applied for reinstatement with the Respondent before employed by Weber in 1951 establishes the fact that she was available for employ- ment with the Respondent by the time the picket line was removed, so the beginning of her backpay will not be deferred to March 24, 1952, the date the strike ended. However, as no claim was made for Gonzales before January 1952 nor in 1953 after March, I shall compute her backpay as starting with January 1952 and running through March 1953, with the exception of the last quarter of 1952, for which no claim was made. 14 R J. Oil d Refining Co., Inc, 108 NLRB 641, at 648. 1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Gonzales' Backpay Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952- ------------------------ $671 $269 $39 $230 $441 II------------------------ 678 214 28 186 492' III------------------------ 681 744 73 671 10, Total, 1952 -------------------------- 943 1953- I I------------------------ 705 708 73 635 70, Total, 1953------------------------- 70, Due under Schedule I--------------- 1,013 Minnie Granata No evidence was adduced to show that Granata would have been available to, work for the Respondent before the end of the strike on March 24 , 1952. Her backpay therefore begins with March 25, 1952. She was then unemployed and look- ing for work. She testified that she went to the State employment office a few times. but did not testify that she registered there. She looked for work in Sun Valley, where she resided, and also in Glendale , North Hollywood, and Van Nuys. She testified that at first she looked every day but later went out only the first 3 days of each week. In the third quarter of 1952, Granata got a job with Crest Laboratories in Burbank, where she worked for approximately a month. She quit there , she testified, because she got a pain in her side from bending over a conveyor belt in a sidewise position. She testified, however, that while she was working at Crest she applied for work at the Veterans Hospital in San Fernando and received a reply, apparently suggesting an interview . Within 2 days after she quit at Crest, Granata entered the employ of the Veterans Hospital . She held this job for 2 days and then quit because, she testified, she was required to be there at 6 a.m., and at that hour, with a bus inter- sectional change and a long wait between, it took her 2 hours to get to work. It is difficult to understand why, if Granata knew this , she took the job in the first place. The record does not reveal , however, that she knew in advance how long it would- take her to get to work . Granata testified that she took the bus for the 2 days she worked there. From bus schedules in evidence, it appeared to me that no bus at all" was available to get her to work before 7:30 a.m. What time she arrived on those 2 days that she worked does not appear. But neither does it appear that she was required, on the first day or two that she worked there, to arrive at 6 a.m. On the record as it stands , I find that Granata did not suffer a willful loss in quitting either of the aforementioned jobs. Granata could not remember how long she was out of work after she quit the Veterans Hospital. From her earnings , I judge that she was unemployed for about 3 or 4 weeks . The specifications claim a deductible expense of $20 incurred in look- ing for work but no testimony was given as to how this was incurred, or that it was. in fact incurred . I shall not deduct this amount from net earnings. Sometime in September 1952 (deduced from her earnings record ) Granata got- a job at Miller Television Company. She held this job until after the end of the backpay period. On June 15, 1953, Granata received from the Respondent a copy of the Hersey letter offering her reinstatement . She did not act on it, she testified, because she was satisfied with her job at Miller Television. June 15, 1953, will, therefore, be the cutoff date for backpay. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1265 Granata's Backpay Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-3/31 I------------------------ $47 0 0 0 $47 II------------------------ 632 0 0 0 632 III------------------------ 667 $222 0 $222 445 IV------------------------ 664 492 0 492 172 Total, 1952 -------------------------- 1,296 1953- I------------------------- 695 472 0 472 223 4/1-6/15 II------------------------- 552 422 0 422 130 Total, 1953-------------------------- 353 Due under Schedule I--------------- 1, 649 Anna Hamilton (Clanton) No claim was made in the specifications for Hamilton before April 1, 1952. At this time, Hamilton was working for Sidney Williams Co., making rubber toys, at 75 cents an hour. She was laid off just before Easter. At the end of Hamilton's testimony, counsel for the General Counsel moved to amend the specifications to commence Hamilton's backpay on January 4, 1952. Ruling was reserved until dollar amounts were furnished. Such figures were never furnished and ruling has not been heretofore made. Because no showing was made that Hamilton would have returned to the Respondent in any event before the end of the strike, March 24, 1952, I would in any event not start Hamilton's backpay before March 25, 1952. I deduce that, at this time, Hamilton was working for Sidney Williams. As no figures were furnished, however, to show whether or not 'the Respondent should be credited with any interim earnings during the period be- tween March 25 and April 1, 1952, I shall take the specifications as originally pre- pared and commence Hamilton's backpay on April 1, 1952. Following her layoff at Sidney Williams, Hamilton registered at the California State employment office in Los Angeles,65 watched newspaper advertisements, and searched for work every day. In late May or early June, Hamilton got a job at $1.11 an hour at Cal-Ray Bakeries. A few weeks thereafter, Hamilton was given sick leave to return to Kansas, her native State, to have an operation. As nearly as can be determined, this time off occurred during the first 3 weeks in July 1952, and, in accordance with the amended specifications, this time is deducted from the backpay period. On returning to California after her operation, Hamilton resumed her job at Cal-Ray and continued there until the middle of or late October 1952 66 when she quit this job to care for a sick friend, identified only as Mrs. Amrine. The latter paid Hamilton $20 a week and gave her a room and board which, it was stipulated, had a value of $20 a week. I have grave doubts that the value of the room and possibly even the board, should be considered to be compensation at all. Hamilton did not give up the room which she rented in another location and, therefore, the room at Amrine's was hardly inducement for Hamilton to give up her job at Cal-Ray. Both room and board appear to have been provided more as a convenience to Armine es At one point in her testimony Hamilton testified that she registered at the employ- ment office in Los Angeles after working for Sidney Williams ; at another point she testified that she did not remember whether or not she had registered at that time although she had in 1951 and in early 1953. Whether or not she registered at the employment office in March or April 1952, I find no lack of diligence on Hamilton's part in seeking work at that time. The time is fixed in part by Hamilton's testimony and in part by determining the probable time she worked in the fourth quarter by dividing her earnings as shown on the social security report by her rate of pay and allowing a short time as carryover pay for work performed in the third quarter. 1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,than a compensation for the services rendered.67 As Hamilton had been earning $44 a week at Cal-Ray and, at most, was getting $40 (including room and board) at Amrine's she voluntarily took a loss by quitting her job at Cal-Ray in order to nurse her sick friend. Obviously the Respondent should not have to sustain this loss. But a more difficult question is posed by the effect of Hamilton's act of quitting her Cal-Ray job. That is, whether the Respondent is entitled to offset the rate which Hamilton got at Cal-Ray against backpay or whether backpay should be suspended completely during the time Hamilton spent with Amrine. Although Hamilton re- ceived compensation from Amrine, it is apparent that friendship rather than compen- sation actually induced Hamilton to give up her job at Cal-Ray to care for her friend. Hamilton had had no prior training as a practical nurse and was not then looking for that kind of work as a means of livelihood. It seems probable that, no matter by whom she was employed, even if employed by the Respondent, Hamilton would have absented herself to look after her sick friend. On all the evidence, I conclude and find that, in effect, Hamilton withdrew from the labor market when she quit her job at Cal-Ray and she remained out for the 8 weeks that she stayed with her sick friend. I shall therefore suspend backpay for this period. Backpay will be resumed when Hamilton reentered the labor market by procuring a job in December 1952 with Micro Metal Products in Los Angeles.68 Exclusive of her ,time and earnings with Amrine, Hamilton received, in the fourth quarter of 1952, $276 from interim employment in a 5-week period, whereas at the Respondent she would have received $267 in a comparable 5-week period. As her interim earnings exceed her gross backpay, it will be unnecessary to include the fourth quarter of 1952 in the backpay computation. Hamilton's job with Micro Metal Products lasted only a week or so and then she was laid off. Between the end of December 1952 and March 1953, Hamilton searched diligently but without success for work. When, in March 1953, Hamilton was told at Douglas Aircraft Co. in Burbank that they did not hire women over 35 (Hamilton was then 40 years old), Hamilton became discouraged and took a 'bus to Humboldt, near Chanute, Kansas, where she had sisters who would give her room and board. The specifications charge the $40 bus fare as a deductible expense against interim earnings in Kansas. Since Hamilton was motivated in going to "Kansas by her desire for haven with her sisters and not primarily to search for -work, I find that the $40 bus fare is not an allowable expense. After arrival in Kansas, Hamilton did not register at the State employment office there for 2 weeks, -although she testified that she looked at newspaper advertisements and saw nothing in her line. When she did register, however, she got a job the same day. I find that during that 2-week period, Hamilton did not make an adequate search for work and was not in the labor market. Backpay will therefore be suspended for that period, reducing the amount of gross and net backpay for the first quarter of 1953 from $703 to $595. On June 13, 1953, the Respondent sent Hamilton a letter offering reinstatement. This was mailed to her at the address at which she lived before she was employed at the Respondent, 2615 Alice Street, Los Angeles. While working at the Respond- ent, her address was 2627 Alice Street, Los Angeles. The latter address appears in the third amended charge, filed on April 4, 1952, a copy of which was served on the Respondent long before the foregoing letter was mailed, so the Respondent had notice of a later address for Hamilton than the one to which the letter was addressed. The letter sent to Hamilton's old address was registered at the post office under the number of 87166, according to the post office application for registered mail in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit No. 63. The return receipt bearing this number was not offered in evidence and it was not even shown that the letter was returned to the Respondent. Hamilton was shown a copy of the Hersey letter and was asked if she had received it. She testified that she did not recall having received it. The Respondent had Hamilton identify her signature on another return receipt which bore the stamped number 64141. This was addressed for return to the Respondent and it bears the postmark "Humboldt, Kans., June 29, 1953." Hamilton admitted that she signed the receipt but was unable to remember what it was for. The Respondent adduced no evidence to prove what was sent to Hamilton under that registration number. On the aforementioned application for registered mail, identified as the one prepared when the Hersey letter was sent out on June 13, 67 See Mos8 Planing Mill Co, 110 NLRB 933, 943. 68 On resumption of backpay after excluded period, see Deena Artware, Incorporated, 112 NLRB 371, 376. Cf. Somerville Cream Company, Inc, 106 NLRB 1155. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1267 1953, someone, perhaps Cook, filled in a column purporting to show the date of receipt of the letters, and certain unidentified penciled rotations were also made in some instances following these dates. Following Hamilton 's name, one such nota- tion appeared, but not being properly explained , it cannot be taken as evidence of the fact there stated . Cook was not called as a witness , and no explanation was offered for failure to call him. My surmise that the Respondent would not be likely to send Hamilton any correspondence at that time other than a reinstatement offer with the return receipt which she admittedly signed, lacks the quality of evi- dence.69 Under the circumstances, I find that the Respondent has failed to prove sufficient facts from which I might infer either that an offer of reinstatement was sent by the Respondent to Hamilton at her last available address or that Hamilton received such an offer in Humboldt, Kansas. Hamilton's first job in Kansas was with Jensen & Sons, Emporia, Kansas, a manu- facturer of powdered eggs. The work ran out at the end of the season in July 1953. Hamilton again registered with the State employment office and visited it once a week. She went to Chanute looking for work but was unsuccessful in finding any- thing until late in the year. Then she got a job with a laundry in Parsons, Kansas, and worked there until she was laid off in April 1954. She again registered with the employment office and otherwise sought work. At some date, which I deduce was in June 1954, Hamilton found work at the Salina Nursing Home in Salina, Kansas, where she was employed until the end of the backpay period. The General Counsel was given an opportunity to amend the specifications to show a claim for Hamilton under Schedule II (medical and hospitalization expenses) but failed to do so. In the absence of a claim , I make no finding with respect thereto. Hamilton's Backpay Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quaiter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952- II________________________ $687 $196 0 $196 $491 I11------------------------ 640 313 0 313 327 Total, 1952------------------------- ------------ ------------ ---------- --------- 818 1953- I------------------------- 595 0 0 0 595 II------------------------ 675 110 0 110 565 III------------------------ *642 12 0 12 630 IV------------ ------------ *661 --- 45 --- 0 45 616 Total, 1953-------------------------- ------------ ------------ - ------------ -- ------------ 2,406 1954- I------------------------ 822 273 0 273 549 II--------- ----------- ---- 816 114 0 114 702 III----------------------- 837 299 0 299' 538 IV--------- ---------- ----- 827 458 0 458 369 Total, 1954------------------------- ----------- ------------ ------------ 2,158 1955- 1 I------------------------ 913 414 0 414 499 II------------------------ 304 139 0 139 165 Total, 1955------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 664 Due under Schedule I--------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 6,046 * Figures taken from Respondent's amended answer which were not contested by the General Counsel. ee See Efco Manufacturing, Inc, 111 NLRB 1032, 1035. 614913-02-vol 132-81 1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Carmen Imperial No claim is made except for the year 1952. As no evidence was offered to show that Imperial was available for employment at the Respondent before the end of the strike, I compute her backpay as starting on March 25, 1952. At that time, Imperial was employed by Dunning Color Corporation in a district of Los Angeles known as West Hollywood. A claim was made for additional expense of travel from Imperial's home to Dunning Color above what it would have cost from her home to the Respondent's Glendale plant. Imperial, herself, testified that the mileage from her home to the Respondent's plant was about 14 or 15 miles each way, whereas the mileage to Dunning Color was about 21 miles round trip. Imperial was ob- viously confused . My examination of maps available discloses that the distance from Imperial's residence to West Hollywood is at least as far as to Glendale and perhaps farther. Because it is impossible to determine the distance on tortuous roads on the map with precise accuracy and because no better proof of distance was offered, I find that there was so little difference in mileage as not to justify an al- lowance of any expense against interim earnings Imperial's Backpay Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-3/31 ----------------------- $48 0 0 0 $48 II------------------------ 636 $525 0 $525 111 III------------------------ 671 571 0 571 100 IV------- 664 629 0 629 35 Total, 1952___ 294 Due under Schedule I 294 Sophia Kadi No evidence was offered to show that Sophia Kadi would have been available to work for the Respondent before the end of the strike. Her backpay should, there- fore, begin on March 25, 1952. Following this date, Kadi, a woman of about 45 years of age at the time of the strike, was unemployed until about July of that year. In the interim, she had registered at the State employment office, answered advertise- ments, gone out looking for work several times a week, applied for work with various manufacturers and offices, and followed up information acquired from friends about employers that might be hiring. In July 1952, Kadi got a temporary job at Gebo Manufacturing Co. for about 2 days. Then she was again unemployed until she got part-time work as a sales clerk at Sears Roebuck & Co., working a couple of days a week. Meanwhile she continued to look for other work. While still work- ing for Sears, Kadi learned through a friend that Southern California Plastic Co. was hiring. Kadi applied there and in September 1952 got a full-time job, continu- ing to work there until January 1953. Whereas Kadi had been able to walk to the Respondent's plant, she was obliged to pay for her transportation to Southern California Plastic. A claim is made for $29 transportation allowance during the fourth quarter of 1952. This amount is apparently computed by allowing 7 cents a mile for the 12 miles round trip which Kadi drove in her sister's car from her house to work during the 22 working days in December 1952 plus about $12 for busfare during the 42 working days in October and November 1952, before Kadi had the use of her sister's car, at 30 cents a day. The formula of 7 cents a mile for operation of an automobile is one used by the Government to cover not only the expense of gasoline and oil but also insurance and ordinary wear and tear that an KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO ., INC. 1269 owner pays for.70 As Kadi was not the owner of the car she drove and as it was not shown that she had any agreement for sharing in expenses of maintenance of the car, I cannot infer that Kadi paid for more than the gasoline and possibly engine oil which she used . On that basis, I figure that Kadi's cost of transportation in December 1952 did not exceed the cost of transportation by bus. I shall therefore reduce the travel expense during the fourth quarter of 1952 from $29 to $18. In January 1953 Kadi quit the Plastic Co. because , she testified, she was required to handle hot plastic and this caused her to get blisters and burns on her hands.71 She testified that she tried to work with gloves on her hands but found them too cumbersome. While working for the Respondent , Kadi had not had to handle hot plastic. After she quit Southern California Plastic, Kadi was not again employed before September 1953. Kadi's apparent ability to survive burns and blisters on her hands for better than 3 months and the evidence that some of the other women on the job wore gloves give rise to speculation that Kadi might have had another reason for quitting. When she was asked on cross-examination what reason she had given her employer for quitting, Kadi answered that she did not remember whether or not she had given a reason . Counsel then asked Kadi if she had told her employer that she was on her feet too much and that her feet bothered her. Kadi answered, "Well, I got tired, yes." It is not certain from her answer whether or not she gave fatigue as a reason for quitting. The answer sounded to me like merely an assent that she got tired and not an agreement that she had given her employer such reason for quitting. The evidence does indicate that the work at Southern California Plastic was more burdensome than the work Kadi had had at the Respondent,72 and this has been held to justify quitting a job during the backpay period.73 Following her employment at Southern California Plastic Co.,74 Kadi registered with the State employment office and went out looking for work several times a week as her budget for busfare permitted . She remained unemployed, however, until September 1953 when she again was employed on a part-time basis at Sears Roebuck. Meanwhile, on June 13, 1953, the Respondent sent and Kadi received a copy of the Hersey letter offering her unconditional reinstatement to her former position.' Kadi did not accept the offer, however , because, she testified, there was an illegal union at the Respondent's plant at the time. This reply puts Kadi in the position of a striker 75 As previously stated, it is the policy of the Board to discourage strikes and encourage resort to the orderly processes of the Board to rectify un- fair labor practices . Accordingly, I find that the Respondent's obligation for backpay terminated on June 15, 1953, when Kadi received the offer of reinstatement. 70 Katarick, Inc., 111 NLRB 630, 635. 71 Anthony Pavans, whose backpay is herein computed, had done this kind of work at the Respondent. He testified that it was dangerous to wear gloves . He, also, had been burned 73 In addition to the handling of hot plastics , I judge that Kadi had to stand for longer periods of time than she would have had to while working for the Respondent Although Kadi was not asked about it, other claimants who had done assembling work at the Respondent's plant, such as Kadi had done , testified that they sat most of the time, whereas I infer that Kadi stood most of the time at Southern California Plastic 73 L.B. Hosiery Co, Incorporated and Lee Maisel , doing business as Myerstown Hosiery Mills, 99 NLRB 630 at 631 ; Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of America, Carpet, Linoleum & Resilient Tile Layers, Local No 419, AFL (Lauren Bu? t Inc. of Colorado ), 114 NLRB 295 at 301 74 The Respondent offered in evidence a copy of Kadl 's application for employment at Southern California Plastic in which she gave as a reason for leaving the Respondent's employ that she had gone east on account of her husband 's death She testified that she had gone to Chicago on July 26, 1951 , when she was notified of her husband 's death there. That she failed in the application to give the strike as her reason for leaving the Re- spondent, I deem a venial offense not affecting her credibility as a witness in view of the obstacles some of the discharged strikers encountered in getting jobs when they men- tioned the strike as a cause for leaving the Respondent's employ. 15 See Coca-Cola Bottling Company of St. Louis, 95 NLRB 2184. 1270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Kadi's Backpay Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952- 3/25-3/31 ------------------------ $50 0 0 0 $50 II------------------------ 672 U 0 0 672 III------------------------ 691 $76 0 $76 615 IV------------------------ 695 646 $18 628 67 Total , 1952 -------------------------- ------------ ------------ 1,404 1953- 1------------ - ------------ 1 703 52 0 52 651 if _-- 4/1-6/15 557 0 0 0 557 Total, 1953-___ _ 1,208 Due under Schedule I_______________ ------------ 2,612 Ruth Keene Keene was deceased at the time of the hearing, presumably having died in the first • quarter of 1955, because claim is made by her estate under Schedule II for death benefits accruing under insurance found to be wrongfully canceled by the Respondent in 1951 as a consequence of Keene's discharge because she went on strike, the claim being set in the first quarter of 1955.76 Claim is also made under Schedule I for backpay, but only until the end of 1952. I find no evidence that Keene would have been available for work with the Re- spondent until the end of the strike. Her backpay therefore commences on March 25, 1952. Keene was employed at Jeanette Robinette Ceramics in North Hollywood. Neither the date of her beginning employment there nor her pay rate is in evidence. It is impossible for me to determine, therefore, whether in the last 5 days of March 1952 Keene's'interim earnings exceeded or fell short of that which she would have earned at the Respondent during the same period. I shall, therefore, commence her backpay as of April 1, 1952. It will continue during the balance of 1952. Keene was employed in each quarter of 1952 except the fourth. Lovie Blakemore testified that she and Keene had together searched for work before Blakemore got a job with Clear Beam Television Antennas Co., where she worked in the fourth quarter of 1952. No evidence was adduced to show that Keene had withdrawn from the labor market or suffered willful loss before the end of 195277 Her backpay is, therefore, as shown in the specifications with the exception of the starting date. According to evidence received at the hearing, the Respondent on June 13, 1953, sent Keene a copy of the Hersey letter offering her reinstatement. This was mailed to her at the same address shown for her in the third amended charge. I find, therefore, that it was sent to Keene's last known address. The return receipt for Keene was signed on behalf of Keene by the owner of the trailer court where Blakemore and Keene then lived. I infer that Keene received the Hersey letter, but under the rule of N.L.R.B. v. Jay Company, Inc., 227 F. 2d 416 (C.A. 9), it is immaterial whether or not it was actually received if it was sent to Keene -in good faith at her last known address. I find that it was. As there is no evidence that Keene accepted the offer of reinstatement or was unable to do so for reasons of health, I find that the Respondent was relieved of obligation under the Board's Order for any claims accruing after June 1953. This includes the claim for death benefits in 1955. The Respondent, therefore, will reimburse the estate of Ruth Keene for backpay under Schedule I as shown below. 75 Lovie Blakemore testified that Keene died about February 1954. My findings would not be altered if this were the fact 44 That Keene did not obtain work in the last quarter of 1952 may be to some extent attributable to her age She was about 54 years old at the time of the strike KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. Keene's Backpay ' Yea, 1952- Period Quarter --- ---------- ------------ ------------------------ IV - ----------------------- Total, 1952-------------------------- Due under Schedule I ---_ $671 681 664 G, oss Inteum earnings Deductible expenses $379 118 0 0 0 0 Net $379 118 0 1271 Net backpay $292 563 664 1, 519 1, 519 Santosh 78 Kelkar Claim is made for backpay for Kelkar for the first three quarters of 1952, the first quarter of 1953, and the first quarter of 1955. It was not shown that Kelkar would have been available for employment by the Respondent before March 24, 1952, the date of the end of the strike . Hence, his backpay period will commence on March 25, 1952. At this time Kelkar was working for Tanner Motor Livery as a taxi driver in Los Angeles, and his earnings for the first quarter, $825 , were so close to his gross backpay of $827 that there is no use figuring out his loss of pay for the 5 working day period between March 25 and 31, 1952. For the first part of the second period of 1952, Kelkar continued with the same employment , but meanwhile he registered for work at the State employment office and about once a month would seek other employment. Sometime during the spring he procured a job with Schwartz Brothers Plastics, Inc., and worked for them for several months going into the third quarter of 1952. The record contains no information on why he left Schwartz. Kelkar, himself, could not remember. Kelkar testified that after he left Schwartz he returned to Tanner Motor for a time before he got his next job which was at Weber Aircraft Corporation at Burbank . Kelkar may have been mistaken about returning to Tanner at this time or if he did return he earned no money there before his job at Weber according to the social security data. In any event , during the same quarter in which he left Schwartz he procured the job at Weber Aircraft. No claim is made for the fourth quarter of 1952. Toward the end of 1952, Kelkar was laid off from Weber. His testimony is somewhat confusing in this respect because at the same time he testified that he was laid off before Christmas he testified that he was called back. He did not testify as to whether or not he went back when the call came for him to return. In any event he procured another job in the early part of 1953 and held this for about 6 months. In June 1953 Kelkar received the Respondent's offer of reinstatement and went to the office of the Respondent's plant where he spoke with a girl , requesting permission to speak with the personnel department . The girl informed him that the Respondent was not hiring and refused him permission to speak with personnel even though he told her he had a letter from the Respondent . No claim is made thereafter until the first quarter of 1955. At that time he was working for the Yellow, Cab Company as a cabdriver and again for Mitchell Camera for about a month Kelkar testified that during the first quarter of 1955 he was unemployed for part of the time and that in this period he looked for a job and registered with the State employment office for work . I note from the social security information in evidence as an exhibit that Kelkar started with the Yellow Cab Company in the last quarter of 1954 As he testified that, during periods of unemployment elsewhere, he returned to driving a cab and as he was employed by Yellow Cab Company in both the fourth quarter of 1954 and the first quarter of 1955, it does not appear likely that he was unem- ployed in this period . Presumably therefore his occupation continued with the Yel- low Cab Company in 1955 until he returned to Mitchell Camera Corp. in the first quarter of 1955. Following the employment by Mitchell Camera, Kelkar was, some- time during the second quarter of 1955, reemployed by the Respondent. 7e Misspelled " Sontosh" In specifications. Gross backpay 1272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Except during the periods for which no backpay claim is made, Kelkar appears to have been fairly steadily employed 79 I find that his effort to get employment whenever he was unemployed was a reasonable effort and that he suffered no willful loss. Kelkar's Backpay Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quartet backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952- II---------------------- $841 $792 0 $792 $49 III----------------------- 819 794 0 794 25 IV------------ ----- ------ («) ------------ ------------ Total, 1952 ------ ___ _------ 74 1953- -------------- ------- 819 606 0 606 213 II----------------------- (`) ------------ ------------ ------------ III------------------------ C,) ------------ ------------ IV------------------------ (') ------------ ------------ Total, 1953 -------------------------- ------------ 213 1954 -----------I-------------------------- C,) ------------ ------------ 1955- I----------------------- 1,024 648 0 648 376 Due under Schedule I ____- ------------ 663 *No claim Tillie Leyva Claim is made for backpay for Leyva for the period of December 13, 1951, to August 3, 1953, except the last two quarters of 1952. Claim is also made for her in the sum of $29 for difference in the rate paid her and the rate she was entitled to after reinstatement for the period August 3 to November 3, 1953. No evidence was adduced to show that Leyva was available for employment by the Respondent before the end of the strike on March 24, 1952. Her backpay will therefore start on March 25, 1952. After her last previous interim employment in the fourth quarter of 1951, Leyva was out of work until she was employed by Artcraft Plating & Finishing Co, in Burbank, California, in the second quarter of 1952. In the interval between jobs she had registered with the State employment office, and returned there every week. She also searched for work herself in Burbank and the nearby towns of San Fernando and Van Nuys. She procured the job at Artcraft through the employ- ment office. She worked there for only a short time,80 because she was already 4 months pregnant and the fumes at Artcraft made,her sneeze and caused a danger of miscarriage. No claim is made for backpay from the time she quit Artcraft until January 1953. Leyva's child was born in September 1952, but she testified that she did not begin to look for work again until "after January" 1953. She did not register at the State employment office but visited ("used to go") there to see if they had any jobs, and she did an ironing once a week for one person, earning $1.50 a week, which money she used in hunting for a job. Leyva testified that she got a job at Lane & Co in June 1953, but she also testified that she left Lane & Co. to return to the Respondent She returned to the Respondent on August 3, 1953, and as she earned only $21.60 at Lane for all the time she worked there, it is difficult to see how she could have earned so little in June and July or even in July alone, for her social security record shows that all her earnings at 79 During the excepted time, Kelkar had a couple of periods of illness I am satisfied from my study of the testimony and exhibits that no part of the time lost by reason of illness came in the periods for which claim is made 40 She testified that she worked there for a few weeks. As her earnings there were only $35 10, it does not appear likely that she worked there for more than 1 week. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1273 Lane were received by her in the third quarter of 1953. On the whole, the record Is in a state of uncertainty with respect to just when in 1953 Leyva reentered the labor market and with respect to what efforts she made thereafter to find work That Leyva began looking for work "after January" 1953 may establish that she looked for work before she got her next job , but, on the record as it is, it is impossible to determine the time with exactness . Ordinarily , however, when a person fixes a time after which an event occurred , he does so as closely as possible I would therefore interpret Leyva's expression "after January" to mean in February 1953 and I shall compute her backpay for 1953 as beginning in February . Although the extent of Leyva's efforts to find work thereafter is somewhat vague, it is enough to show that she was looking for work . Perhaps the Respondent might, by more searching questions or cross-examination , have brought out at least the frequency of Leyva's searches for work in this period . On the record as it stands, however, I find nothing to show that Leyva failed to make a reasonable search or incurred willful loss. On June 13 , 1953, the Respondent sent Leyva a copy of the Hersey letter offering her reinstatement but, when she returned to speak with Cook, he did not offer her immediate employment . The Respondent offered no explanation or excuse for this Leyva could not remember the conversation she had with Cook except that there was no work for her then . It appears to be undisputed , however, that she received word from the Respondent , recalling her on August 3, 1953. I compute her backpay to the latter date. Leyva's Backpay Year 1952-3/25-3/31 Period Quarter I------------------------ II------------------------- Total, 1952 -------------------------- 1953-2/1-3131 ------------------------ II------------------------ III---------------------- Total, 1953------------------------- Due under Schedule I------------__----- Due under Schedule III-----.-_---------- Total due------------ -------------- Gross backpay $44 208 391 640 215 Goss Interim earnings Deductible expenses 0 $35 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 Net 0 $35 0 0 22 Net backpay $44 173 217 391 640 193 1 224 1, 47Q Agnes M. Littrell Since there is no evidence that Littrell would have been available for employment by Respondent until the end of the strike, her backpay is computed as starting on March 25, 1952. At that time she was employed by Sidney Williams Co. in Glendale. At some time in the second quarter of 1952 Littrell was laid off at Sidney Williams and she was unemployed , until some time in the fourth quarter when she was recalled to Sidney Williams for a short time. During each of her periods of unemployment, Littrell registered with the State employment office and looked for work on her own initiative about four or five times a week in the areas of Highland Park, Huntington Park , Los Angeles, Glendale, and Burbank. In December 1952, following her second period of employment at Sidney Williams, Littrell had a job at Micro Metals which lasted until February 1953 , in which month she was again laid off. In the same month she procured a job at Ferris Products and continued until about May 1953. Without any interval between except a weekend , Littrell ceased working at Ferris and started on a job at Acme Electronics. 1274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On June 13, 1953, the Respondent sent Littrell a copy of its Hersey letter, offering her reinstatement. This was sent to her at the address at which she had lived when she last worked for the Respondent: However, she had moved in December 1952, and the Respondent might have procured her new address from the third amended charge where it was properly listed. However, the letter did reach Littrell's new address and was signed for by Littrell's daughter on June 22, 1953. Littrell testified that she did not recall having received such a letter from the Respondent. Asked whether or not she had at any time gotten in touch with Respondent to get her job back while she was unemployed, she answered, "If I have gotten an offer back that would be given in good faith, it would have certainly received serious consideration. I had my seniority there. I lacked 3 months of being 50 years old when I walked out of there." Again, asked whether she had ever gotten in touch with the Respondent, she replied, "Not directly, no. I heard through the other girls that some of them did go back, and they had nothing for them." Asked whether or not that was the reason she did not return, she answered, "Yes." In view of the fact that Littrell had no recollection of having received the offer of reinstatement, I cannot assume that the answers given by her meant that she had failed to go back to the Respondent after receipt of such letter rather than before. As the record stands she may have heard in 1952 that others had returned to the Respondent and not been given jobs. From her testimony, as above noted, it certainly does not appear that those who she had heard returned to the Respondent and found no work had, in fact, returned after having received the Hersey letter rather than before. I do not interpret her answers therefore to mean that after having received the Hersey letter she herself decided not to accept it because she believed the offer to be in bad faith. Whether or not the offer was seen by Littrell, the fact that it was sent and ultimately received at her place of residence is sufficient to terminate the Respondent's responsibility for backpay from that time onward. I shall, therefore, use the date of the arrival of the letter at her place of residence, June 22, 1953, as the cutoff date To the extent that the Respondent takes the position that Littrell did not make an adequate search for employment, I reject this contention. In view of Littrell's age, I find that she exerted considerable effort toward finding other employment and that she succeeded in procuring more jobs than a number of others of her age Littrell's Backpay Pci iod Gi oss Intemn earnings Net Year Quai ter backpay G ross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-31 ------------------------ $61 $36 0 $36 $25 II------------------------ 783 344 0 344 439 III------------------------ 758 0 0 0 758 IV------------------------ 750 107 0 107 643 Total , 1952 __________________________ ------------ 1,865 1953- 1------------------------- 759 310 0 310 449 4/1-6/22 I1---------------------- 663 476 0 476 187 Total, 1953 ___-__------------------ 636 Due under Schedule I_______________ ------------ 2,501 Melba Lopez Claim is made for Lopez for the full alleged backpay period of December 13, 1951, to April 30, 1955, with the exception of three periods in that time taken out for childbirth. As there is no showing that Lopez would have been available to work for the Respondent at any time before the end of the strike; on March 24, 1952, her backpay could not begin before March 25, 1952. This date, however, , KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1275 falls into the first excepted period which ends March 31, 1952.81 Lopez' backpay will therefore be computed as starting on April 1, 1952, at which time Lopez again sought work. She went to the State employment office, although she did not register for unemployment compensation, inquired of friends, watched newspaper advertise- ments, kept in touch with the Union, and went personally in search of work to the industrial areas of Glendale, Burbank, San Fernando, and Van Nuys. During the time she was looking for work , she attended night classes in real estate at the North Hollywood High School, took an examination, and got her license on August 5, 1952. She was employed right away by a real-estate agent and worked for him into September. But during the time she worked for him she earned no commission or other pay and was, herself, paying for a babysitter and for her other expenses, so she renewed her efforts to find other work, making the same type of effort that she had before getting her real-estate license . She quit looking for work altogether about December 20, 1952, because she was almost 9 months pregnant. Her child was born on January 3, 1953, and she did not again look for work until about February 9, 1953: At this time, Lopez was employed by Coast Crafts Industries, a company for which she had worked early in 1952. When she was hired in February 1953 she was put on the swing shift but was later transferred to the graveyard shift. In May, Lopez quit her job 82 because she was not getting enough sleep during the day. This is readily understandable as she had about six children. However, she lost little time , because 2 or 3 days later she got a job at a slightly higher rate of pay at Bardwell & McAllister-I find that her quitting her job at Coast Crafts was justified and that she did not incur a willful loss-where she had to spend about $10 for tools, which amount is a deductible item. While working at Bardwell & McAllister, she received from the Respondent, on June 15, 1953, a copy of the Hersey letter offering her reinstatement. Lopez did not remember having received this letter, but I infer that she did receive it, first because it was signed for by a neighbor at Lopez ' address and, second, because she got a later letter from the Respondent, written on July 30, asking her to report for work on August 3, 1953, if she was still interested in returning to the Respondent's employ. I infer that she would not have been sent the second letter unless she had evinced interest in returning to work for the Respondent in response to the Hersey letter. Before receipt of the letter of July 30, Lopez had left Bardwell & McAllister and had taken a better-paying job with Pacific Airmotive. Nevertheless, she went to the Respondent's new plant in North Hollywood and spoke with a foreman whom Lopez knew only as Big Pete . I infer that this was Foreman Pete Schnetzler, to whose department she had been directed by Respondent's letter of July 30, 1953, to report. Schnetzler was foreman of the assembly room and had not been Lopez' foreman previously, because her job before the strike had been on a molding ma- chine in the molding room. When Lopez spoke to Schnetzler to learn what was intended for her, she showed him the letter she had received telling her to report to him. Schnetzler told her that she was to go on the production (assembly) line and that her rate of pay was to be $1 an hour. As a molder, before the strike, Lopez had been paid $1 an hour. By August 1953, Lopez, as a molder, would have been entitled to $1.25 an hour. When Lopez told Schnetzler that she understood she was to be reinstated to her former job with full seniority, which meant the maximum rate in the molding room, Schnetzler took Lopez to Personnel Manager Cook. The latter told Lopez that the molding machines had not been moved to the new plant yet and that there was no opening for her in the molding room at that time. Lopez told Cook she would think the matter over and let him know. Neither Schnetzler nor Cook testified. No evidence was adduced to show that the molding ei Respondent introduced the employment record of Lopez at Coast Crafts Industries where she had employment in 1952 and 1953, in broken periods , apparently in part to show that Lopez, on February 4, 1952, voluntarily terminated her employment there and that this occasioned her lack of employment after the end of the excepted period (Febru- ary 4 to March 31, 1952) It does not appear that her quitting was not justified by illness or other reasons I find that Lopez' lack of work after April 1, 1952, was not a continua- tion of any willfully incurred loss 69 Records of the employer show that she was terminated on May 4 for failure to call in when absent . This is not necessarily inconsistent with Lopez ' testimony that she quit 1276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD machines were not in fact operating or that there was in fact no work for Lopez on August 3, 1953. Her testimony establishes no more than what Cook told her. Even if it was true that the molding machines had not been moved to the new plant as yet, it does not appear that they were not operating at the old plant still, and no evidence was offered to show why Lopez could not have been reinstated to her former posi- tion If that position existed, it was incumbent on the Respondent to reinstate her to that job and not to one which the Respondent might have thought of as substan- tially equivalent.83 I find, therefore, that the Respondent's offer to Lopez of a different job at a lower rate of pay was not an offer of reinstatement and did not terminate the Respondent's obligation for backpay.84 Lopez' job with Pacific An-motive lasted until November 1953, when she was laid off. However, during the time she worked there, she was required to buy tools at a cost of "up to" $25.85 I shall allow the deduction in the amount of $23 as claimed in the specifications. After her layoff at Pacific Airmotive, Lopez registered for un- employment compensation at the State employment office, looked for a job every day, and went to school 1 night a week to study to be a nurse's aid. At some time in the first quarter of 1954, Lopez got a job as waitress in a Thrifty Drug Store but after about 8 or 10 days she was laid off. She returned to the unemployment office, got unemployment compensation, and looked for work every day in the area known as San Fernando Valley which includes such suburbs of Los Angeles as Glendale, Burbank, Van Nuys, San Fernando, and North Hollywood. In the second quarter of 1954, Lopez got a job at the Pacific Division of Bendix Aviation Corporation. Here she incurred a further expense of about $8.86 Bendix laid Lopez off before she finished her probationary period after learning that she was pregnant. Again, Lopez went to the unemployment office and searched for work. In June 1954, she got a job with Kagweld Corporation in Sun Valley. Except for a week's layoff, during which Lopez got a job at Brown's Malt Shop in San Fernando, she was employed at Kagweld until August. Her job there was at a point close to a very hot furnace. Because of her pregnancy she was unable to endure the heat and quit. I do not consider her quitting, under the circumstances, to constitute a willful loss. She returned to the unemployment office, when to the Union, watched newspaper adver- tisements, telephoned, and walked in search of work. She ceased looking for work in October "a few weeks" before October 29, 1954, when her next child was born. I find that she withdrew from the labor market on October 8 (although in the specifications the excepted period dates from October 14). About 6 weeks after the birth of her child, or about mid-December, Lopez was again looking for a job. She went to the unemployment office, walked, took buses to various areas, and finally found work as a grocery clerk in Van Nuys in February or March 1955. She quit this job in April 1955, she testified, because of low pay and to look for a better-paying job. As she was, according to her own testimony, then earning $1.25 an hour, I see no justification for her quitting at that time. The record does not show the date that she quit, but I fix it from her earnings as about April 12. Following an offer of reinstatement from the Respondent on April 30, 1955, Lopez returned there to work. Because I find that Lopez incurred a willful loss between April 12, and April 30, 1955, I shall compute her backpay only to April 12, 1955. S The Chase National Bank of the City of New York;, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Blanch, 65 NLRB 827. "'See NLRB v TV E Stewart and Lela Stewart, d/b/a Stewart Oil Company, 207 F.2d8 (CA 5). 85 The specifications show deductible expenses for tools in the third quarter of $23 and in the fourth quarter of $19 There was no evidence of the expense in the fourth quarter and I do not deduct that amount. 89 Lopez testified that her tools cost her "possibly" $10 Claim in the specifications is for $8. 1 shall allow the lower figure KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. Lopez' Backpay 1277 Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952- II________________________ $718 0 0 0 $718 III------------------------ 702 0 0 0 702 10/1-12/18 IV------------------------ 618 0 0 0 618 Total, 1952------------------------- ----------- ------------ ------------ ------------ 2.038 1953-2/9-3/31 I________________________ 391 $336 0 $336 55 II________________________ 675 505 $10 495 180 III__ ------------- '642 632 23 609 33 IV------------------------ *661 464 0 464 197 Total, 1953-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 465 1954- 1---------------------- 846 75 0 75 --- 771 II------------------------ 816 561 8 553 263 III------------------------ 279 241 0 241 38 IV----------------------- 266 0 0 0 266 Total, 1954------------------------ ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------ 1,338 1955- I__ ------------- '699 200 0 200 499 4/1-4/12 II------------------------ 112 80 0 80 32 Total, 1955 - ------------------------ ----------- ------------ ----------- ------------ 531 Due under Schedule I--------------- -----___ ------- ----------- ------------ 4,372 'Figures supplied in Respondent's amended answer, which figures were not contested by the General Counsel Ann Lowe Claim for backpay is made for Lowe only from December 13, 1951, to December 31, 1952. As no evidence was adduced to show that, before the end of the strike, she would have been available for employment by the Respondent, her backpay will not commence before the end of the strike. At that time Lowe was in Vancouver, Washington, where her husband was stationed while he was in the Navy. Lowe had joined him there in December 1951. She testified that while she was in Vancouver she searched for a job, watching advertisements, talking to friends, and going to three named companies, one of which she went to as a result of an advertisement, looking for work. She also testified that she searched in Portland, Oregon (across the river from Vancouver), as well as in Vancouver. In the last of February, Lowe entered a hospital for an emergency operation and was there for about a week. When she was released, on March 6, 1952, she was able to look for a job right away. However, she was not asked if she did look for one after leaving the hospital. In April 1952 (Lowe was unable to fix the date with greater certainty) she returned to the Los Angeles area, registered with the California State employment office, and began to look for work in the Glendale and Burbank areas and in the adjacent parts of Los Angeles She was unemployed, however, until October 15, 1952, when she found a job at Roylin, Inc., in Glendale, which job she still held at the time of the hearing, more than 5 years later. Only 5 working days in the first quarter of 1952 are involved For several reasons I conclude that backpay should not be awarded during those 5 days. In the first place; the evidence does not clearly show a search for work in the Vancouver area after March 6 when Lowe was released from the hospital. In the second place, the 1278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD record leaves much to be desired regarding Lowe's intentions. She testified that she went to Vancouver because she did not have enough money to live on in Burbank. Yet she retained her apartment there when she went to Vancouver. This suggests that she knew she would not be away for a very long time. Accepting her testimony that she went to Vancouver to save as much money as possible, since perhaps food and supplies could be purchased through the Navy cheaper than in Burbank, the record does not explain why she returned to Burbank in April when presumably she would have been just as much interested in saving money, then, in view of the fact that her husband was not released from the Navy until late in 1952. There is a suggestion that by late March 1952 Lowe would have anticipated returning to Burbank in April and, if so, she would not have been in a position to accept other than a temporary job, something that might not be easy to find. Further, there is no evidence that she registered with any State employment agency in Vancouver, or vicinity, nor evidence that she sought permanent rather than temporary employment. It is my opinion that Lowe's backpay should not commence until she returned to Burbank and registered at the California State employment office. The date of her return is not fixed. She was unable to remember whether is was in early, mid, or late April, and the General Counsel offered no other evidence to assist in fixing the date. In the absence of any evidence of the date of her return, I shall assume that Lowe returned at the end of April, and I shall compute her backpay as beginning on May 1, 1952.87 Lowe's Backpay Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-5/1-6/30 II------------------------ $374 0 0 0 $374 III------------------------ 586 0 0 0 586 IV 586 $581 0 $581 5 Total, 1952-------------------------- 965 Due under Schedule I--------------------- 965 Due under Schedule II-------------------- 265 Total due ------------------------- 1, 230 Genevieve D. Marin Claim is made for Marin only for the year 1952 and for the first quarter of 1953. No evidence was offered to show that Marin was available for employment by the Respondent before the end of the strike on March 24, 1952. Her backpay will therefore be computed as starting on March 25, 1952. At some time in the first quarter of 1952, Marin got a job at Creameries of America for 1 day but gave it up on advice of her doctor. Marin could not remember the date. Since it may well have fallen within the 5-day period between March 25 and 31, I shall show that as interim earnings. No other earnings fell within that period. Following her job at Creameries, Marin was out of work and looking for a job. At some point in the first quarter of 1952 Marin had registered with the State 87 It is unexplained why, in the specifications, 1 month's pay is deducted from Lowe's gross backpay for the first quarter of 1952, and about $94 is deducted from her backpay for the second quarter of 1952 I infer that the General Counsel had information con- cerning this which was not offered in evidence KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1279 employment office and had visited , it every week for a while . It does not appear how long she kept this up or whether it preceded or followed her job at Creameries of America. The employment office referred her to no suitable jobs , and, for the most part, she searched on her own initiative , appearing in person at numerous manu- facturing establishments and, when permitted , filing applications for employment. She turned down no offers. Early in August 1952, she obtained a job at Lockheed Aircraft Corp. in Burbank , California , and held this job, with the exception of a 2- or 3 -week layoff early in 1953 . In connection with this job, she incurred certain additional expenses such as for transportation ( not needed when she worked at the Respondent's plant), for slacks required at Lockheed but not at the Respondent's plant, and for other expenses , the claim for which was dropped at the hearing because of inability of Marin to remember amounts. In the light of all available evidence, I find the $18 claim for transportation cost to be reasonable . It appears that the cost of slacks in the specifications is prorated over three quarters . As IMarin testified that this was an initial expense , when she bought six pairs of slacks which lasted her about a year, and that the slacks cost her no less than $ 10 a pair,88 the cost should all appear in the third quarter of 1952. This eliminates any backpay after the third quarter of 1952, as thereafter Marin 's interim earnings exceeded her gross backpay even deducting expenses of transportation from interim earnings. Marin's Backpay Period Gross Interim eainmgs Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-3/31 ------------------------ $56 $8 0 $8 $48 II------------------------ 718 0 0 0 718 III------------------------ 702 292 $78 214 488 Total, 1952 ------------------------- ------------ ------------ 1,254 Due under Schedule I --------------------- 1, 254 Due under Schedule V-------------------- 42 Total due --------------------------- 1,296 Margarita Martinez No evidence was offered to show that Martinez would have been available for work with the Respondent before the end of the strike on March 24, 1952. Her backpay will, therefore, be computed from March 25, 1952. At that date Martinez was unemployed and seeking work. She registered with and reported regularly to the State employment office, sought work through the Union, and made an inde- pendent search for a job. Part of her difficulty in obtaining employment may be attributed to the fact that she was not, before 1953, a citizen of the United States, and jobs in aircraft factories were not open to her. I find that she made reasonable efforts to secure other employment. Around June 19, 1952, Martinez obtained employment with Lastic Products in Burbank, California, through the State employment office. After working there for several weeks Martinez was discharged when her boss became angry in a dispute about a promised bonus. Although I do not believe that Martinez willfully incurred loss by this discharge, it is unnecessary to make any finding on that because the next day she procured employment at Pacific Mercury Television Manufacturing Cor- poration in Sepulveda, California, at a higher wage rate. She has been employed there ever since. as This would be high for blue jeans but low for woolen slacks, but counsel did not ask Marin what kind she bought. 1280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In June 1953, Martinez received from the Respondent , in the form of the Hersey letter, an offer of reinstatement, and she returned for an interview. When she learned that the Respondent no longer had a swing shift , the shift on which she had previously worked when with the Respondent (although at Pacific Mercury she was on day shift), and when she learned that she could not earn more than $1.25 an hour with the Respondent, Martinez declined reinstatement . The exact date of the interview above related is not in evidence. From the return receipt in evidence, I infer that she received the offer on June 16, 1953 , and I take that as the cutoff date. Martinez' Backpay Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I---- -------------------- $55 *$22 0 $22 $33 II------------------------ 718 54 0 54 664 III------------------------ 702 418 0 418 284 IV------------------------ 695 595 0 595 100 Total, 1952 -------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,081 1953- I- ----------------------- 703 558 0 558 145 4/1-6/16 II ------------------------ 572 549 0 549 23 Total, 1953 -------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 168 Due under Schedule I--------------------- -------- ------- ------------ ------------ 1,249 Due under Schedule V-------------------- ------------ ------------ --- -------- ------------ 42 Total due ------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,291 *This includes a small item of receipt not included in the specifications but shown on the social security record Dorothy Meadows Except for the third quarter of 1952, claim is made for Dorothy Meadows for the period between December 13, 1951 , and April 30, 1955. No evidence was adduced to show that Meadows would have been available for employment by the Respondent before the end of the strike on March 24, 1952. Her backpay is there- fore computed from March 25, 1952. On June 13 , 1953, the Respondent mailed to Meadows a copy of the Hersey letter offering her reinstatement . This letter was sent to an old address and it was not delivered until June 26, 1953. By use of the address shown in the third amended charge for Meadows, the Respondent might have effected an earlier delivery. The delay is therefore chargeable to the Respondent . It is immaterial that Meadows could not remember having received this letter . I consider the proof of mailing and delivery to be adequate . The cutoff date for Meadows' backpay is, therefore, June 26, 1953. I find no evidence indicating that Meadows suffered a willful loss. The only contention which the Respondent might raise is afforded by the fact that Meadows was discharged at Lite Steel Products where she had been employed between December 1951 and April or May 1952 This apparently resulted from a personality conflict with her floorlady , who discharged her. When the latter was on vacation, the boss recalled Meadows because she was a good worker, but after the floorlady returned from her vacation she again discharged Meadows. In periods of unemployment, Meadows registered with the State employment office KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1281 and made an independent search for work four or five times a week in the area including part of Los Angeles , Huntington Park, Highland Park, Glendale , Burbank, and Pasadena . She also went to the Union for assistance but got no jobs at the places it referred her to. Until the second quarter of 1953, when she got a job with Acme Electronics in Monrovia , Meadows was unemployed . The exact dates of her period of employment at Acme are not shown , but from her earnings I find that she worked there for about 7 weeks. Therefore, as she was unemployed for the balance of the quarter , the claim for $ 10 carfare spent in a search for work appears to be ieasonable and is allowed as a deductible expense . Since the termina- tion date of Meadows' employment at Acme is not shown, I shall include all her earnings there as coming before the cutoff date of June 26, 1953. Meadows' Backpay Period Gioss Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gioss Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-3/31 ------------------------ $45 $45 0 $45 0 IL----------------------- 611 213 0 213 $398 III------------------------ IV----------------------- (") 6.50 ------------ 0 0 ------------ 0 ---------650 Total, 1952 -------------------------- 1,048 1953- I----------------------- 657 0 0 0 657 4/1-6/26 II------------------------ 643 316 $10 306 337 Total , 1953 -------------------------- 994 Due under Schedule I -------------- 2,042 `No claim Irene Minkler Claim is made for Minkler beginning December 13, 1951 , but she was not shown to be available to the Respondent before the end of the strike . Her backpay will therefore commence on March 25, 1952. Mmkler gave testimony mainly of individ- ual search for work from three to five times a week , although she contacted the Union and the State employment office on a few occasions . She never registered at the latter, however. When looking for work she went by public transportation, by friends' automobiles, and she walked. She testified that she wore out six or seven pairs of shoes walking in search of work. At some of the places where she sought work she was turned down because she acknowledged that she intended to return to the Respondent's employ at the end of the strike. Because of the reference to the "end of the strike," I infer that any such statements she made, were made before March 24, 1952, the last day of the strike Before June 15, 1953, when she received the Hersey letter from the Respondent, offering her reinstatement , Minkler found no work. Although one might expect that , in better than a year's time, Minkler might, with reasonable effort, have found work, I take note of the fact that she was over 40 years of age, not very attractive in appearance, and she had had rather limited experience After receipt of the offer of reinstatement, Minkler, although ready, willing, and able to go to work, was not reinstated until August 4, 1953. Her claim for backpay under Schedule D apparently ends there, but her rate of pay upon her reinstatement was not the rate to which she was entitled . I find that had she been paid the rate to which she would have been entitled between August 4 ,1953 , and February 4, 1954, she would have received $59 more in that time. I find , therefore, that she is entitled to $59 under Schedule IV of the specifications. 1282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Minkler's Backpay Period Interim eatmngs Gross Net - backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I------------------------ $47 0 0 0 $47 II------------------------ 560 0 0 0 560 III------------------------ 586 0 0 0 586 IV------------------------ 586 0 0 0 586 Total, 1952 -------------------------- ---------- ---------- -------- ---------- 1,779 1953- I------------------------ 586 0 0 0 586 II------------------------ 640 $27 0 $27 613 III------------------------ 215 42 0 42 173 Total, 1953 ------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------ 1,372 Due under Schedule I--------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 3,151 Due under Schedule IV------------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 59 Total due------ -------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 3,210 Beatrice Muller The specifications show Muller's claim as starting on December 13, 1951, and running to April 30, 1955, with the exception of the second quarter of 1954. As no evidence was offered to show that Muller was available for employment by the Respondent until the end of the strike, I shall compute her backpay as starting on March 25, 1952, the day following the end of the strike. At this time, Muller had a job with United States Flare Corporation, which paid somewhat less than her job at the Respondent.89 She quit this job on June 8, 1952, because, she testified, the odor of a substance she had to work with nauseated her. She testified that she had not, in the earlier part of her employment there, had to work with the malodorous substance. She did testify that she had been working with it for a month, more or less, before she quit but testified that it did not nauseate her as much at first as it did later. On the basis of personal experience, I would expect a nauseous odor to be more offensive on shorter, than on longer, acquaintance, absent any change in general health, but as I am not a specialist on the subject and as no expert testimony was offered to refute the possibility that nausea would increase rather than de- crease after exposure to a foul odor, I make no finding that the condition described by Muller was impossible. Inasmuch as some people are and some are not nauseated by particular odors I do not deem of much weight the testimony elicited by the Respondent on cross-examination of various witnesses that they were not nauseated by such foul odors as existed in parts of the Respondent's plant. Furthermore, every foul odor might not induce nausea even in the same individual. Muller testified that, before qutting at United States Flare, she made no effort to get assigned to other work. If she quit without learning that reassignment would be denied, an inference might he drawn that Muller had some reason other than nausea for not wishing to remain with United States Flare. But Muller was not asked why she had not applied for a change of assignment. That Muller did not know or have reason to believe that such a request would have been useless is not, in itself, neces- sarily to be inferred. Because the burden is on the Respondent to prove willful loss 89 Muller had quit a job with another company in November 1951 As the backpay period does not begin until Muller had another, this time with United States Flare Corp., and as the evidence did not disclose that Muller was earning more in the earlier job than at United States Flare , I find it unnecessary to pass on the question of whether or not Muller was justified in quitting her earlier job KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1283 and because I find the evidence insufficient to establish such loss, I make no exclusion of the period following Muller's quitting at United States Flare,90 especially since Muller immediately registered at a State employment office, checked there once or twice a week, and made an independent search for work. Jobs at aircraft factories were not open to Muller because she had been unable to get" a birth certificate showing that she was a citizen of the United States. In March 1953, through a friend, Muller succeeded in getting a job at Chetron Corporation. Her expenses incurred during this quarter of 1953 are reasonable and are allowable. She was laid off at Chetron sometime during the second quarter of 1953, again registered at the California State employment office, checked there once or twice a week, and made an independent search for work, incurring additional transportation expense which is allowable as a charge against earnings in that quarter. On June 13, 1953, the Respondent sent to Muller the Hersey letter, offering her unconditional reinstatement. Muller acknowledged receipt of the letter, the post office return receipt for which is dated June 15, but she failed to communicate with the Respondent. I find that the Respondent's obligation was terminated on June 15, 1953. Muller's Backpay Period . Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I________________________ $50 $44 '0 $44 $6 II________________________ 636 346 0 346 290 III________________________ 662 0 0 0 662 IV------------------------ 662 0 0 0 662 Total, 1952-------------------------- --------- ---------- ------------ ------------ 1.620 1953- I________________________ 662 88 $41 47 615 411-6/15 II__________ 554 231 30 201 353 Total, 1953------------------------- -------- -------- ----------- ----------- 968 Due under Schedule I-------------- ------------ ---------- ---------- ----------- 2,588 'Expenses for first quarter were offset by earnings preceding March 25, 1952 Rachel S. Negrete After December 13, 1951, Rachel Negrete was unemployed until late in 1952. During the interim she was looking for employment. Among other places visited in 1952, sometime after Christmas in 1951,81 Negrete went to the Respondent's plant and spoke with Foreman Fred Smith, asking for work. Smith told Negrete there were no jobs available and to look somewhere else. The exact date of this con- versation is not certain. "In 1952, sometime after Christmas 1951," suggests that it was not too long after Christmas, and that possibly this occurred in January 1952. Except by guesswork, I am unable to place the time, because it was not attempted to be fixed with reference to any other date or event, such as the time when she registered with the State employment office, which she testified was in February. 90 Quitting because of intolerable conditions does not create a willful loss. East Texas Steel Castings Company, Inc, 116 NLRB 1336, 1367 91This phrase is part of the question asked of Negrete by counsel for the General Counsel: Q. In 1952, that would be sometime after Christmas in 1951, will you tell us whether or not you ever had a conversation with Foreman Fred Smith of Knickerbocker' A. Yes, I did, because I went to look for a job there. 614913-62-vol. 132-82 1284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Because of the indefiniteness of the date I am unable to find that, before the end of the strike on March 24, 1952, Negrete was shown to have been available for work at the Respondent. I shall therefore commence computation of her backpay as of March 25, 1952. In addition to registering at the State employment office, Negrete testified, she walked and took buses looking for work (canvassing) around Glendale, Burbank, and the nearby area of Los Angeles. She found no work until the end of 1952. Negrete's first job was with Evans Honey Company. Here she was required to buy rubber boots and apron at a cost of $10. However, she remained in this job for only a week. Then, without loss of time, she took a job at Palm Footwear, Inc., and remained there (the name of the employer was changed but her job continued the same) until July 1953, when she had to go to the hospital for an appendectomy. Meanwhile, in June 1953, she had received the Respondent's Hersey letter, offering her reinstatement. She replied to it but was not reemployed by the Respondent until August 3, 1953. At that time she was paid $1.10 an hour instead of $1.15, the rate to which she was entitled at that time. Negrete also testified that she was given menial and more arduous work to perform. Eventually she quit because of poor transportation to the Respondent's new plant. There is apparently no claim that she was constructively discharged, and except for the claim under Schedule III for the difference in what she received and what she was entitled to, no claim for backpay is made after June 30, 1953. A claim is listed for Negrete under Schedule II for hospital expense incurred in July 1953. As Negrete was not reinstated until August 1953, this falls within the claim period and is allowed. Rachel Negrete's Backpay Period Interim cainings Gloss Net backpay backpay Yen Quartet Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I________________________ $46 0 0 0 $46 II----------------------- 685 0 0 0 685 III----------------------- 690 0 0 0 690 IV________________________ 678 $75 $10 $65 61.3 Total, 1952------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------ 2,034 1953- I------------------------ 685 549 0 549 136 691 344 0 344 347 Total, 1953-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- ------------ 483 Due under Schedule I-------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 2,517 Due under Schedule II-------------------- ----------- ------------ ------------ ------------ 62 Due under Schedule III------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ --- -------- 12 Due under Schedule V-------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 44 Total due--------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 2,635 Leslie J. Nogrady 92 Claim is made for Nogrady only for the period between January 8 and March 31, 1952 No evidence was adduced to show that Nogrady would have been available for employment by the Respondent before the end of the strike on March 24, 1952. Therefore, any claim he would have for backpay would start on March 25, 1952. At this time he was acting as a real estate agent under contract for commission only. He testified credibly that he earned no commission before the end of April 1952. 92 See footnote 8, 8upra. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1285 In computing Nogrady's backpay for the 5 working days between March 25 and 31, 1951, inclusive, I have computed his gross backpay for the full first quarter,93 dividing this figure by 63, the number of working days in the quarter, and multiplying the figure thus obtained by 5. , Nogrady's Backpay Year 1952-3/25-3/31 Period Quarter I -------------------------- Due under Schedule I-------------_ Gross hackpay $58 Gross Interim earnings Deductible expenses 0 0 Net Net backpay 0 $58 58 Elizabeth R. Norton At the hearing, while Norton was on the stand, Respondent's counsel sought to ask questions regarding her strike status and elicit other information going to her employee status on July 9, 1951. 1 sustained objections to all such questions because Norton was one of those to whom the Respondent sent discharge telegrams on July 10 and 11, 1951, and it appeared that she was within the scope of the Board's Order of reinstatement. During the hearing, my attention was not called to a pertinent portion of the transcript in the unfair labor practice hearing in this matter. I have since read it. I now quote that portion of the original record which appears on page 262 or 263 94 thereof during the time that Elizabeth Norton was on the witness stand TRIAL EXAMINER BENNETT: Mr. Harrington [counsel for the General Coun- sel], you say that this witness was a striker,95 and thereby is within the scope of the complaint. Do you contend there would be any affirmative remedy with this witness? Mr. HARRINGTON: Do you mean- TRIAL EXAMINER BENNETT: As far as being a striker? Mr. HARRINGTON: No, no remedy. TRIAL EXAMINER BENNETT: And you are not urging any? Mr. HARRINGTON: No. In this particular instance, no. In view of this statement of counsel, I am of the opinion that no claim for Norton should have been filed at all. Should the Board disagree with this conclusion, the claim as made in Schedule I of the specifications would have to be reduced because Norton joined the strike after she returned from her vacation, as appears from her testimony in the original hearing, and no showing was made that she would have been available for employment by the Respondent until after the end of the strike on March 24, 1952; so her backpay claim could not begin before that date. Because the claim is not allowed, it is unnecessary for me to determine whether or not backpay would have been tolled by an offer of reinstatement sent to Norton on June 13, 1953, at an address at which Norton had not lived for 5 years The Re- spondent was put on notice of a later address by the third amended charge. Two return receipts were offered in evidence, on one of which, purporting to show delivery of the Hersey letter on June 16, 1953, someone had signed the name of 93 The specifications apparently compute the first quarter pay on a basis of 12 weeks of a 13-week quarter. 9; In the transcript of record as prepared for the court of appeals, although no omission is shown, there is no notation of page 263, although the page number preceding this passage is numbered [262] and the page number following the passage is [264]. In any event, the passage appears on pages 314 and 315 of the transcript of record as prepared for the court 95 Norton was named in the third amended charge 1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Norton's husband. No attempt was made to prove the signature. The other, dated June 18, 1955, and signed by Norton, was not connected with any particular piece of mail. No registration number appeared on this receipt and it was not postmarked. No evidence was adduced to show when or under what circumstances Norton signed this receipt. Rojelia C. Ortiz Claim is made for Ortiz only for the periods between January 1 to July 16, 1952, and June 15 to August 3, 1953. Ortiz obtained employment in late 1951 with Duncan Rhone in Sun Valley, California, and held the job until July 18, 1952. Thus, Ortiz was employed for the full period in 1952 for which a claim is filed. On June 20, 1953, Ortiz received a copy of the Hersey letter offering her reinstate- ment. Ortiz sent it back with a penciled acceptance reading: "I accept the offer & I'm ready for work." She was not thereafter employed, however, until August 3, 1953, after she had received a letter from the Respondent notifying her to report on that date. Although Ortiz could not remember conversations with anyone at the Respond- ent's plant between the two letters, the tenor of the second letter indicates that rein- statement of Ortiz had been deferred by the Respondent until August 3, 1953, as had happened with some of the others. On that date, she returned to the Respondent's employ and has worked there since.96 No showing was made that Ortiz was available for employment by the Respondent during the strike. As the strike ended on March 24, 1952, I shall compute backpay for Ortiz as commencing on March 25, 1952. Ortiz' Backpay Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I------------------------ $53 `$48 0 $48 $5 II------------------------ 678 618 0 618 60 7/1-7/16 III------------------------ 105 87 0 87 18 Total, 1952------------------------- --------- -- ------------ --------- ------------ 83 1953-6/15-30 II ------------------------ 109 0 0 0 109 7/1-8/3 111 ------------------------ 249 0 0 0 249 Total, 1953-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 358 Due under Schedule I-------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -------- 441 Due under Schedule III------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 42 Total due--------------------------- ------------ ----------- ------------ ------------ 483 Eustolia Owen (Nunez) Except for the third quarter of 1954, for which backpay is claimed, Owen's claim is limited to the period between January 1, 1952, and February 9, 1953. She also has a claim for 1951 vacation pay under Schedule V in the amount of $19. As there is no evidence that Owen's services would have been available to the Respond- ent before the end of the strike on March 24, 1952, her backpay will begin on March m The General Counsel adduced evidence that in 1954 the Respondent, by its agent, Cook, told Ortiz to join the 8(a) (2) union, his object apparently being to show, that the Respondent was not acting in good faith and that this (presumably retroactively) affected the bona fides of the offer of reinstatement. Such contention is too broad and does not affect my previous finding that, speaking generally, the offers of reinstatement were made in good faith. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1287 25, 1952. On the latter date, Owen was working for U.S.. Flare Corporation, of Los Angeles, and she continued to work there until February 1953, after which time she got married and withdrew from the labor market until March 1954, when she again sought work. While she was working at U.S. Flare, Owen, on June 18, 1952, had an operation for appendicitis and was not at work for 6 or 7 weeks, "maybe more." The specifications appear not to have deducted this time from, the gross backpay. On the basis of Owen's testimony and the record of her earnings, I con- clude that she was incapacitated from working from June 18 to August 19 and I shall reduce the gross backpay accordingly. On June 13, 1953, the Respondent mailed to Owen a copy of the Hersey letter offering her reinstatement. This was mailed to Owen at an address which she had had during part of the time she was working for Respondent. Although Owen had moved from that address before the strike, she did not give the Respondent her new address, and I find no evidence that the Respondent was otherwise informed of the change. Therefore, the Respondent's offer of reinstatement was mailed to her last known address and was effective to toll backpay from the date it normally would have been received. I find that normally it would have been received on June 15 or 16, 1953. Hence I find no backpay due after that date. Owen's Backpay Pei iod Interim earnings Gioss Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I------------------------ $53 $46 0 $46 $7 4/1-6/17 II---- -------------------- 582 522 0 522 60 8/19-9/30 III ------------------------ 296 202 0 202 94 IV------------------------ 664 576 0 576 88 Total, 1952----------------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------- 249 1953- 1/1-2/9 I------------------------ *272 239 0 239 33 Total, 1953-------------------------- ------------ -------- ------------ ----------- 33 Due under Schedule I--------------------- -------- ----------- ------------ --------- 282 Due under Schedule V-------------------- ----------- ------------ ------------ ------------ 19 Total due--------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 301 *The specifications show $308 as the gross backpay for Owen for this period The Respondent's amended answer alleges the correct amount to be $11530. From Exhibit No 1B attached to Schedule I of the specifications, I find that Owen's backpay, without overtime, for the period in question would be $251 The specifications apparently include either January 1 (a holiday) or February 10, an excluded day, because they show $260 for this period without overtime pay and $48 for overtime pay On the basis of data shown in Exhibit No 2 attached to the specifications, I compute Owen's overtime for this period at approximately $21, making gross backpay for the period $272 Grace Palmisano Palmisano was one of those who received a telegram in July 1951 which the Board held evidenced a discharge . For this reason (although Palmisano was denied by the Respondent in the amendment of its amended answer to be a discharged striker), I rejected evidence concerning Palmisano 's status as a discharged striker. Although I sustained an objection to a question by Respondent 's counsel concerning whether or not Palmisano had not become ill on or about June 23, 1951, and had not returned to work thereafter, the information concerning Palmisano's illness is in the record heretofore certified to the court (at p. 499; original transcript p. 627- 628). As I read the Board's decision, it is immaterial whether or not the discharged 1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employee worked on the day before the strike began if such employee was on the July 8, 1951, roster of employees (as Palmisand was 97 ) and if they were sent dis- charge telegrams ( as Palmisano was). That the Respondent sent discharge tele- grams to those believed to be on strike, although they had left because of illness or vacation before the day the strike started, is evidenced first by the fact that it was not the customary practice of the Respondent to terminate those who were out ill or for other reasons until long after they last worked unless word had been received from the employee that he or she did not intend to return, 98 and second, by the fact that some of those who were on vacation when the strike started got discharge telegrams although their vacation time had not elapsed. I am led to the conclusion that the Respondent sent such telegrams to absent persons only if they were known or suspected by the Respondent to be union sympathizers supporting the strike. This appears to have been the conclusion reached when the Board found that the tele- grams were a device used to discharge strikers or strike sympathizers. Claim is made for backpay for Palmisano from January 1, 1952, to April 30, 1955. As Palmisano testified that she applied for work at the Respondent in December 1951 and was not accepted she apparently was available for employment by the Re- spondent after January 1, 1952, when the backpay claim begins. When unemployed, Palmisano searched for employment on her own. She also sought assistance from the Union. Details of her search are not in evidence, but considering her work record and lack of any evidence of willfully incurred loss, I find that Palmisano made reasonable search for employment. In June 1953, Palmisano received from the Respondent a copy of the Hersey letter offering her reinstatement. She testified that, a few days after receiving the letter, she telephoned the Respondent's plant and spoke with a girl who answered the tele- phone. This girl told Palmisano to call another time. Palmisano, of Italian descent, spoke with a broken accent in fragmentary English, with the result that her testi- mony is short of graphic clarity. However, I deduce from her testimony that she was asked to call later because the man who took care of reinstating discharged strikers was not present at that time. Palmisano telephoned later and talked with a man whom she was unable to identify other than to say that he told her "all about it." She asked this man what wages she would be paid and he told her she would have to start "like a new lady again." To her, this meant that she would get only 80 cents an hour as she had in 1951 before the strike and would actually not be re- instated with full seniority As she was then making $1.231/2 an hour at Cal-Ray Bakeries, she decided not to return. Had Palmisano been reinstated without loss of seniority, she would, in June 1953, have been entitled to $1.25 an hour The Re- spondent did not call as a witness any man who had charge of reinstatements to re- fute Palmisano's testimony. Palmisano was not even asked the date or approximate time when she spoke with this man. So far as the record shows, it could have been 6 or 8 months after her first telephone call, when she was unable to "get satisfac- tion," that is, to speak with someone who could give her information Whoever told Palmisano that she would have to start as a new employee may have supposed that the Respondent was under no obligation to reinstate Palmisano because she may have called him more than a week after the receipt of the Hersey letter. But even if she did call more than a week later, the Respondent would be running the risk of interpreting the delay as a rejection of the Hersey letter offer, whereas here the delay is explained, and, unless the facts warrant a finding of rejection, the offer must be kept good If Palmisano's call had been long delayed there might be grounds for inferring rejection or at least for tolling backpay, but on the record as it stands I see no reason for terminating or tolling backpay and I therefore compute it, as shown in the specifications, to April 30, 1955, except that the gross backpay figures furnished by the Respondent in its amended answer, and marked by an asterisk in the chart below, will be substituted for those shown in the specifications. 17 Her name was shown on General Counsel's Exhibit No 249 in original hearing Sixth from the end es See transcript of original hearing certified to court, pp 492, 494, 495, 504, 511 517 526-520, etc , and see footnote 8, supra Some of the employees who were out because of illness , although they had been absent for as long as 8 to 0 months or more, were not terminated at the time of the strike, yet Pa]misano, who had been out only for 2 weeks before the strike started, was discharged KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. Palmisano's backpay 1289 Period Intel im earnings G i oss Net backpay backpay Year Quartei Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952- I------------------------ $624 $115 0 $115 $509 II________________________ 668 0 0 0 668 III________________________ 687 366 0 366 321 IV _ ______________________ 695 435 0 435 260 Total, 1952------------------------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ----------- 1,758 1953- I________________________ 703 593 0 593 110 II__________________ 675 552 0 552 123 III________________________ *642 710 0 710 0 IV ________________________ *641 601 0 601 40 Total, 1953-------------------------- ----------- ------------ ------------ ------------ 273 1954- I________________________ 846 582 0 582 264 II_____________ 816 89 0 89 727 III------------------------ 837 0 0 0 837 IV ___ _________ 827 0 0 0 827 Total, 1954----------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 2,655 1955- I___________ *699 0 0 0 699 4/1-4/30 II____ _______ 292 0 0 0 292 Total, 1955 __________________________ - ----------- ------------ ------------ ------- ----- 99, Due under Schedule I--------------- - ------------ --- ------------ ------------ ---- ------------ -- 5,677 *Figures shown in Respondent's amended answer, which figures were not contested by the General Counsel Anthony Pavani 99 No showing was made that Pavani would have been available for employment by the Respondent before the end of the strike. I compute his backpay, therefore, as starting on March 25, 1952. No claim was made for backpay for any but the first quarter in 1953. Excepted periods thereafter are irrelevant because Pavani chose not to accept reinstatement offered him in 1953. The cutoff date for backpay is either March 14, 1953, when Pavans got a job with Maas Organ Co., or on June 19, 1953, depending on interpretation of Pavam's answers. As no claim is made for the balance of 1953 and as Pavani received the Respondent's offer of reinstatement on June 19, 1953, and chose not to accept it, no backpay would have accrued after the date of its receipt in any event. Pavani testified that he received a letter from the Respondent in June, but that then "I was working already for Maas." Respondent's counsel then asked, "So you didn't want to go back to Knickerbocker." Pavani replied that he did not. Respondent's counsel asked, "Before you received this letter . . . and beginning from the time you started working at Maas Organ in March of 1953, had you at any time made up your 99 The Respondent made an offer of proof during cross-examination of Pavani that he continued working for the Respondent until July 31, 1951 The Respondent made no effort in its amendment to its amended answer to put in issue the status of Pavans as a discharged striker or strike sympathizer. Furthermore, he was one of those named in General Counsel 's Exhibit No 244 in the original hearing as having been sent discharge telegrams Failure to raise any issue in Its amendment to its amended answer , filed pur- suant to the Board's Findings and Order of October 15, 1957 , is sufficient reason for re- jecting the offer of proof I might add, however , that the Respondent 's records should have shown the date last worked by Pavans Yet the Respondent made no attempt to offer proof by its records either on the General Counsel's case or its own The date July 31, 1951 , was the date on which the discharged strikers were shown as terminated on the Respondent 's personnel records, but, as testified by McCreary In the original hear ing, that did not indicate the date last worked 1290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mind that you didn't want to go back, or wouldn't go back to Knickerbocker?" Pavans answered , "No, I didn't want to go back." Then he testified that he made that decision "all along .. . as soon as I started working for Maas Organ Company." On redirect examination , counsel for the General Counsel asked Pavam, "After you got the job at Maas Organ Company, and before you got that letter [the Hersey letter of June 13, 1953, offering reinstatement ], did you even think of Knickerbocker? Were you thinking about Knickerbocker 's?" Pavani answered, No, no, I wasn't thinking." The object of this question was to establish that, if Pavani's mind did not advert to the Respondent before he received the offer of reinstatement, he could not have "made up his mind " that he would not have i eturned to the Respondent even if he had received an offer of reinstatement when he was first employed by Maas. The contention is that any testimony relative to his state of mind at that time is purely speculative and actually purports to express a state of mind that did not exist before the offer of reinstatement was actually received Although this argument is not devoid of reason , the Board has already decided that an answer such as was given by Pavani to the question of Respondent's counsel is a basis for cutting off backpay on the earlier date.iOO I therefore compute his backpay only until March 14, 1953. In the first quarter of 1952 Pavani was engaged in repairing furniture on a job basis for Marts Opportunity Shop in Los Angeles. This was part-time work and for about 2 weeks in the first quarter Pavani also had a job with California Incinerator Company, but he was laid off from that work . During his unoccupied time Pavane watched newspaper help-wanted advertisements and followed them up. He also made application for work at several motion picture studios at the suggestion of Marts. On several occasions he went to the State employment office and visited the employers that they sent him to, but he found no openings . Before working for the Respondent, Pavani had had about 12 years' experience as captain of waiters in a Los Angeles restaurant. But he testified that he did not want, and did not ask, for this type of work although he testified that he was willing to take any job that he could find. The Respondent took the position that Pavani did not exert sufficient effort to go to places of business at more remote points and presumably to canvass for work at more distant points regardless of whether or not he had any expectations of finding it there. I find no evidence that Pavani willfully incurred any loss It does not appear that even if he had been willing to accept a job as captain of waiters he could have procured one. I find that he incurred no willful loss in failing to inquire about such a job. During the time that Pavani was working for Marts he did a little bit of work repairing furniture for others . He testified that in 1952 he earned about $30 all told from other persons . And in the first quarter of 1953 he received $63 from a man for whom he had done some repair work over a period of time. These two items are not reflected in the backpay specifications and will be taken into account here Also not shown in the specifications as net interim earnings is about $98 which he received from Marts in the first quarter of 1953, before he got his job at Maas Organ on March 14, 1953. After that date Pavani worked for Maas Organ exclusively. Pavani's backpay Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay • Gloss Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-3/31 ----------------------- $b6 $8 0 $8 $58 I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 841 117 0 117 724 III------------------------ 819 139 (1 139 680 IV------------------------ 810 163 0 163 647 Total, 1952__________________________ 2.109 1953-1/1-3/14 1 I________________________ 656 336 0 336 320 Total, 1953__________________________ ------------ 320 Due under Schedule I_______________ 2,429 10O Alexander Manufacturing Company, 110 NLRB 1457 at 1459. Deena Artiaare, Incoi porated, 112 NLRB 371 at 378. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1291 Antonia Perez (Convery) Backpay is claimed for Perez for the period between January 1, 1952, and Septem- ber 30, 1953. No evidence was adduced to show that she would have been avail- able for employment by the Respondent before the end of the strike on March 24, 1952. Her backpay, therefore, accrues from March 25, 1952. On the latter date Perez was in the employ of Arpee Products Co. in Glendale and continued in its employ, except for a short layoff period in the second quarter, until sometime in July 1952 when she was again laid off. Perez registered at the State employment office and searched for work in the Glendale and Burbank areas and the adjacent section of Los Angeles, traveling some- times by foot, sometimes by bus, and sometimes both. She spent about $3 a week in busfares. The date is not in evidence, but sometime during the third quarter of 1952 she got a job with Sidney Williams Company. She remained there only until the fourth day of her employment. Then she quite because, she testified, she could not stand the chemical odor, and the pay was low (95 cents an hour). On all her testimony, I judge that the odor alone would not have caused her to quit, but she felt that for the pay she received she should not have to put up with the odor At the Respondent, she had received $1.05 an hour and worked in the packing depart- ment where there were no disagreeable odors. I find no willfully incurred loss re- sulted which requires reduction of backpay, because the discriminatorily discharged employee is not required to work under conditions personally disagreeable or more arduous than those at the Respondent.ioi After leaving Sidney Williams, Perez again registered at the State employment office and searched in the same areas by foot and bus, spending about $3 a week for fares. She found no further employment during the third quarter, but when referred by the State employment office to Hayward Precision Products in Glendale, she pro- cured a job there and was employed there substantially all the fourth quarter of 1952 and the first quarter of 1953, after which time she was laid off. She again registered at the State employment office and searched ,for work in the same areas but procured no work in the second quarter of 1953. On June 13, 1953, the Respondent sent Perez a copy of the Hersey letter, offering her reinstatement. Perez received this on July 15 and went to the Respondent's plant and told the floorlady or Personnel Manager Cook that she would return to the Respondent. She was told that the Respondent was in the process of moving and that she would be notified when to report for work. In early August she received notice from the Respondent to report on August 3. However, on July 6, Perez had procured a job at Gladding McBean in Los Angeles and she did not report to the Respondent. August 3, 1953, is the cutoff date for backpay.102 Schedule I appears to contain two errors. It does not cut off backpay until September 30, 1953, and it claims deductible expenses incurred in seeking employ- ment in the third quarter of 1952 in the amount of $81. Perez would have had to be out of work for 27 weeks in order to spend that much at the rate of $3 a week I estimate that she was out of work for about 91/2 weeks in third quarter of 1952 and that she is therefore entitled to deduct $29 from her interim earnings during that quarter. In the Respondent's amended answer, revised gross backpay figures were furnished for Perez for the second and third quarters of 1953, the latter of which was not contested by the General Counsel. Perez earned more at her employment at Gladding McBean in the third quarter of 1953 than she would have at the Re- spondent according to the uncontested figure alleged in the amended answer to be the correct one; so no backpay is due for the third quarter of 1953. I find, however, that the gross backpay figure for the second quarter of 1953 as appears in the speci- fications is the correct one 101 See Harvest Queen Mill & Elevator Company, 90 NLRB 320 at 338 ; L,B. Hosiery Co , Incorporated and Lee Maisel, doing business as Myerstown Hosiery Mills , 99 NLRB 630; Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of America, Carpet, Linoleum & Resilient Tile Layeis, Local No 419 , AFL (Lauren Burt Inc of Colorado ), 114 NLRB 295 at 299-300 102 The Respondent did not offer any evidence to show that if Perez had not been dis- criminatorily discharged , she would have been laid off at the time the Respondent moved 1292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Perez' Backpay Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I-------------- _ $56 $51 0 $51 $5 II -------------- 718 587 0 587 131 III------------------------ 702 99 $29 70 632 IV------------------------ 695 600 0 600 95 Total, 1952 ------------- - ------------ ------------ -------- 863 1953- I------------------------ 703 619 0 619 84 II----------------------- 675 0 0 0 675 III------------------------ •642 760 0 760 0 Total, 1953------------------------ ----------- -------- ------------ ------------ 759 Due under Schedule I-------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,622 *Figure shown in Respondent's amended answer, which figure was not contested by the General Counsel Anna Rosa Puente Puente is commonly known as Rosa Puente and so appeared on the Respondent's payroll for July 8, 1951, as evidenced by General Counsel's Exhibit No. 249 in the unfair labor practice hearing. She did not receive a telegram of discharge on July 10, 1951, so far as appears . But she is listed in the third amended charge under the name of Rose Puente , and she was not named by the Respondent in its amend- ment to its amended answer in the backpay proceedings (filed pursuant to an order of the Board that Respondent name those it contended were not discharged strikers) as one who was not a discharged striker. Hence, I ruled .that her status as a discharged striker or strike sympathizer had been conceded by the Respondent . By question asked by Respondent's counsel during his cross-examination , the information was elicited before objection that Puente had not gone on strike. This, of course, does not prove that she was not a strike sympathizer who refused to cross the picket line. Inasmuch as the Respondent failed to include Puente's name in the list of names given in the Respondent's amendment to its amended answer, pursuant to the Board Order of October 15, 1957, I find it unnecessary to consider her status , but since she was not an active striker , I infer that her services would have been available to the Respondent after the picket line was removed in December 1951 I shall therefore commence her backpay computation on the first date following December 13, 1951 , for which a claim was filed, i.e., January 1, 1952 In the latter part of 1951 , Puente worked in various citrus packinghouses in San Fernando and neighboring towns near her home, and she continued to work there until sometime in the fourth quarter of 1952. The work in such houses was not always steady, and she would , on her off days , look for other work. She was not a citizen of the United States and was, I deduce, not eligible for work in defense plants. The evidence indicates that she made a reasonable search and there is no evidence that she refused more gainful employment . In October or November 1952, she procured a better-paying job with Pacific Mercury Television Manufacturing Corporation, which job she held during the balance of the backpay period. Puente was not shown to have received any offer of reinstatement from the Respondent . I shall , therefore, compute her pay for the full period shown in the specifications and in the amounts shown with the exception of the corrected gross backpay figures for three quarters as shown in the Respondent's amended answer, which will be shown in the chart below (designated by an asterisk). KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. Rosa Puente's Backpay 1293 Period Interim eat flings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952- I________________________ $562 $279 0 $279 $283 II________________________ 599 470 0 470 129 IV________________________ 648 582 0 582 66 Total, 1952_ ---------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ------------ 478 1953- I________________________ --- 654 ---- 534 ------ 0 ----- 534 120 II______________ 663 642 0 642 21 III________________________ 614 485 0 485 129 IV________________________ 736 703 0 703 33 Total, 1953-------------------------- ----------- ------------ ------------ ------------ 303 1954- I________________________ 792 562 0 562 230 II ------- 777 680 0 690 97 III------------ ------------ `698 627 0 627 71 IV________________________ *698 676 0 676 22 Total, 1954-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- ------------ 420 1955- 1 I________________________ `699 705 0 705 0 II__________________ 279 186 0 186 93 Total, 1955------------- ----------- ---------- ------------ ----------- ------------ 93 Due under Schedule I--------------- ---- ------------ ------------ --- ------------ ---- ------------ - 1,294 *Figures shown in Respondent's amended answer which figure was not contested by General Counsel I do not accept as correct the gloss backpay figure alleged by the Respondent to be the correct one for the second quarter of 1953 Francisca Puente (Leon) This claimant is the cousin of Margarita Martinez. Because she spoke no English, Puente relied on Martinez in looking for work. The two had procured their jobs at the Respondent at the same time and, when out of work, Puente went with Martinez to all places where her lack of knowledge of English would not be a bar to employment. Puente, like Martinez, a noncitizen, was registered by the latter with the State employment office. Together they went to Lastic Plastic and both got jobs there.103 Although Puente was not involved in Martinez' argument with the boss, previously described, the latter discharged both at the same time. Again, Puente got employment along with Martinez at Pacific Mercury. Puente, however, got married on November 9, 1952, and quit her job. No claim is made for her thereafter. I find her search for employment, when unemployed, to be reasonable and I find that she incurred no willful loss within the backpay period. As in the case of Martinez, however, I shall compute her backpay as beginning on March 25, 1952, the day following the end of the strike. 103 Puente's social security record does not show the name of Lastic Plastic However, a comparison of the employer's number shown thereon with that shown on Martinez' social security record establishes that Puente earned at Lactic Plastic the same amount that Martinez did 1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Francisca Puente's Backpay Period Gi oss Inteiim eainmgs Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/ 25-3/31 --------------------- $55 '$26 0 $26 $29 II------------------------ 718 54 0 54 664 I1I -------------- 702 374 0 374 328 10/1-11/0 I V ------------------------ 285 237 0 237 48 Total, 1952------------------------ 1,069 Due under Schedule I-----------__------ 1,11(19 D ue under Schedule II-------------------- 45 Total due--------------------------- 1, 114 'This includes a small item of receipt shown on the social security record but not shown in the mtcnm eai nings in the specifications Cecelia Ramirez There is no evidence from which it may be inferred that Ramirez would have returned to the Respondent before the strike ended. Her backpay will therefore be computed from March 25, 1952. Before that time, Ramirez was employed by Brad Keeler Artwares in Los Angeles, and she continued to be so employed until February 3. 1953, when she left the employ of that company because of pregancy. Her child was born on February 12, 1953. She testified that she waited 6 weeks and then sought work again. This would mean that she came back into the labor market around April 1, 1953, but the specifications excepted the period from February 3 to May 1, 1953, and no specific amendment was made thereto following Ramirez' testimony. J do not consider that the motion, made and granted at the close of the hearing, to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence as to "minor matters," such as spelling of names, would affect the amount of any backpay claim I shall therefore use the figures given in the specifications for the second quarter of 1953. Following her return to the labor market, Ramirez telephoned Brad Keeler Art- wares to learn if she would be reemployed. She was informed that the employer was then laying people off because they were being forced to move. Ramirez was under the impression that that company went out of business thereafter so she made ,no further effort to return to its employ No evidence was offered to prove that it continued in business. Ramirez registered with the State employment office and, on May 12, 1953, obtained a job at Sensenbrenner Sons, a cigar manufacturer, on May 12, 1953. On June 15, 1953, while still working for Sensenbrenner, Ramirez received from the Respondent the Hersey letter. Ramirez immediately went to the Respondent's personnel department and spoke to Walter Cook, accepting the Respondent's offer. Cook informed her that she would be on the day shift, that her rate would be $1.05 an hour, but that, as the Respondent was going to move to a new plant in North Hollywood, they would not hire her immediately. He told her that, after the Respondent moved, it would let her know when to start working.104 Ramirez testi- fied that she did not hear from the Respondent again She testified that, in Septem- ber of that year, she telephoned the Respondent and spoke with a girl employee (inferentially an office employee) telling her that she had spoken with Cook and that Cook had offered her a job. After leaving the telephone for a time, the girl returned and told Ramirez that she had been notified to return in August and that the Respondent had (at the time of the telephone call) already "filled out." which I infer to mean "hired a full staff." She told Ramirez to call back some other time. The Respondent made no effort to prove the nature or contents of any notice served on 104 The Respondent offered no evidence to show that , if Ramirez ( or any other dis- charged employee ) had not been discharged, she would have been laid off in 1953 because of the Respondent's move to its new plant. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. : 1295 Ramirez to return to work in August 1953. Respondent's counsel did, on cross- examining Ramirez, have Ramirez identify a signature of her mother on a return receipt for registered mail, which bore the date of August 13, 1953. There is evi- dence that another employee, if not more, had received a letter of notification dated July 30, 1953, reminding her that she had (in June, when offered reinstatement) expressed an interest in returning to the Respondent's employ and asking her to report for work on August 3, 1953, but if such a letter was sent to Ramirez there is no proper proof of it and I do not feel justified in inferring that the registered return receipt dated August 13, 1953, signed by the mother of Ramirez on the latter's behalf, was for a letter of instruction to report for work. Furthermore, I do not believe that Ramirez actually saw such an offer if it was made. Although she was receiving $1.05 an hour from Sensenbrenner, the same rate the Respondent would have paid her, Ramirez' job at Sensenbrenner was not full-time work. Before she quit Sensen- brenner, Ramirez was being laid off for 2 or 3 days a week at a time. Thus her total earnings were much less than they would have been at the Respondent. I cannot infer, therefore, that she might have received the Respondent's notice but preferred her employment at Sensenbrenner because of better pay and chose not to return to the Respondent in August. During a layoff period at Sensenbrenner, Ramirez undertook to seek steady employment, and in October 1953 she obtained a job at Standard Coil Products. This job lasted 1 month; then she was laid off. She again registered at the unem- ployment office, reporting once a week. She was required to report at least four places a week where she had sought employment, but actually she went to more employers than that. During the balance of the year she estimated that she spent about $1.50 a day in carfare in her search for employment. The specifications claim $25 expenses for this period in the fourth quarter of 1953. At the rate of $1.50 a day, Ramirez would have spent at least $7.50 a week. This would come to $30 in 4 weeks. As she was unemployed for a period of 4 to 6 weeks, the $25 claim appears to be conservative and reasonable. It should be allowed. Also allowed is the claim for expenses of looking for work in the third and fourth quarters of 1954 and the first quarter of 1955. Despite her search for employment, Ramirez was unemployed until July or August 1954, when, through the State employment office, she obtained a job at Fine Line Arts in Los Angeles.i05 When this employer moved to Beverly Hills, Ramirez took a day off to look for another job because she "had to get closer." I interpret this to mean that she considered Beverly Hills too far to go. I am unable to determine with any degree of accuracy how long it would have taken her, but it probably would have required that she go into downtown Los Angeles and transfer to a bus from there to Beverly Hills.106 As most of the traffic would be flowing into Los Angeles from Beverly Hills in the morning and the reverse at night, transportation in the opposite direction probably would be less frequent. The new location of Fine Line Arts in Beverly Hills does not appear and it is not possible therefore to determine the distance between the Fine Line place of business and the bus line. From trans- portation maps in evidence , it appears that Ramirez might have had a walk of a half mile or more. Without private transportation, Ramirez could well have found it difficult to reach the new location in time to meet her employer 's schedule. In the 1 day which she took off,-Ramirez got a job with Stylart Card Co. in Los Angeles, although at a rate of 5 or 10 cents an hour lower than at Fine Line. On the evidence I am not convinced that she suffered a willful and unnecessary loss thereby. Her job at Stylart ended in her layoff in December 1954. She again registered at the State employment office and in February 1955 obtained through that office a job at Tops Music Enterprises. This job lasted about a month and then she was laid off. She again registered at the employment office but did not obtain further employment until after the end of the claim period. 105 Respondent on cross-examination elicited the fact that Ramirez did not make appli- cation at any airplane factories. It does not appear whether or not she is a citizen of the United States and so was eligible for employment in such factories She testified that she did not apply there because they were too far away and because there was always a time lapse after an application and she was seeking immediate employment. I find no willful loss because of her failure to apply at aircraft factories 100 Another line might have been available to her part way from her home, but it followed a circuitous route and the frequency of buses on the line and its schedule, along with the schedule of the line to which she would have to transfer, are not available to determine travel time by this route - 1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ramirez' Backpay Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3131 I------------------------ $51 $34 0 $34 $17 II------------------------ 655 454 0 454 201 III------------------------ 662 433 0 433 229 IV------------------------ 650 439 0 439 211 Total, 1952---- ------- ------------ ------------ ----------- -------- 658 1953- I------------------------ 219 163 0 163 56 1I------------------------ 442 282 0 282 160 III------------------------ 727 308 0 308 419 IV------------------------ 736 160 $25 135 601 Total, 1953------- ---- ------------ ---------- ------------ ------------ 1,236 1954- I ------- 792 0 0 0 792 II------------------------ 777 0 0 0 777 III________________________ 789 175 30 145 644 IV________________________ 776 380 20 360 416 Total, 1954-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 2,629 1955- I------------------------ •699 181 40 141 558 4/1-4/30 II__ -- ----------------- ----- 279 0 0 0 279 Total, 1955-------------------------- ----------- - ------------ ------------ 837 Due under Schedule I-----------------'--- ----------- -------- -- ------------ 5,360 Due under Schedule V------- --- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 29 Total due --------------------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- 5,389 'Figure supplied in Respondent's amended answer and not contested by the General Counsel Nadine Rillera (Del Pilar) As there is no evidence that Rillera would have been available to the Respondent before March 24, 1952, the end of the strike, her backpay should begin on March 25, 1952. Since Rillera would not be entitled to as much backpay for the 5 days between March 25 and the end of the first quarter on March 31, 1952, as she is shown to have been paid elsewhere, the first quarter of 1952 will be omitted. In addition to registering with the State employment office each time she was out of work, Rillera made a diligent search for work when she was out of a job. Such employment as she lost was the result of layoffs. In 1953, Rillera received a letter from the Respondent which, on its face, was an unconditional offer of reinstatement. The letter requested that she communicate with the Respondent within 7 days after she received the letter. This letter had been mailed to her by the Respondent by registered mail on June 13, 1953. Rillera testified that the letter she received had been mailed to her at an old address and that she did not receive it until 6 months or so later at a time when she was working for Renoir of California, a concern she was with from March 1953 to, or beyond, the end of the period for which backpay was computed (April 30, 1955). When asked by counsel for the General Counsel why she had not applied to the Respond- ent after receiving the letter, she answered that she was working at Renoir of California at the time and that she understood that the letter gave her 7 days from its date, rather than 7 days from the date of receipt by her, to get her job back. This was the only explanation offered by Rillera for her failure to communicate with the Respondent. Later, by questions which might be deemed to be suggestive in form, counsel for the General Counsel attempted to elicit answers that Rillera had not accepted the offer because the Respondent had not then withdrawn recognition KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1297 from the assisted labor organization as ordered by the Board and was permitted to elicit testimony that Rillera, at the time of receipt of the letter, knew that the assisted union (as found in the Board's decision) was still "in" the Respondent's plant. From this, the General Counsel argues that the Hersey letter was not a good-faith offer of reinstatement and could not be one so long as the Respondent had not, as ordered by the Board, rectified the prior unfair labor practices. I have heretofore found otherwise. For the purposes of determining the period of Rillera's backpay, there- fore, I find that it is immaterial that the Respondent may not, as of June 13, 1953, have rectified all the unfair labor practices as ordered by the Board 107 Even if Rillera knew that the assisted union was still recognized by the Respondent, ,t is not shown that she declined the offer of reinstatement for that reason; so she still would not have a claim beyond the date of receipt of the Hersey letter. See L. Ronney & Sun's Furniture Manufacturing Co., etc., 97 NLRB 891. Furthermore, I have reason to doubt that delivery of the Hersey letter was delayed as long as was testified to by Rillera. I believe it improbable that the post office would deliver a registered letter to an address from which the addressee had moved, unless it was signed for by an authorized agent. Rillera's testimony would have it believed that persons unknown to her received the letter. She testified that the people who lived at her former address received the letter but did not know where she was, that when a couple by the name of Mr and Mrs. Pedro Taubel went to look for her at the former address, the people there gave Taubel the letter, and, inferentially, that she received the letter from the Taubels. She testified that she did not know the name of the people who lived at her old address who had received the letter, but that the first name was Raymond. The Respondent introduced in evidence a post office return receipt bearing the same number as that which its records showed was on the letter sent to Rillera. This post office return receipt bore the date of June 17, 1953, as the date of delivery. The postmark on the return receipt showed the same date. The fact that this date is a couple of days later than normal time for delivery suggests that the delay occurred in forwarding the letter to Rillera's new address. The receipt bore a signature "Raymond Rillera" as agent for Nadine Rillera. It is odd that Rillera was able to remember the first name of the party who, she testified, received the letter but could not remember the last name if, as the return receipt showed, it was the same as her own. It seems probable, and I find that Rillera received the letter within a week of the time it was mailed. Because, even when she concededly received the Hersey letter, Rillera made no attempt to communicate with the Respondent about its offer, there is no occasion to resume the backpay tolled on June 17, 1953, the date of delivery or attempted delivery of the Respond- ent's offer of reinstatement. Rillera's backpay period, therefore, extends from March 25, 1952, to June 17, 1953. Rillera's Backpay Period Interim earnings Gioss Net - backpay hackpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952- 11 ------------------------ $678 $48 0 $48 $630 III------------------------ 681 0 0 0 681 IV 664 469 0 469 195 Total, 1952-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,506 1953- I------------------------ 695 398 0 398 297 4/1-6/17 II ------------------------ 551 501 0 501 50 Total, 1953 ------------------------- ----------- ------------ ------------ ------------ 347 Due under Schedule I-------------------- ----------- ----------- ---------- ------------ 1,853 Due under Schedule V-------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 31 Total due------------------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,884 117 There is no credible evidence that Rillera believed that any employees reinstated before she received the Hersey letter had been discriminated against, so I find no such belief entered into her failure to accept reinstatement. Katty Clover, Inc, 103 NLRB 1665. 6 1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Rosemary Rodriguez The status of Rosemary Rodriguez as a discharged striker was not put in issue by the amendment to Respondent's amended answer filed pursuant to the requirements of the Board's Findings and Order of October 15, 1957. Because of this, I sus- tained objections to questions of Respondent's counsel seeking to ascertain her status. The specifications (Schedule 1) show her claim for backpay as starting on December 13, 1951, and as including in 1952 only the first quarter. The claim includes also the period between January 1, 1953, and April 30, 1955. No evidence was offered to show that Rodriguez was available for employment by the Respond- end before March 25, 1952, after the end of the strike. I find, therefore, that her claim would, in any event, not start before then. However, Rodriguez testified that she stopped working in "about" March 1952 because she was pregnant. It does not appear, therefore, that she was in the labor market in the first quarter of 1952 after the end of the strike, and her claim for any backpay before January 1, 1953, will consequently have lobe disallowed. Rodriguez testified that, about a month after her baby was born, she registered at the State employment office. As the child was born in October 1952, it would appear that Rodriguez reentered the labor market in November 1952. No claim was made for her before January 1953, however. Rodriguez testified that she went to the employment office every week at first and they sent her out, but there was no work so she quit going to that office and started looking for work by herself in such places as Glendale, Burbank, and nearby portions of Los Angeles. She filed applications at certain places and repeatedly returned to some of the plants. It does not appear, however, that she ceased to look for work at places where she had not previously attempted to find work. Despite her efforts, she did not find work until June 1953. Then she procured a job at Arpee Products Co, Inc., in Glendale, California, and held it until sometime in December 1953, when she was laid off. She went out every day looking for work in the same areas, but found no other employment. During the first quarter of 1954 she was recalled to Arpee and worked for 6 weeks and was again laid off. After this last layoff, Rodriguez again registered at the State employment office, returning each week and looking for work each day, canvassing the same areas. She testified that her next job was with Cal-Ray Bakeries. The specifications show earnings for her at Arpee, in a small amount, again in the third quarter of 1954,108 but no one questioned Rodriguez about her employment in that quarter. Her em- ployment at Cal=Ray started in the last quarter of 1954 and lasted only 2 or 3 weeks because she had to enter the hospital for an appendectomy. As a result, she was out of the labor market for 2 months in the latter part of 1954. When she recovered she again looked for work every day. Although she did not register there, she returned to the employment office each week in search of work. On January 25, 1955, she was hired by Chetron Corporation and was employed there for the balance of the backpay period. Before the end of the period in 1955, the Respondent did not offer Rodriguez reinstatement. On ,all the evidence, I find that Rodriguez did not incur any willful loss, that she spent $2 a week in busfare during the times she was unemployed and looking for work, and that she paid $394 in medical and hospital expenses within the backpay period which would have been covered by her Respondent-provided insurance had she not been discharged. 108 On the summary of earnings furnished by social security records, there is an entry on the line for the third quarter of 1954 with an employer's number different from the number shown for Arpee, but the last employer's name listed before the entry for the third quarter of 1954 was Arpee No one appeared to notice this at the backpay hearing KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. Rosemary Rodriguez' Backpay 1299 Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1953- I------------------------- $657 0 0 0 $657 II------------------------- 663 $70 $25 $45 618 III------------------------- `642 543 0 543 99 IV------------------------- •661 544 0 544 117 Total, 1953-------------------------- - ----------- ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,491 1954- I------------------------ 525 256 0 256 269 II------------------------ 516 0 0 0 516 III------------------------ '698 43 30 13 685 IV------------------------ 257 99 0 99 158 Total, 1954---------- ---- ------------ ----------- ------------ ------------ 1,628 1955- I------------------------ I '699 440 0 440 259 4/1-4/30 II------------------------ 279 229 0 229 50 Total, 1955--------- ---- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 309 Due under Schedule I--------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 3,428 Due under Schedule II-------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 394 Total due-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ----------- 3,822 *Corrected to conform to figures supplied in Respondent's amended answer, which figures were not con- tested by the General Counsel. Bernice Russell (Bogaert) Claim is made for backpay for Russell for the year 1952 and the last two quarters of 1953. No evidence was offered to prove that she would have been available to work for the Respondent before the end of the strike on March 24, 1952. I shall therefore compute her backpay as commencing on March 25, 1952. On the latter date, Russell was working for Gladding McBean in their pottery decorating depart- ment, and she continued to work there until near the end of the third quarter of 1952, when the department she was in was closed down and she was laid off. She was out of work for about 5 weeks, during which time she looked for work on her own, going out in search of it two or three times a week. She testified that only once in the periods of her unemployment did she "put in" with the State employment office and the date of that she did not remember. She apparently believed that she could get no assistance from the employment office for 2 weeks after registering, because she testified that she preferred to look on her own rather than to wait 2'weeks after registering with the employment office, thinking that in 2 weeks she would have found employment. When out of work, she sought jobs at aircraft plants, electronics plants, and various other places. One method of searching for a job which she used was to telephone all the electronics plants listed in the telephone book and ask if they were hiring or taking applications. If they said they were, she would go there and file an application. In the fourth quarter of 1952, she got a job at Weber Aircraft Corporation in Burbank.109 She left this job, however, to take a higher- paying job with Reed & Reese Co., an electronics business in Pasadena.110 She remained there for several weeks when she was laid off for lack of material to work on. Again unemployed for about a month, more or less, she made a similar search for work and, still in the fourth quarter, found a job with Extruders, Inc., in Haw- thorne on the southern perimeter of Los Angeles, driving about 20 miles each way to work. On December 18, 1952, she took a leave of absence from this job to eo to Texas, where she remained for 6 months. No claim is made for backpay for this 108 From her earnings and the interval between jobs, I judge this to be in early or nild- October 1952 110 The witness testified it was in Pasadena The address of the company given on the social security summary sheet is Altadena The two towns adjoin. 614913-62-vol. 132-83 1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD period. When she returned, she procured employment the day of her arrival. I find it unnecessary to go into this period of the claim, however, for on June 13, 1953, the Respondent mailed to Russell at her last known address a copy of the Hersey letter offering her reinstatement. This was received at that address by her son on June 15, 1953. Under the Board's rule, this tolled the Respondent's backpay obligation, whether or not Russell, herself, saw the letter." Russell has an allowable claim for 1951 vacation pay in the sum of $29. Russell's Backpay Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-3/31 I---------------------- $50 $44 0 $44 $6 II------------------------ 655 608 0 608 47 III------------------------ 662 590 0 590 72 10/1-12/17 IV------------------------ 559 468 0 468 91 Total, 1952-------------------------- 216 Due under Schedule I--------------------- 216 Due under Schedule V-------------------- 29 Total due--------------------------- 245 Margaret Sanza Within a month or so after the strike started, Sanza had obtained a job with Griffin-Patterson Co., Inc., in Glendale, California, as a bookbinder, and she con- tinued in this job throughout the backpay period although it did not always furnish full-time employment. Sanza testified that she sometimes worked 8) hours and sometimes 4 hours a day, sometimes 5 days a week and sometimes 3. However, she testified that on her days off she searched for other work in Glendale and Burbank, and to some extent Los Angeles, leaving her name or. mailing written applications at some places. She watched newspaper help-wanted advertisements and called about same. She testified that she did not register at the "unemployment" office or any other employment agency. Registration at the former would not be expected since she was already employed, and it appeared that some claimants were unaware of the fact that job references could be procured ' through the State employment office even when unemployment compensation was not claimed. I surmise that this belief was entertained by more than those who gave direct testimony thereon. I do not consider failure to register at a private agency to be proof of willful loss. Sanza testified that she would not have taken a job for less than $1 an hour and this may have covered a period of time when the minimum wage law provided for 75 cents an hour, but this cannot be deemed a willful loss either, because she started at Griffin-Patterson at 85 cents an hour, and in 1952 she was making 90 cents, later getting further raises. I take her testimony to mean that she would not have left Griffin-Patterson to take a job at another employer 's unless the latter job paid at least $1 an hour. I find that Sanza made reasonable efforts to reduce her loss. On June 13, 1953, the Respondent mailed her a copy of the Hersey letter offering her reinstatement. Sanza did not remember receiving it, but she acknowledged that the signature on the post office return receipt, which accompanied the letter, looked like hers. According to this receipt, Sanza received the letter on June 15, 1953. She did not thereafter communicate with the Respondent. In fact she testified that she would not have returned "until our union was in." 112 I find that the Respondent's obligation for backpay after June 15, 1953, was tolled. It does not appear that Sanza's services would have been available to the Respondent in any event before -Jay Company, Inc, 103 NLRB 1645. -I consider this to be an attitude expressed at the hearing having reference to the date she signed the return receipt for the Hersey letter Before that date, she was under no obligation to decide whether or not she would have returned See McGough Bakeries Corporation, 58 NLRB 849 at 856; James Thompson & Co, Inc, 100 NLRB 456 at 472-473; Fog Midwest Amusement Corporation, at al, 98 NLRB 699 at 720, footnote 15; Alexander Manufacturing Company, 110 NLRB 1457 at 1459-1460. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1301 the end of the strike. Her backpay will be computed therefore as commencing on March 25, 1952, and as ending on June 15, 1953. Sanza's Backpay Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quartet Gross Deductible Net expenses, 1952-3/25-3/31 I------------------------ $44 '$35 0 '$35 $9 II ------------------------ 560 275 0 275 285 III------------------------ 586 230 0 230 358 IV------------------------ 586 313 0 313 273 Total, 1952-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- ------------ 923 1953- I------------------------ 586 295 0 295 291 4/1-6/15 I1------------------------ 532 122 0 122 410 Total, 1953-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 701 Due under Schedule I--------------------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ------------ 1,624 Due under Schedule II-------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 48 Due under Schedule V-------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ----------- 42 Total due-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 1,714 'Prorated at 85 cents an hour. Nellie Sepulveda Sepulveda had employment -at Weber Aircraft Corporation before the end of the strike (March 24, 1952), but she was laid off by Weber in February or March 1952. Thereafter she sought employment by registering at the State employment office, by checking regularly with the Union, and by searching on her own. She procured employment at Lockheed Aircraft Corp. in Burbank, California, and remained there from April 21 to June 2, 1952. Then she became ill and left her employment there. No claim for backpay is made for the period between June 2, 1952, and February 11, 1953. On the latter date her doctor released her for work. Apparently she got employment at Farrell Engineering Corp., her next employer, without much loss of time, for in the first quarter of 1953, she earned $197. From the $1.25 an hour which she earned there, I conclude that she was employed at Farrell for about 1 month. In any event the Respondent offered no evidence of willful loss incurred by Sepulveda after she reentered the labor market on February 11, 1953. She continued in Farrell's employ, with the exception of a 2-week company layoff period, until about November 1954, at which time there was a layoff. She again registered with the State employment office and sought work and obtained a job at Adams Rite Manufacturing Co. in April 1955. The backpay period ends on April 30, 1955. On Sepulveda's social security record there is shown earnings in the first quarter of 1953 of $15.80 from one Tony Romero, identified as the proprietor of LaFonda Cafe where Sepulveda worked for a few days as a waitress. Oddly, the entry on the social security record follows the list of earnings for the year 1954. Further confusing the matter of when Sepulveda worked for Romero is Sepulveda's testimony that she worked for him after her employment at Lockheed, when, she testified, she was becoming ill and, inferentially, sought lighter work. This would place the time she worked for Romero as in the second quarter of 1952 instead of the first quarter of 1953. During the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel sought to clear up the confusion by getting the exact dates of Sepulveda's employ- ment from the employer. On January 8, 1958, the General Counsel offered in evi- dence a letter from a public accountant who apparently kept employment records for LaFonda Cafe. Although identified only by counsel as a letter received in reply to his letter of inquiry, I received this letter in evidence. It shows that Sepulveda's employment at LaFonda Cafe came in the first quarter of 1953, all during the excepted period during which no claim was made. As no claim is being made for backpay in that period, no credits for sums earned during that period need to be considered. The evidence shows that Respondent sent to Sepulveda in June 1953 a copy of the Hersey letter at the address she was shown to reside at. A return receipt shows 1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that it was delivered on June 16, 1953. Neither side asked Sepulveda why she had not accepted the offer. In the absence of such evidence I shall assume that she chose not to return. Her backpay will, therefore , be computed to June 16, 1953. Sepulveda's Backpay Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-31 I------------1----------- $54 0 0 0 $54 II------------------------ 457 $222 $21 $201 256 III------------------------ (') ------------ ----------- ------------ ------------ IV----------------------- M ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ Total, 1952-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 310 1953- I------------------------- 366 197 0 197 169 411-6/15 II-------- ---------------- 585 384 0 384 201 Total, 1953 -------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ----------- 370 Due under Schedule I--------------- ------------ ----------- ------------ ------------ 680 `No claim. Aldyth J. Stratton The only question in connection with Stratton 's claims is as to the backpay period, because Respondent made no effort to show lack of diligence or willful loss, and a puma facie case of due diligence in seeking other employment was made out. No evidence was adduced by the General Counsel to show that Stratton would have been available for employment by the Respondent before the end of the strike on March 24, 1952. I compute her backpay from March 25, 1952, therefore. On June 16, 1953, Stratton received the copy of the Hersey letter sent to her by the Respondent, offering her reinstatement . She did not reply. I shall, therefore, compute backpay for her until June 16, 1953. While working at the Respondent , Stratton had lived close enough to walk to work, but although living at approximately the same location (at some time before the end of 1953 she moved next door ) she had to pay busfare to Weatherhead Co., where she worked between August 15, 1952, and sometime in April 1953. Other employment to which she had transportation expense came after the end of the backpay period as herein' found. Deductible expense for bus transportation in the amount of 30 cents a'day will be allowed for each working day while Stratton worked for Weatherhead Co. Aldyth Stratton's Backpay Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quai ter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-3/31 ------------------------ $51 0 0 0 $51 II----------------------- 655 $192 0 $192 46.3 III------------------------ 662 557 $10 547 115 IV------------------------ 650 622 19 603 47 't'otal, 1952------------------------ 676 1953- I------------------------ 657 655 19 636 21 4/1 6/16 II----------------------- 561 477 4 473 88 Total, 19.3------------------------ 109 Due under Schedule I---------_---- 785 KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1303 Elsie Stratton (La Montagne) No evidence was offered to show that Stratton would have been available for employment with the Respondent before the end of the strike. Dating the beginning of her backpay with March 25, 1952, the day following the end of the strike, I note that in the first quarter of 1952 Stratton earned much more than the amount of•backpay she would have coming to her for the 1 week of backpay. There is no data from which I can compute accurately the amount she would have earned in interim employment for the last week of March, but from her hourly rate, I judge that it would offset any backpay which she might be entitled to for that period. I shall therefore commence the backpay computation with the second quarter of 1952. No claim for backpay is made for any period after December 3, 1953. During Stratton's entire backpay period she was employed. It is the Respondent's claim that the backpay should be terminated in June 1953 when the Respondent mailed letters to certain persons offering reinstatement. After being shown the letter allegedly sent to her, Stratton testified that she did not receive such a letter or did not remember receiving it and that she did not remember having signed a return receipt. Counsel for the Respondent stated that he did not have Stratton's return receipt in the hearing room and asked Stratton to sign her name on page 2 of her backpay specifications for later comparison. She did so. Later, among a number of return receipts offered in evidence, one bearing a signa- ture purporting to be Stratton's was included. The signature thereon bears a resemblance to that written by Stratton on her specifications sheet. The date of delivery under her name on the return receipt card was inserted by rubber stamp and no evidence was offered to show who had dated the card. Furthermore, this particular card bears no postmark to indicate that it was returned to the Respondent by the post office. However, the "Registered Article" number on the return receipt compares with a number on the application for registration presumably tendered at the post office with the numerous items of registered mail on June 13, 1953. The address to which the letter was sent is the same as that shown in the third amended charge. On all the evidence, I conclude that Stratton received the letter on June 18, 1953, as shown on the return receipt and, as she does not appear to have accepted the offer, I shall compute her backpay as terminating on June 18, 1953. Elsie Stratton's Backpay Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952- II----------------------- $678 $530 0 $530 $148 III------------------------ 681 486 0 486 195 IV------------------------ 664 531 0 531 133 Total, 1952------------------------- 476 1953- 1- ----------------------- 695 535 0 535 160 4/1-6/18 IT ------------------------ 582 473 0 473 109 Total, 1953------------------------- 269 Due under Schedule I--------------- 745 Beulah Tingle Backpay under Schedule I is claimed for Tingle only for the period in the second and third quarters of 1953 between June 16 and August 3, 1953. On the former date she received an offer of reinstatement from the Respondent and replied accept- ing the offer but was not rehired by the Respondent until the latter date. A claim is filed on her behalf under Schedule HI for the difference between the pay which she received from the Respondent in the third and fourth quarters of 1953 and the rate to which she was entitled as a reinstated employee whose full seniority had been restored. The record shows no affirmative effort, during the period covered by Schedule I, to find other employment. In fact, she at one time answered a questionnaire of the Respondent saying that she had not looked for work between July 1952 and 1304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD August 1953. I conclude, therefore, that she made no effort to find employment elsewhere than at the Respondent between June 16 and August 3, 1953. In some instances, the Respondent, in personal interviews, informed discharged strikers who had been offered reinstatement that it would not put them to work until the Respondent was in its new plant. In such instances, it might have been possible for such employees to ascertain the approximate extent of time which would elapse before they would be again put to work by Respondent. In Tingle's case there is no showing that the Respondent informed her that her reinstatement would be deferred. Tingle had accepted the Respondent's offer of reinstatement and was ready for work. So far as appears, therefore, she was holding herself in readiness to return to the Respondent. Since she had no reason to believe that this would not happen in a very short time, her conduct in not seeking other work is not un- reasonable under the circumstances.113 I therefore find that she is entitled to the backpay claimed for her during the period between June 16 and August 3, 1953. I also find that she is entitled to the amount claimed for her in Schedule III. Tingle's Backpay Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1953-6/16-6/30 II------------------------ $100 0 0 0 $100 7/1-8/3 III------------------------ 215 0 0 0 215 Total, 1953-------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 315 Due under Schedule I--------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 315 Due under Schedule III------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 152 Total due--------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 467 Grace Torres No claim is made for Torres before the fourth quarter of 1954. On June 13, 1953, the Respondent sent her a copy of the Hersey letter offering her reinstatement. Torres received this on June 29, 1953, but did not communicate with the Respondent because she had what she considered a better job at the time. I find that the Re- spondent's responsibility for backpay ceased on June 29, 1953. Torre's claim for backpay, all coming after that date, is, therefore, disallowed. Carmen Zamora Claim is made for Zamora for backpay for the period from December 13, 1951, through the third quarter of 1953. No evidence was adduced to show that Zamora would have been available for employment by the Respondent before the end of the strike on March 24, 1952. Her backpay, therefore, starts on March 25, 1952. After that date, and before the third quarter of 1953, Zamora was employed altogether only for about 2 weeks, first at Cal-Ray Bakeries and then at Technical Metal Finishing Co., both in Glendale, and both in the last quarter of 1952. Zamora did not register with the California State employment office. She testified that she did not do so be- cause the area around her home was so industrial that she thought she would be able to find a job on her own. Between her last employment, which was in 1951, and her job at Cal-Ray, in the last quarter of 1952, Zamora testified, she tried to find another job in Glendale, Bur- bank, or nearby Los Angeles, and that she looked three or four times a week. Zamora quit her job at Cal-Ray after about a week because it required that she be in front of an open oven for about one-half an hour at a time, after which time she was required to come away from the oven to a point where a fan was blowing, and U3 See H. M. Newman, 85 NLRB 725 at 733; Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators A U3 Paperhangers of America, Carpet, Linoleum and Resilient Tile Layers Local Union No. 419, AFL, etc. ( Spoon Tile Company), 117 NLRB 1596 at 1610. Cf. L B. Hosiery Co , Incorpo- rated and Lee Maisel, doing business as Myerstown Hosiery Mills , 90 NLRB 630 at 633. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1305 the variations in temperature caused her to get a sore throat. It does not appear that she sought work at Cal-Ray in any other department.' On the other hand it is not shown that work was available for her in any other department. Following her employment at Cal-Ray, Zamora stayed at home for about a week until she got over her sore throat, and then again sought work. The exact date when she found her job at Technical Metal Finishing Company is not shown, but it was in the same quarter as her job at Cal-Ray. She worked at Technical Metal Finishing Company only for approximately a week and then was laid off. She had no further employment until August 1953, although she sought work three or four times a week. Zamora received the Respondent's Hersey letter, offering her reinstatement, on June 15, 1953; however, she did not go back to the Respondent or reply to the letter because, she testified, she would not have gone back whether or not she was then working because she thought the Respondent would not treat the strikers the same. I find that the backpay period terminates on June 15, 1953. The Respondent contends that Zamora made an insufficient effort to find other employment. In seeking to establish this lack of effort, the Respondent relies upon facts such as the following: Zamora, 28 years of age at the time she testified (about 21 at the time of the strike) had lived all her life with her parents. At one of the jobs she held in 1951, M & L Tool & Die Manufacturing Company, where she worked on the night shift, she quit because of the fact that she had lost her ride to work, had tried to transfer to the day shift so that she could get a ride, but was unable to get anyone to switch with her so she could do so. M & L was seven long blocks from Zamora's residence and, although not specifically stated, 'I assume that the Respond- ent is contending that Zamora should either have walked or taken public transpor- tation rather than quit at M & L and that the fact that she did quit under these cir- cumstances indicates a lack of desire on her part for employment. However, the evidence did ' not' indicate whether or not public transportation was available to M & L during Zamora's hours, and, although the distance would not have been too far for an able-bodied person to walk, I have no way of knowing that it would have been safe for a young woman to walk that distance at night in that area. Most of the places where Zamora searched for work were within walking distance, as had been the Respondent's plant when she worked there. But, as Zamora said, the area in which she lived was heavily industralized, and it does not appear that she had exhausted all the possibilities there. There is no evidence that she limited her search to only a few places. She did, without success, return several times to Gladding McBean be- cause they ran advertisements saying that they needed girls. Furthermore, she did take public transportation to some of the places where she sought work. On the record I find sufficient evidence that Zamora made a reasonable search for work, and on the facts as shown, I find no willfully incurred loss in Zamora's quitting at Cal-Ray. Obviously, the conditions at Cal-Ray were more disagreeable than they had been at the Respondent and were injurious to her health. Because her loss of time caused by her sore throat was attributable to a condition of work not prevailing at the Respondent, I make no time deduction therefor. Zamora's Backpay Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-3/31 ------------------------ $44 0 0 0 $44 II------------------------ 560 0 0 0 560 III------------------------ 586 0 0 0 586 IV------------------------ 586 $64 0 $64 522 Total, 1952-------------------------- 1,712 1953- I------------------------- 586 0 0 0 586 4/1-6/15 II------------------------- 532 0 0 0 532 Total, 1953-------------------------- 1,118 Due under Schedule I--------------- 2,830 1306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (2) Those for whom, no evidence was offered except social security information on interim employment The following dischargees, all of whom were sent discharge telegrams at the outset of the strike in July 1951, were not called as witnesses and no testimony was given concerning their efforts to procure interim employment. The General Counsel stated that he did not feel obligated to offer evidence, because the Board has held that the burden is on the Respondent to show that a discrlminatee failed to make a reasonable search for interim employment.114 Although the practice has usually been for the General Counsel to examine the claimant regarding his interim employment and his efforts to procure interim employment when out of work, the Board was clear in its ruling that this is unnecessary. As to the following seven employees, the Respondent offered no specific evidence of failure to exert reasonable efforts to procure interim employment or of willfully incurred losses. Consequently, I find that the claims of all are allowable.115 However, as no evidence was offered as to any of them that they would have been available for employment until the end of the strike on March 24, 1952, I compute their backpay as starting on March 25, 1952. On June 13, 1953, the Respondent mailed to each, registered mail, at the addresses it had for them, a copy of the Her- sey letter offering them reinstatement. The letters sent to Charlotte Hughes and Rita Ortiz were undelivered, but there is no evidence that the Respondent knew of a later address for them which would have assured delivery. In each case, therefore, I consider the Respondent's obligation for backpay as limited to the time when the letters were delivered or, in the case of the two undelivered letters, to the date when they normally would have been delivered.116 The cutoff date appearing in the following computations is, in each case, such date. Quarters omitted are those in which no claim is made. Bessie Anton (Vaughan) Period Gross Interlm,earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952- II------------------------ $640 $517 0 $517 $123 III----------------------- 449 415 0 415 34 Total, 1952-------------------------- 157 1953- I------------------------- 231 188 0 188 43 4/1-6/15 II------------------------- 552 535 0 535 17 Total, 1953-------------------------- 60 Due under Schedule I--------------- 217 "'Alaska Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., 119 NLRB 663, footnote 21. u5 In its amendment to its amended answer , the Respondent alleged that three of the seven here dealt with (Bessie Anton (Vaughan), Anna Capobianco, and Charlotte Hughes ) had severed their employment for reasons other than the strike . Each of the three were sent discharge telegrams . Consistently with the Board 's Decision and Order, I find that they were strikers or strike sympathizers, or were so believed to be by the Respondent and that they were discharged. 316 N.L R.B. v. Jay Company, Inc., 227 F. 2d 416 (C.A. 9). KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. Anna A. Capobianco 1307 Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-31 I------------------------ $45 0 0 0 $45 II------------------------ 613 $21 0 $21 592 III------------------------ 651 583 0 583 68 Total, 1952 ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ 705 Due under Schedule I------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 705 Charlotte Hughes Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952- 3/25-31 ------------------------ $44 $37 0 $37 $7 III------------------------ 681 0 0 0 681 IV---------------------- 664 191 $14 177 487 Total, 1952 -------------------------- 1,175 1953- I------------------------ 695 393 43 350 345 4/1-6/15 II------------------------ 552 337 29 308 244 Total, 1953 -------------------------- 589 Due under Schedule I --------------------- 1,764 Due under Schedule V-------------------- 29 Total due --------------------------- 1, 793 Mary Norton Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-31 I------------------------ $56 $33 0 $33 $23 II------------------------ 599 383 0 383 216 Total, 1952-------------------------- ------------ ----------- - -- --------- ------------ 239 Due under Schedule I--------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 239 1308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Rita Ortiz Year 1953-6/1-6/15 Period Quarter 11------------------------ Total, 1953------------------------- Due under Schedule I --------------------- Due under Schedule V-------------------- Total due--------------------------- Gross backpay $116 Betty Wells Interim earnings Gross Deductible expenses 0 $65 Net $65 Net backpay $51 51 51 18 69 Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-31 1------------------------ $44 0 0 0 $44 II------------------------ 560 0 0 0 560 III------------------------ 586 0 0 0 586 I V ------------------------ 586 0 0 0 586 Total, 1952-------------------------- 1,776 Due under Schedule I--------------- 1, 776 Alta Witherell Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952- III ----------------------- $220 0 0 0 $220 IV ----------------------- 650 0 0 0 650 Total, 1952-------------------------- 870 1953- 1-------------------------- 415 0 0 0 415 Due under Schedule I--------------- ------------ 1,285 (3) Those for whom claims were made only under Schedules II to V and for whom no testimony or other evidence was offered I find that the following claims are not denied. Each of the following, except Campos, was sent the discharge telegram of July 10 and 11, 1951. Campos was on the roster of employees on July 8, 1951, as shown on General Counsel's Exhibit No. 249 in evidence in the 1953 hearing. She is one to whom the Respondent sent a rein- statement offer on June 13, 1953, and in its amendment to its amended answer, the Respondent did not deny that Campos was a discharged striker. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1309 Mary Benedict Due under Schedule V------------------------------------------ $42 Dorothy Campos Due under Schedule V------------------------------------------ $42 Estate of Betty Lindbergh Due under Schedule 11 ------------------------------------------ $668 Helen Martinez Due under Schedule V------------------------------- ---------- $28 Ida Moses Due under Schedule V------------------------------------------ $20 Naomi Sartain (Luckenbill) Due under Schedule II------------------------------------- ---- $21 Due under Schedule V___________________________________________ 20 Total due---------------------------------------------------- 41 Rosie Sierra Due under Schedule II___________________________________________ $55 Due under Schedule V------------------------------------------ 44 Total due---------------------------------------------------- 99 b. Those who were not sent discharge telegrams Of those who were contended by the Respondent to have terminated their em- ployment for reasons other than the strike , five for whom claims are made in the specifications had not been sent (so far as appears ) the discharge telegram in July 1951 . All, however, were named in the third amended charge as discharged strikers. These are Meada Brunk, Ida Granados (Marino), Doris Kauschen, Lydia Negrete, and Virginia Rodriguez (Alcala). As to these five, I received evidence of strike and employee status . Although none of the five received discharge telegrams, the Respondent's records (personnel cards ) for them bore notations identical with those on the records of discharged strikers who received telegrams giving the date and rea- son for termination as "7-31-51 Strike." In the Board's Decision and Order this notation, among other things, was considered to be evidence of the Respondent's intent to discharge strikers . Also considered as such evidence was the Respondent's letter of July 26, 1951, giving notice of cancellation of insurance. Three of the five remembered having received a copy of the letter. One, Ida Granados (Marino), was unable to remember whether or not she had received it. Four of this group appear to have been among those whose vacations began just before the strike started or ended the day the strike began, which may account for the fact that they were not sent discharge telegrams . In one or two instances among this group there is additional evidence that the Respondent was terminating them because of their being on strike. This will be related hereinafter. The Respondent takes the position ( 1) that the notation "7/31/51-Stnke" does not indicate a discharge but indicates only a cessation of work on that day, and (2) that, regardless of whether or not it indicates a discharge , the five are entitled to no remedy because, in the Board 's Decision and Order , the remedy was limited to those who were discharged on July 10 and 11 , 1951 , and as these five did not receive discharge telegrams they are not shown to have been discharged on one of those dates or, if at all, until July 31, 1951. The first contention is unsupportable . None of the five here involved are shown to have tendered a resignation on July 31, 1951 , or to have done any other act indi- cating an intent to resign as of that day nor was there any attempt on the part of the Respondent to produce records showing that any of them had actually worked for the Respondent after the beginning of the strike. In the original hearing, Re- spondent's counsel elicited testimony from the witness Bernice McCreary that the notation "7/31/51-Strike" had no connection with the last day worked by the em-' ployee.117 Furthermore, the same entry was made for strikers who were sent dis- charge telegrams on July 10 and 11. Hence, by the notation in the personnel rec- 331 See , e.g., original transcript, p. 633 1310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ords "7-31-51-Strike," it is clear that the Respondent was writing off as employees all those who did not show up during the strike when the Respondent decided that they would or should have but for the strike. That the Respondent did not write all absent employees off the books is evident from the personnel records introduced in the original hearing showing that some who had gone on sick leave quite a while before ,the strike began were not written off until after July 31, 1951. 118 It is ob- vious that the notation "7-31-51-Strike" was intended by the Respondent as a disposition of employees as a group not only by the common use of it in the case of strikers but by the testimony of witness McCreary in the original hearing when she testified with reference to that notation, "That was the time they terminated all of that group." As to the five persons here involved, I find that they were treated as strikers and were accordingly terminated by the Respondent like other strikers. I likewise find without merit the Respondent's second contention-that these five persons were not within the scope of the Board's Order because they were not dis- charged on July 10 or 11, 1951, and because the Board's Order required the Re- pondent to reinstate and make whole "all of the employees discharged on July 10 and 11, 1951." In the original hearing, in a colloquy between counsel for the Gen- eral Counsel and the Trial Examiner, concerning the offer into evidence of General Counsel's Exhibit No. 7, the former stated that he was seeking an order not merely for those who received telegrams of July 10 and 11, 1951, but for all the strikers and that the strikers named in the third amended charge were included, although there might be others. I note that each of the five persons here discussed were named in the third amended charge; so the Respondent knew from the outset that they were contended to be strikers who were discriminated against. The Trial Examiner, in his Intermediate Report, which the Board adopted, made it quite evident that it was the discharge of the strikers and strike sympathizers and not the date of discharge that was important. The sending of the telegrams on July 10 and 11, 1951, the sending of the letter, of July 26, 1951; serving notice of cancellation of insurance, and the notations in the personnel records "7-31-51-Strike" were all evidence of intent to discharge without regard to which was the effective date. The Trial Examiner specifically stated, "Moreover, which of these dates was the date of their discharge is immaterial as the remedy in this case would be unaffected." 119 The Board adopted this language. That the Board intended the remedy to apply to all discharged strikers is evident not only from the foregoing but also from the fact that, in ordering the Respondent to make whole the discharged employees, the Board said, ". . . and in the event that any of the discharged strikers incurred medical and hospitalization expenses which would have been covered by the canceled medical and hospitalization plans, make them whole for such expenses.. . This was not limited to em- ployees discharged only on July 10 and 11, 1951. It is ridiculous to suppose that the remedy as to backpay was to be limited only to certain of the discharged strikers, whereas all discharged strikers were to be made whole for medical or hospitalization expenses. Furthermore, merely because the five here involved did not receive July 10 or 11 telegrams does not mean that the Respondent had no intent to discriminate against them (by terminating their employment for being on strike) until July 31, 1951. The evidence in the backpay hearing indicated the contrary. For example, Virginia Rodriguez (Alcala) testified that she went away on her vacation for a week starting July 9, 1951, the day the strike started.120 When she returned, she spoke to her foreman, identified only as Lee, the foreman on the assembly line, and asked about her vacation pay. He told her that if she wanted it, she had to go back to work, and he asked her if she wanted to come back to work. Rodriguez told him that she could not do so because of the strike and the fact that her sister-in-law was on the picket line. It is obvious from this that not only did the Respondent know that Rodriguez had alined herself with the strikers but it treated her in the same discriminatory manner by withholding her vacation pay and writing her off its books at the end of the month. Lydia Negrete also was on vacation when the strike started. 'is For example : Josephine Worcester, last worked February 18, 1951, illness : termi- nated August 17, 1951. Socorro Tapia, last worked 'April 7, 1951, illness ; terminated December 31, .1951 Raymond F. Nichols, last worked January 2, 1951, illness ; termi- nated August 14, 1951 Thomas Horgan, last worked February 26, 1951, illness ; termi- nated August 14, 1951. Contrast with Leslie Nogrady, whose last date worked is not shown but who was on sick leave when the strike started His termination shows "7/31/51-Strike" He also received a• discharge telegram 'Dates have been taken from testimony of Bernice McCreary in transcript of original hearing 139 See transcript of record in the Ninth Circuit Court, p. 89 Iii With permission of her supervisor, Rodriguez actually left on her vacation at noon on the Saturday before July 9. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1311 When she did not return to work after her vacation was up, she received the Re- spondent's letter of July 26, 1951, giving notice of cancellation of insurance. The Respondent also wrote Negrete off the books at the end of the month with the nota- tion "7-31-S1-Strike." Obviously the Respondent intended to terminate Negrete for the same reason as Rodriguez. Doris Kauschen, one of the five here concerned, came to the Respondent's plant to work on July 9, 1951, and found the picket line there. Foreman Pete told her to come to work or she would be discharged. No telegram was needed to repeat this message to Kauschen. She did not return to work and she was written off the books at the end of the month with the same entry "7-31-51-Strike." This does not mean that her discharge was not effected before that date.121 Having found that the five employees are discharged strikers, I compute their backpay as starting on March 25, 1952, because no evidence was adduced to show that they would have been available for employment by the Respondent before the, end of the strike on March 24, 1952. Meada Brunk Brunk was employed by the Respondent in May 1948 and was employed until the time of the strike.122 She returned from a vacation the day the strike began but apparently did not work. She testified that there was a picket line when she returned from her vacation and that she picketed. Brunk was not sent a discharge telegram by the Respondent in July 1951 but she did receive the Respondent's letter of July 26, 1951, notifying her of cancellation of her insurance, one of the facts relied on by the Board as evidence of the Respond- ent's intent to discharge the strikers. Another indication of such intent with respect to Brunk was contained on her personnel card in the column under the heading "Date Stopped" where was typed "7-31-51" and in the column headed "Reason" on the line opposite the above date, the word, "Strike." Brunk had been a doll wigger for the Respondent, and in seeking work she called several toy factories and she called Max Factor without success. However, she did not limit her search for work to that kind of job. She filed applications for employment at Adell's and Lockheed, went to various places in Burbank and North Hollywood to look for work, and applied among other places at a drugstore and a department store, kept in touch with Union, and went several times to the unemploy- ment office in Burbank to ask them to send her to a job. They discouraged Brunk, however, by telling her that it was very hard to get an older woman a job. Brunk was 57 years old at the time of the strike. At many of the places where she sought work, because of her age, Brunk was barred by a maximum age limit maintained by employers for new employees. She had no offers of employment which she rejected. I find, under the circumstances, that Brunk made a reasonable search for interim employment and incurred no willful loss. In May 1955 the Respondent sent Brunk a telegram offering her reinstatement. She did not accept it, however, because she lacked transportation. When Brunk had worked for the Respondent before the strike she had ridden to work with a neighbor who had been hired by the Respondent in order to make it possible for Brunk to come to work. This neighbor had moved away, however, about a year and a half before the Respondent offered Brunk reinstatement. I infer, therefore, that Brunk would have been unable to work for the Respondent without that kind of transportation and I deduce that, since Brunk failed to accept the Respondent's offer in 1955 because of the fact that her only means of transportation had been re- moved, she would likewise have been unavailable to work at the Respondent's plant following the loss, a year and a half earlier, of that transportation which she con- sidered essential. I therefore compute Brunk's backpay as ending 18 months before the date of receipt of that telegram, i.e., 18 months before May 26, 1955, or Novem- ber 26, 1953. 121 If the Board saw fit in connection with the issues herein, it might receive in evidence the Respondent's Exhibit No 3 (which was rejected at the original hearing), not for the purpose of showing who was an employee as of July 15, 1951, but for the purpose of showing that by omitting the names of the claimants here, the Respondent as of July 15, 1951, regarded them as no longer employees. '2z At one point Brunk testified that she was employed between 1948 and 1950, but I find that her memory was inaccurate about the date. She appeared at first to be con- fused about the date of the strike There is no indication on Brunk's employment record that she was terminated before the strike started. 1312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Brunk's Backpay Petted Gross Interim earnings Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gioss Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I____ ---- -------------- ------ $55 0 0 0 $55 II------------------------ 687 0 0 0 687 III------------------------ 713 0 0 0 713 IV--------- -------------- 713 0 0 0 713 Total, 1952-------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ----------- 2,168 1953- I__ -- ---------- ----------- 713 0 0 0 713 II----------------------- 769 0 0 0 769 III __ ____-----__ 774 0 0 0 774 10/1-11/26 IV------ ---------- ------- 480 0 0 0 480 Total, 1953-------------------------- ------------ ---------- -- --------- - ------------ 2,736 Due under Schedule I____ ------- ------------ ----------- ------------ 4,904 Due tinder Schedule [I ----------- ------------ ------------ ----------- ----------- 471 Total due ----------------- ------------ ----------- ------------ ------------ 5 375 Ida Granados (Marino) Granados was on vacation the week the strike started but went on strike and picketed. Although she is not shown to have received a discharge telegram, her em- ployment record shows the same notation as for all the other strikers under the col- umns headed "Stopped" and "Reason," that is, "7-31-51-Strike." Her name was listed in the third amended charge as a discharged striker and she was contended to be such as the unfair labor practice hearing in 1953. No offer of reinstatement was sent to Granados before the end of the backpay period. Her backpay begins the day after the end of the strike and continues to April 30, 1955. The only remaining issues respecting her claim involve the reasonableness of search, willful incurrence of loss by quitting a job, and allowance of transportation expenses as a deductible item. When out of work, Granados searched for work in the area of Burbank, Glendale, and North Hollywood. As she lived in Pacoima, near San Fernando, these were within reasonable commuting distance and I find that it was not essential for her, in making a reasonable search for work, to go beyond those places since ample places of employment are located there. Her social security record shows employment in each quarter during the backpay period. The only em- ployment that Granados quit other than that where the employer was moving too far away was one following which quitting she got a better job the next day after leaving her old job. One of the places where she quite because the employer was moving too far away was a place where she had worked before March 25, 1952, the beginning of the backpay period. Her unemployment extended beyond that date. I find, however, that she sustained no willful loss and is entitled to compensation from March 25, 1952. In the second quarter of 1952, she got employment at Joseph D'Adamo and stayed until that employer moved. She was unemployed again for a short while and then got work with Jean Durain. She started at 75 cents an hour and worked there for about a year or longer, reaching $1 an hour plus a few cents extra whenever she exceeded a fixed quota, but when Durain was sold to Max Kopp, her pay was reduced to 85 cents an hour (in the third quarter of 1953), so she quit, but she lost no time in getting a better-paying job at Bardwell & McAllister. She re- mained at the latter place for about 8 months or so before she was laid off in the first quarter of 1954. Following this, she registered at the State employment office for unemployment compensation and, in the second quarter of 1954, she procured a job at Hycor, Inc., in North Hollywood, where she was still employed at the end of the backpay period. Claim is made for transportation expense incurred by Granados in operating her brother's automobile to and from work during each of the quarters from the KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1313 third quarter in 1952 to the first quarter of 1954 while she was employed at Jean Durain, Max Kopp, and Bardwell & McAllister. While working for the Respondent, Granados had had a ride in another's car for which she paid 50 cents a week. Claim is made at the rate of $51 a quarter during the aforementioned period . Jean Durain and Max Kopp were in Pacoima about 1 mile from her home in that town, while Bardwell & McAllister was about 10 miles from her home. Granados estimated that it cost her 50 cents a day to operate her brother 's car, that cost being for gasoline and oil. Except for her period of employment at Bardwell & McAllister it is impro- able that Granados used more than a gallon of gasoline a week. Since Granados kept no record of expenses it is impossible to determine the cost of oil she used . All told, she does not appear likely to have been put to more expense than she would have had by public transportation , which would have been about $6 a month. As her ride to the Respondent would have come to about $2 a month, Granados would be entitled to the difference, or $4 a month during the third and -fourth quarters of 1953 and the first two quarters of 1954. Starting around September 15, as I compute it, Granados would have been driving 20 miles a day and the claim of $51 for the fourth quarter of 1954 and $34 for the first quarter of 1955 are reasonable and will be allowed. Granados' Backpay* Period Interim earnings Gross Net backpay backpay Year Quarter Gross Deductible Net expenses 1952-3/25-3/31 I________________________ $51 0 0 0 $51 II------------------------ 655 $455 0 $455 200 III________________________ 662 326 $12 314 348 IV________________________ 650 518 12 506 144 Total, 1952----- ------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ 743 1953- I------------------------ 657 404 12 392 265 II_____________________ 663 494 12 482 181 727 457 14 443 284 IV________________________ 736 (340 51 589 147 Total, 1953------------------------ ------------ ----------- ----------- ------------ 877 1954- I________________________ 792 440 34 406 386 II________________________ 777 303 0 303 474 III________________________ 789 678 0 678 111 IV------------------------ 776 593 0 593 183 Total, 1954------------------------- ------------ ----------- ---------- ------------ 1,154 1955- 1------------------------ 855 734 0 734 121 I 11----------------------- (t) -------- -- ---------- - - - - -- ----------- Total,1955-------------------------- ------------ ----------- ------------ ------------ 121 Due under Schedule 1-------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- ------------ 2,896 -In its amended answer, the Respondent gave revised gross backpay figures for Jim Granados There is no claimant by that name, nor is there any evidence that an employee of that name )& as on the payroll on July 8, 1951. Ida was the only Gianados listed However, a Jim Granados may have been hired since July 8, 1951 I cannot infer that the figures shown in the amended answer for Jun Granados were, in fact, correct figures for Ida Granados tNo claim Doris Kauschen Kauschen worked the last day (Friday) before the strike. When she returned to go to work on Monday, July 9, 1951, she saw the picket line and did not cross it On July 10, 1951, she encountered the Respondent's foreman, known to hei only as Pete, in a restaurant. He asked her if she was returning to work. She said she did not know. He asked if she had received a telegram and she replied that she had 1314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not. He told her that if she did not return to work she would be discharged. She did not return to work and at the end of the month on her personnel record card there was inscribed the same notation that appeared on the personnel cards of each of the discharged strikers under the heading "Stopped" and "Reason," i.e., "7-31-51- Strlke." There was no evidence that she was sent the letter of July 26 giving notice of cancellation of insurance , but she testified that she did not have Blue Cross insurance. As there is no evidence that Kauschen was available for employment by the Respondent before March 24, 1952, her backpay will be computed as starting on March 25, the day after the end of the strike. At this time she was employed by Advance Relay. Claim is made for her only until a time in the fourth quarter of 1952 when Kauschen ceased working for Advance Relay. Her gross backpay is pro- rated accordingly. Kauschen's Backpay Period Gross Inteum earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-3/31 ----- ------ $45 $40 0 $40 $5 II----- ----- 611 582 0 582 29 III----------------------- 649 576 0 576 73 IV------------------------ 434 263 0 263 171 Total,1952-------------------------- 278 Due under Schedule I--------------- 278 Lydia Negrete Negrete was on vacation when the strike started and did not receive a discharge telegram. She did, however, receive the Respondent's letter of July 26, serving notice of cancellation of insurance and her personnel record bears the same notation as the other discharged strikers under the headings "Stopped" and "Reason," i.e., "7-31-51-Strike." Before March 25, 1952, from which date her backpay would normally have been computed, Negrete rejected a job running a milling machine at Thomas Associates. Although Negrete had operated a milling machine at her last previous employment, she turned down the Thomas job because she did not want to operate that machine. As a consequence, she was penalized by the State employment office by denial of unemployment compensation for 5 weeks. She had previously received compensation for about 3 weeks. She did not again procure employment until the end of the second quarter of 1952, although she apparently received no pay until the third quarter. It appears, therefore, that she incurred a willful loss which carried into the backpay period. Consequently, I compute her backpay as beginning on July 1, 1952. After the third quarter of 1952, no claim is made for backpay as such. Claim is made, however, for hospitalization expenses suffered in 1953 as a result of cancella- tion of her insurance by the Respondent. This is allowed. Negrete's gross backpay in the third quarter of 1952 exceeds her interim earnings by $50. This is the amount due under Schedule I. Due under ScheduleI --------------------------------------------- $50 Due under Schedule II-------------------------------------------- 100 Total due------------------------------------------------- 150 Virginia Rodriguez (Alcala) Rodriguez' vacation was due to start on July 9, 1951, the day the strike began. With permission of her supervisor, however, she began her vacation at noon of the last previous working day. She was gone for a week. After her return, her foreman, identified only as Lee, telephoned her and asked if she wanted to return to work. Rodriguez told him, no, that she could not return because of the strike and the fact that her sister-in-law was picketing. Rodriguez asked him about her vacation pay. He told her that if she wanted it she had to come back to work. Although Rodriguez did not quote her foreman, she testified that he discharged her, and this testimony is KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1315 unrefuted. Rodriguez received the Respondent's letter of July 26, 1951, serving notice of cancellation of insurance and on her personnel record there appears the notation that appears on the record of all the discharged strikers, "7-31-51-Strike" as the date and reason of her employment termination. No evidence was adduced to show that Rodriguez was available for employment by the Respondent before the end of the strike. Her backpay therefore begins on March 25, 1952. At this time, Rodriguez was employed at a waitress at a drive-in restaurant. She quit this job on May 17, 1952, to get married and withdrew from the labor market. Virginia Rodriguez' Backpay Period Gross Interim earnings Net Year Quarter backpay Gross Deductible expenses Net backpay 1952-3/25-3/31 --------- $44 $44 0 $34 $10 II------------------------- 337 277 0 277 60 Total,1952------------------------- 70 Due under Schedule I--------------------- 70 Due under Schedule V-------------------- 18 Total due---------------------------- 88 It is recommended that the Board adopt the foregoing findings of fact and compu- tations of amounts due under the several schedules of the specifications as shown herein. SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INTERMEDIATE REPORT The Supplemental Intermediate Report in this case issued on June 30, 1958. On the basis of its decision in Ra-Rich Manufacturing Corporation, 121 NLRB 700, the Board on September 16, 1958, remanded the case to the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, for the purpose of making available to the Respondent such pretrial written statements of the General Counsel's witnesses which were directly related to the testimony given by such witnesses at the hearing as the Respondent within a fixed time notified the General Counsel it desired and for the purpose thereafter of reopening the hearing to permit the Respondent to cross- examine the General Counsel's witnesses. Pursuant to such remand, at the Respond- ent's request,' the General Counsel furnished the Respondent with photostatic copies of all pretrial written statements of each backpay claimant who had testified at the previous hearing. In accordance with the Board's remand order, the Acting Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region duly served on the parties a notice of further hearing set for March 23, 1959. At that time, the hearing was reopened before the duly desig- nated Trial Examiner. The General Counsel recalled for further cross-examination by the Respondent all witnesses designated by the Respondent. Originally, the Re- spondent designated all witnesses, but later withdrew its request for some. In some instances, witnesses who were recalled at the request of the Respondent were not questioned and, with consent of the Respondent, they were excused. In instances where witnesses were examined, the scope of cross-examination and redirect exami- nation was limited to the scope of the Board's remand order, as was the evidence offered in exhibit form. At the Respondent's request, it was given permission to withdraw certain exhibits for the purpose of having copies made for its own files on condition that such exhibits should be returned to the official reporter within 10 days from the date of the hearing and on condition that, should they not be returned within that time, an order would issue rejecting said exhibits. Following notice by the official reporter that such exhibits had not been returned within that time, the Trial Examiner issued an order dated April 16, 1959, rejecting said exhibits. On 'The Respondent requested all statements of claimants, whether or not they testified This was more than it was entitled to See G & S Manufacturing, Inc, 123 NLRB 1602 614913-62-vol 132-84 1316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD June 15, 1959, the Respondent mailed to the Trial Examiner several photostatic copies of supposed exhibits with a request that they be filed. They have been placed in the rejected exhibit file. From my observation of the witnesses recalled, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following findings with regard to claimants who were questioned at the reopened hearing: Mary Gonzales 2 The Respondent sought to impeach this witness' testimony by offering in evidence a portion of one of the several pretrial statements she gave to Board agents. After the receipt of the document in evidence, the Respondent withdrew it to have photo- static copies made of that portion of the statement. Within the time fixed for return of the exhibit, the Respondent failed to return it. It was therefore rejected by ruling of the Trial Examiner on April 16, 1959. At the time the document was received, nothing contradictory was noted on it and, as it is not now in the record, there is no evidence which in any way impeaches the testimony of the witness or requires any modification of, or addition to, my original findings. Consuela Garcia (Lopez) 3 The Respondent offered in evidence a pretrial statement known as a Board Form 916 of this witness, and, as in the case of Gonzales, withdrew it to have copies made for its own file. It was not returned within the time granted. It was rejected by order dated April 16, 1959. There is no evidence which requires any modification of, or addition to, my original findings. - Edith W. Adamson 4 The Respondent sought to impeach the testimony of this witness by showing that, in one of the pretrial statements given by the witness to an agent of the, Board (there having been previous ones ), the witness had failed to mention some of the places where, she testified (at the original backpay hearing), she had looked for employment. The witness was not asked whether or not, at the time the pretrial statement was given, she was asked to name all the places she had looked for work, as distinguished from a request for supplemental information. The offer in evidence of this pretrial statement was rejected.5 I find no reason to modify or add to my original findings .6 Lettie A. Clifton 7 Clifton was cross-examined with reference to pretrial statements given to a Board agent. Although Clifton had mentioned in the statement the names of some of the places she had visited, she had not named some of the places where she had looked for work that she remembered by name at the time of the hearing. However, she indicated in the statement that there were places where she had looked for work in addition to those named therein . It is the Respondent's contention that the omission in the statement to name all those she named in her testimony should be deemed to discredit her testimony. I reject this contention. On all the evidence, I confirm the findings set forth in the Supplemental Intermediate Report. Minnie Granata 8 The Respondent offered in evidence the pretrial questionnaire form for Granata, known as a Board Form 916, for the purpose of impeachment. No contradiction was pointed out. Counsel for the Respondent said the document was admissible to show that Granata had not made sufficient efforts to gain interim employment. When asked what showed that, counsel for the Respondent replied, "The entire docu- ment, the paucity of effort." The document itself is not testimony, and the witness was not asked if she had listed thereon all the places where she had looked for work 9 3 See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings 3 See Supplemental Intermediate' Report for original findings 4 See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings 5 See Larrance v People, 222 Ill 155, 78 NE 50 6 Compare Adamson's case with that of Clendenon in Seainprufe, 7ncor poraled, 103 NLRB 763, 765-766 v See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings 8 See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings 9 See footnote 5, supra KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1317 In the space allowed in the form (one line for each quarter of a year ) there was little space for extensive listings, but such space had been completely utilized by Granata to list names of business places where she had looked for work. Unlisted were the names of two places where she had worked for a short time as she testified at the original hearing, but this was not mentioned by counsel for the Respondent. It was also the contention of the Respondent that the foregoing document im- peached Granata's testimony because she testified that, although she had not regis- tered for unemployment benefits, she had been to two State unemployment offices to inquire about availability of work and yet on the Form 916 she had not mentioned this in the column headed, "10. REGISTRATION FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENE- FITS AND RELIEF." Below that heading is the direction : "GIVE ALL DATES WHEN YOU VISITED A GOVERNMENT AGENCY TO: (1) Look for a job, (2) Register for unemployment checks, ( 3) Register for relief." Below this, on Form 916, appear three columnar headings: "Date Registered , Name of Government Agency, City and State." The document offered in evidence was not signed. Granata was unsure that she had written the words that appeared under the above heading, which were, "Does not apply." Assuming that those words may have been written by Granata, she was not asked whether or not she had read beyond the main heading, "Registration for unemployment benefits and relief," before writing those three words in the column . On the record as made by the Respondent, I found no basis for impeachment in the proffered exhibit and therefore rejected it. Although counsel for the Respondent had marked for identification as an exhibit an affidavit of Granata, had asked Granata if she had, in it, given to the agent of the Board who took the affidavit "all the different things you did to secure employment," and had received an affirmative reply, he failed to offer the affidavit in evidence. No such question was asked of Granata concerning the unsigned Form 916 which was offered in evidence and which was rejected. I find no reason to alter my original findings as to Granata. Anna Hamilton (Clanton) 10 Hamilton was asked if she had ever received an offer of reinstatement from the Respondent . She replied that she had received a telegram from the Respondent -which told her to come back to work or she would be fired and that that was the only ,one she remembered having received. A statement prepared by Hamilton was marked for identification as an exhibit ,but it was not offered in evidence I find no reason, for modifying or adding to my original findings. Meads Brunk" On cross-examination, Brunk was asked why she had not registered at any State employment agency and answered that she had been told she could not because she was on strike Asked , "That is the only reason you didn 't register?" she answered, "Yes " The Respondent then called attention to the fact that in an affidavit dated August 3, 1955 , Brunk had said , "I didn't register with the Unemployment Board because I wasn't qualified for unemployment benefits because I had hurt my back in the plant and wasn't able to do any heavy work until at least August of 1952." 12 Brunk then volunteered , "She also -told me that I couldn't go out on the job if I was on strike." From this, counsel apparently assumed that Brunk had been so informed at the State employment service office , and he asked whether she had ever been back there. Brunk answered that she had Without asking her why, counsel for the Respondent showed Brunk the Form 916 questionnaire on which she had provided in- formation to the Board , showed her that under column 10 (described in the previous section of this report dealing with Granata ), she had not shown any visits to the State employment service and asked her why. Brunk's answer was argumentative, "If I had wrote down every place I called and every place I went to hunt for em- ployment, I don't think the paper would have held it." The evidence does not estab- lish that Brunk had not sought work through the unemployment office. However, under the Board's decisions , it is not fatal to a backpay claim that a discriminatee fails to register with a public agency for employment where there is no showing that 10 See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings 11 See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings 12 This referred to an injury sustained by Brunk in her employment at the Respondent "a number of months before the strike She had , however , continued to work there and -was receiving medical treatment through the Respondent up to the time of the strike 1318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD his search for employment otherwise is not adequate.13 In Brunk's case, I find that the Respondent has not shown a failure to seek desirable new employment and I see no reason to modify or add to the findings in my Supplemental Intermediate Report. Idell Andersen 14 - For the purpose of impeaching the testimony of Andersen that she had registered at the State employment service office after she had left Permoflux, the Respondent asked Andersen if she had not made a statement to a Board field examiner, as shown in an affidavit, that "since 1953, after I left Permaflux [misspelled], I didn't register with the unemployment office because I was not entitled to any benefits." Andersen testified that she did not remember telling the field examiner that and that it was not true that she had not done so. On examination by'the Trial Examiner, Andersen testified that she had a distihct recollection of going to the unemployment office after leaving Permoflux because of illness. Asked whether or not she had signed any- thing at that time, Andersen answered: "No. I just went looking for employment. Now, I don't know whether they even had it on the records or not. I had to fill out a little paper and put it in a basket and wait for my turn, and then when I went back I just asked them if they had any jobs; that was all. I don't know whether you call that registering or not." Counsel for the Respondent also called Andersen's attention to a Form 916 which she had filled in and delivered to the Board, with particular reference to column 10 where there is space to list the dates when the claimant visited a Government agency to look for a job, register for unemployment checks, or register for relief, and asked her if the only date she had put down was in 1951. Andersen answered: "Well, that's the only one that I could remember, actually. I couldn't seem to be able to get it from the employment office. I did try to get it from their records, but they didn't seem to be able to get it for me." She was then shown where it showed that Andersen had drawn unemployment checks in 1950, 1951, and 1952, and Andersen said, "Yes. But when you did that, every so often you had to reregister for work every few weeks." She admitted that she had not, in her question- naire (Form 916), shown more than one date of registry but testified, ",I thought it was taken for granted, I guess [i.e., that she had reregistered for work during the time she was drawing checks]." The word "registration" appears to be one which is used in a more or less limited meaning. It is usually used to signify that the un- employed person has signed an application for unemployment benefits rather than that he has applied merely for employment. This being the case,.I will amend the sentence on page 1242 of my Supplemental Intermediate Report to read: "For about a month thereafter she applied for work at the State employment office and otherwise sought work." I am not persuaded that Andersen's credibility was impaired in any respect by the latest cross-examination. She impressed me as a candid witness. I therefore reaffirm all the findings I made originally except as here stated. Betty Beard (Lane) 15 Further cross-examination at the reopened hearing did not bring out anything which requires a change in my oiiginal, findings. It merely tended to corroborate my findings and make dates more certain. After seeing her affidavit, Beard conceded that it was correct in showing her as acknowledging receipt of the Hersey letter. Counsel for the Respondent purported to read into the record portions of this affidavit but did not offer it in evidence. Although Beard appeared to be fencing with counsel, and although I suspect that the affidavit, if produced, would show what counsel read, Beard did not actually admit having made each of the statements read by counsel, and I make no findings regarding such portions of the affidavit as were purportedly read and not directly acknowledged Actually, even if I should accept them as fact, there would be no occasion to change my original findings, as I previously found a sufficient delivery of the Hersey letter and found that backpay should terminate thereupon. Beard's affidavit indicated that she had not registered for unemployment benefits at any governmental agency. In the original backpay hearing she had testified that she had registered at the State employment service while she was living in Compton but that she had drawn no checks. She had moved to Compton in 1953 or 1954. The la R K Baking Corp., 120 NLRB 772; Southern Silk Mills, Inc, 116 NLRB 709 14 Andersen corrected the spelling of her name. It appeared as "Anderson" in the previous transcript and in the Supplemental Intermediate Report For previous findings see Supplemental Intermediate Report. 15 See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1319 date of the supposed registration was not given. Her testimony could have referred to a time following the date of her affidavit. As previously shown, "registration" may mean application for unemployment, benefits or merely for a job. But even if she had not registered for work at the State employment service, I should not find that she willfully incurred a loss thereby.16 I did not, in my Supplemental Inter- mediate Report, find that Beard had registered at any unemployment office, because admittedly she•had not .done so during,the period of,time which I find was the back- pay period. I am not persuaded, however, that Beard failed to make other efforts to find employment within the time I find she was entitled to backpay. She testified at the original backpay hearing that she had a child to support and had to work to sup- port it. She testified that she had sought work through the Union and through her local of the Furniture Workers Union, and she named a number of plants where she had applied for work. These were named, without dates, as places where she had looked for work at times when she was unemployed. It is, therefore, not possible to ascertain the specific efforts she may have made during the second quarter of 1952 when most of her allowable backpay accrued. However, Beard's work record was reasonably continuous after the second quarter of 1952, and she had worked before that quarter. This tends to corroborate her testimony that she had to work. On the entire record, I find that Beard has not been shown to have sustained a willful loss and I reaffirm my original backpay computation. Rachel S. Negrete i7 The Respondent made an offer of proof that, if permitted to testify, Negrete would testify as shown on page 1 and the first paragraph of page 2 of an affidavit Negrete had given to the Board. As the Respondent's purpose in making the offer was to prove that Negrete had not been a striker in 1951 but had been away from work because of illness, I rejected the offer of proof. Admittedly Negrete had been sent a discharge telegram at the beginning of the strike and so, whatever the condition of Negrete's health, the Respondent had discharged her believing her to be a striker. The Respondent never offered to prove that it had put Negrete on sick leave or that it had not canceled her insurance, or that, if it had canceled it, it had reinstated it at any time before she was rehired in August 1953. Negrete testified on cross-examination that she was told by her doctor about mid-December 1951 that she could return to work and that she applied to Foreman Fred Smith of the Respondent for work but was told that there was no work for her. On redirect examination counsel for the General Counsel was permitted to ascertain the date of this application. Negrete testified that it was in mid-December or the first few days of January 1952. Negrete's testimony at the original backpay hearing had left this time in a state of doubt and I had resolved that doubt against the claimant. The testimony now removes that doubt and I find that Negrete made application for reinstatement early in January 1952. Therefore, Negrete's backpay should include the entire first quarter of 1952 instead of only the last week thereof. I now amend the schedule of backpay due, as found in the Supplemental Intermediate Report, to show Negrete's gross and net backpay for the first quarter of 1952 as $624. This will change the total due for 1952 from $2,034 to $2,612 and the total due under Schedule I•from $2,517 to $3,095. Rosemary Rodriguez 18 The Respondent made an offer to prove, by an affidavit made by Rodriguez in the form of a pretrial statement taken by a Board agent, or by cross-examination in connection herewith, that Rodriguez was not a discharged striker because she was on vacation when the strike began and she did not receive a discharge telegram. I rejected the offer as I had at the original backpay hearing. Such proof would not have established that Rodriguez had not joined the strike. Furthermore, the Board, in finding that strikers were discharged, did not rely exclusively on receipt of the telegrams sent by the Respondent but relied on other evidence as well. Also, by not raising an issue of Rodriguez' status in its amendment to its amended answer, the Respondent must be deemed to have admitted that Rodriguez was a discharged striker.19 Rodriguez was not asked any questions. Hence, there is no reason to add to or modify the findings made in my Supplemental Intermediate Report. le R.H. Baking Corp., 120 NLRB 772; Southern Silk Mills, Inc, 116 NLRB 769. 17 See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings. le See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings 19 See Supplemental Intermediate Report. 1320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Anna Rosa Puente 20 On further cross-examination at the reopened hearing, Puente admitted having told a field examiner for the Board, as shown in an affidavit dated August 31, 1956: I don't remember hearing anything from the Company from the time I went on strike to the time, maybe in the middle of 1953, when I got a letter saying there was some kind of meeting, and I could go back there to work if I wanted to. I did not answer the letter because I had another job I liked. I never got anything from Knickerbocker nor heard from them after that and I never got in touch with them. On redirect examination, Puente testified that the foregoing statement in her affidavit was given when the field examiner was asking her if she got a letter telling her that there was a meeting of some kind in connection with the strike. On re-cross-examination, Puente testified that she did not remember if she had told the field examiner what is quoted above from her affidavit, but testified. "I know he said there was to be some meeting or something but I don't remember." In response to the quetsion, "You did get a letter from the Company in 1953, did you not?" Puente answered, "I remember I had a letter but I don't know what year it was, 1953, 1954, or 1955." By his questions, counsel for the Respondent was seeking to elicit an admission by Puente that she had received the so-called Hersey letter of June 13, 1953. It is notable that, although such letter was sent to many of the strikers by registered mail, and although the Respondent offered in evidence at the original backpay hearing a large number of return receipts, it offered none for this witness. Since it made no attempt to prove an offer of reinstatement by the Hersey letter to Puente, it may be inferred that it failed to do so because it had not sent such a letter to Puente.21 If she had received it, it would be a reasonable inference that she or someone for her signed a return receipt before she would have gotten this letter. At the first backpay hearing the Respondent showed Puente a copy of the Hersey letter and asked if she had received it. Puente said it did not look like the one she had received and that she thought the one she had received had been received within the past 2 years. Following that cross-examination the General Counsel showed Puente a copy of a letter which the Union had sent to the strikers on April 13, 1955, and Puente said that that looked more like the letter she had received. Considering the testimony 22 and the apparent confusion appearing on the face of Puente's affidavit, I am of the opinion that it does not impeach Puente's testimony nor prove that she received a copy of the Hersey letter in 1953. The phrase in the affidavit, "maybe in the middle of 1953," could have been evoked by suggestion of the field examiner of a possible date while questioning Puente. Puente worked at the same place from late in 1952 to a date after the end of the period of her claim in 1955. Hence, her statement that she did not then return because she had a job she liked could have referred to her job in 1955 as readily as to her job in 1953. In no letter which the Respondent wrote the strikers did it mention a meeting, as did the Union in its letter. It appears probable, therefore, that Puente was confused when she talked with the field examiner and had in mind the substance of a letter from the Union but erroneously recalled it as one from the Respondent. If Puente had identified the letter positively as the Union's letter of April 13, 1955, it might be argued that Puente should not receive backpay after its receipt in view of her statement that she was not then interested in going back to the Respondent. However, such a finding would, on the state of the record here, be based on specula- tion, and because the Respondent did not actually make an offer of reinstatement to Puente at that time, I find no reason to change my original findings. Margaret Sanza 23 In an affidavit given to a field examiner for the Board by Sanza on September 6, 1955, appears, in the field examiner's handwriting, the sentence, "While working at Griffin Patterson I did not look for other work." Because Sanza worked for that Y° See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings 211 note that on the Respondent's exhibit introduced at the original backpay hearing which lists 'the names on registered letters delivered to the post office, only one Puente appears-Francisca Puente. Nothing is listed for Anna Rosa Puente or any other Puente Z' Puente appeared to be an honest witness faced with the not unusual difficulty of remembering dates. 23 See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1321 employer from August 1951 to sometime in 1954, and because the work was part time in 1954 and intermittent, the Respondent contends that this affidavit shows that Sanza did not make a reasonable effort to obtain full-time employment and there- fore sustained a willful loss. In an affidavit dated December 4, 1956, before the same field examiner and in the field examiner's handwriting, Sanza amended the statement appearing in the 1955 affidavit by saying: While working for Griffin Patterson I did not look for work, but I worked there only part time and on the days that 'I did not work there, I went looking for work. I had to keep it secret from Griffin Patterson that I was looking for work because it would jeopardize my job there. They didn't want their part- time girls to look for other jobs. In fact, in January 1954, Winifred Starns, my leadlady at Griffin Patterson, found out through someone that I was looking for work and she got very mad and reprimanded me very strongly for it and we had quite a row over it. During the period of my employment at Griffin Patterson, on the days when I was not working there, I looked for work almost every day. I used to go to almost all the stores on Brand Blvd. That's the main Blvd. in Glendale. Some of them told me that they would call me when they would need me. Some told me they weren't hiring any inexperienced salesladies. I also re-canvassed the same places where I had sought work before I had started working for Griffin Patterson but they never called me. It is possible that they might have called me while I was at work when I was working at Griffin Patterson. For a while I worked pretty steadily at Griffin Patterson and there was no one at home while I was at work. Between the dates of the two foregoing affidavits, on September 17, 1956, Sanza had made another affidavit before a different field examiner. In this affidavit Sanza had said nothing about looking for work during the period of time she worked for Griffin Patterson, although mention was made of her employment there on a part- time basis. There is mention of the fact that she took a leave of absence for illness from Griffin Patterson between May 14, 1954, and mid-August of the same year and that she was told when she reported back to work that her place had been taken. Then appears the following sentence : "After I recovered from my illness in August, and being unable to get back at Glendale [Griffin-Patterson], I tried again to obtain word [sic] at all places I had tried previously, and many other places too, I can't remember." Because the only previous mention of search of work in these affidavits had been in her first affidavit where she said she had looked for work before she got the job at Griffin-Patterson, the use of the word "again" in the last-quoted sentence appears to refer back to her last mention of search for work rather than some unmentioned search in the intermediate period. However, there is no showing that she did not list the places where she sought work in some other pretrial state- ment, as, for example, in a Form 916. The Respondent apparently rests on this evidence for the purpose of discrediting Sanza's testimony that she looked for work on nonworking days while employed at Griffin-Patterson. It must be conceded that the statement made in the December 1956 affidavit looks suspiciously like an attempt to mend broken fences. However, it is not a fiat contradiction, and the choice of words used in the first affidavit gives' rise to a possibly unintended ambiguity. The words "while working at Griffin- Patterson" do not literally mean "during the period of employment at Griffin Patterson," although the first expression is sometimes taken in the idiom to mean the latter. Is it likely that a person would use the first expression in a literal sense in the context in which it was used? It seems to be to be extremely improbable that anyone would be likely to volunteer that during the time when he was actually occupied with his job he did not look for work elsewhere. One does not normally negative a physical impossibility.. It is conceivable, however, that, if the field examiner had asked, "While working at Griffin Patterson, did you look for work at other places?" the person interrogated, knowing what the field examiner did not then know-that work there was sometimes steady and sometimes only 2 or 3 days a week-might take the quotation to mean, "In the weeks when you were work- ing fairly steadily did you still try to get another job9" Since Sanza's affidavit is in the handwriting of the field examiner , I deem it not improbable that the field examiner may have recast some of the claimant's language to make smoother English or because the claimant's answer did not contain all that the question did. If so, one cannot, know what interpretation was put by the field examiner on the claimant's answer before it was transcribed. For example, let us suppose that the field examiner asked Sanza if she had looked for work elsewhere 1322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD while working at Griffin Patterson, and Sanza, taking the question in its literal sense, after a puzzled frown, had answered, "Why, no!" On the basis of this answer, the field examiner, in transcribing the information to the affidavit, would probably not have used the question and answer form but would have recast the answer into a complete sentence in the first person as it now appears in the first affidavit. Hence, as it is written, the first affidavit is not necessarily a contradiction of the last one, and a doubt remains as to whether or not Sanza contradicted herself in the last affidavit. That doubt is not removed by anything in the record. If Sanza had added to the sentence in question in the first affidavit an explanation of why she had not looked for work elsewhere while working at Griffin Patterson, as that she was satisfied with a part-time job, or that she was in poor physical condition and for that reason she decided to get along with,a part-time job, or that she was afraid to take the time to look for other work for fear of missing a call to work at Griffin- Patterson when she was not working, the doubt would have been removed. But there is nothing in the record to show beyond a doubt that Sanza did not seek a better job during the period of time when she had intermittent employment at Griffin Patterson. I note that Sanza says in the last affidavit that her leadlady, Winifred Starns, rebuked her when she learned that Sanza was looking for another job. Testimony by Starns, if she had been called, might have confirmed or dis- affirmed Sanza's testimony, but Starns was not called. On the record, the affidavits and Sanza's testimony stand alone as evidence contended to establish perjury. I am not prepared to find it on so doubtful a case. I find, therefore, that the Respondent has not -sustained the burden of proof that Sanza incurred a willful loss. Lovie I. Blakemore 24 At the original backpay hearing, Blakemore had testified that she had registered at unemployment offices in Van Nuys and North Hollywood as well as Burbank, giving the impression that she had done so between December 1951 and the last quarter of 1952. She also testified to having made extensive efforts to find work as often as 4 days a week all day long; sometimes walking 5 miles or more a day. period between 1951 and 1955, Blakemore testified that there were only two unem- At the reopened hearing, when specifically pinned down to the claimed backpay ployment offices where she had registered-North Hollywood and Burbank-and she placed her registration in North Hollywood as after her job at the school cafeteria. This would place it as not earlier than the fall of 1954. Consequently she had in the period between 1951 and 1953 registered only at the Burbank unemployment office. With respect to her registration at the Burbank office, Blakemore stated in an affidavit, dated September 12, 1955, which the Respondent introduced in evidence: After my discharge from Knickerbocker Plastic Co. I applied at the unemploy- ment office in Burbank about 2 weeks after being fired. I was told that I wasn't eligible for any benefits. I told them that I expected this but that I was interested in finding a job. The office showed no interest in this and sent me to no jobs but I was told I could reapply in a year for unemployment benefits. After relating, in the affidavit, her independent efforts to obtain employment and difficulties encountered, she told of going back to the unemployment office at the end of a year, registering, getting the job at Clearbeam, as related in the Supple- mental Intermediate Report, and working there for only 5 hours because of an allergy to aluminum. Her affidavit then stated that she knew the unemployment people would not let her continue to draw checks, so she did not go back. After that, according to her affidavit, she "looked for a job on my own." The portion of Blakemore's affidavit dealing with registration at the unemploy- ment office gives rise to questions which it does not answer. She does not state what reason was given for her being ineligible for any benefits. It could be assumed that it was because she was on strike. However, the fact that she was told that she could reapply in one year suggests another reason-that she had not earned enough in the base year to be entitled to any benefits. If she were to reapply in 1952, she would have been entitled to benefits on the basis of her 1951 earnings. This would have included her earnings at the Respondent if the strike was over by that time. A conclusion to be drawn from this is that Blakemore had not worked enough in the year 1950 to receive any benefits. Also there is no explanation of that part of the affidavit which indicated that the unemployment office showed no interest in her statement that she expected not to get 24 See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings. KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1323 benefits but was interested in finding a job. Blakemore's statement that the office showed no interest is a conclusion. From what did she so conclude? It is incredible that the unemployment office would have given Blakemore less attention than any- one else. In Blakemore's affidavit she did not say that she had been interviewed by anyone on the employment side of the office. Normally, in the unemployment office in larger cities,,those who refer applicants to jobs are different from those who handle the issuance of benefits. In order to get on the files of the agency to find a job, one would have to be interviewed by someone on the employment side as distinguished from the benefit side. There is no evidence that Blakemore went through the proper procedure to try to get work through the State employment service. If she did, the only reason I can think of for Blakemore's conclusion that "they showed no, interest" would be that in taking down Blakemore's employment history to determine her qualifications, the interviewer, on learning that Blakemore's principal experience had been as a beautician and that Blakemore felt she could no longer do this work, might have told Blakemore that her relative lack of experience in other work might make it more difficult to find her a job. If Blakemore had applied for work in the proper way at the unemployment agency, she should have gone back at least once a month to show that she was still interested in finding a job. But the affidavit indicates that she did not go back to the unemployment office until the lapse of a year, when she would be eligible for unemployment benefits. Then, when she did get a job at Clearbeam Television through that agency, rather quickly I infer, since she drew only one unemployment check, she kept the job only for 5 hours. Blakemore's affidavit also shows that after quitting this job she did not return to the unemployment office because she knew she would not be allowed to continue to draw checks. This, as well as the short period of work at Clearbeam and Blake- more's past failure to apply at the unemployment office regularly, suggests that Blake- more was more interested in the unemployment benefits than in a job. Blakemore claims that she was allergic to aluminum and that is the reason she gave up the job at „Clearbeam. If that were . true, I am satisfied that the unemployment office would not have expected her to continue working there and would not have refused to help her if she had returned. The fact that she did not return gives rise to the inference that she was satisfied that the unemployment office would not be convinced that the condition of her hands would prevent her from working with aluminum in view of the fact that she had worked with aluminum for 2 months at Windsor Supply in late 1951 but quit Clearbeam after only 5 hours. However, even assuming that her hands were affected by aluminum, although the unemployment office may not have considered that an adequate excuse to enable her to continue to receive ben- efits, it does not appear that she would have been denied a referral to other jobs. Since she had got one referral, she could reasonably have anticipated further referrals. Failure to register for employment is, however, not conclusive proof of willful loss,25 but if the evidence shows failure to register with a governmental employment service, the Respondent may adduce further evidence to provide that no other reasonable effort to obtain desirable new, employment has been made 26 At the original backpay hearing the Respondent failed to do this. At the reopened hearing, the only evidence adduced by the Respondent to show lack of reasonable effort to obtain desirable new employment was such as is shown in the claimant's affidavit. In her affidavit of Aug. 3, 1955, Blakemore stated, after telling about her applica- tion at the unemployment office 2 weeks after the beginning of the strike: I then applied at all the places set forth in my claim for backpay [a document which is not in evidence] and also many others the names of which I don't remember. I was usually told that there were no openings or that I wasn't qualified or that the Company wouldn't hire strikers or that I was too old. I applied at Weber Aircraft at least 20 times but was never hired. I went to Wellead [Lockheed?] many times too. No dates were given for such searches for employment. From the affidavit it could have all taken place in 1951 or it could have covered the period from 1951 to 1955 or even thereafter. Such failure on Blakemore's part to be more specific on dates cannot be taken as the equivalent of evidence that she made no effort to ffi R.S. Baking Corp, 120 NLRB 772; Ozark Hardwood Company, 119 NLRB 1130,1135; Southern Silk Mills, Inc, 116 NLRB 769 "Southern Silk Mills, Inc, 116 NLRB 769; Ozark Hardwood Company, 119 NLRB 1130, 1134 i 1324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD find employment in any given period, and the burden, was not on the General Counsel to show the efforts day by day. Blakemore was somewhat more specific in her affidavit of August 29, 1956. There she stated: In 1952 I went to many places seeking work the names of which a part of are listed in information previously supplied to the NLRB. In the case of 2/3 of those firms listed, Ruth Keene went with me in seeking a job but neither of us got a job. In 1953 up until I went to work for the Burbank School I and Ruth Keene looked for work almost every week. We had also looked for work almost every week in 1952. Both of us put in applications at any place they would accept them. I cannot recall but a few of the many places we looked for work but in 1952 Keene and I went to at least 50 to 75 employers looking for work and in 1953 I would estimate we visited at least 30 to 40 employers seeking work. I believe our age was the reason we did not secure work and' it seemed to me that when we looked for work and told the prospective employer that we had worked at Knickerbocker, that this was also against us. At Weber's Aircraft and Lockheed's both of us submitted several applica- tions. . I also kept a phone so I. could use it in seeking work and people would call me... . Blakemore also testified that she had made application to the Union at more than one place. From the foregoing I am unable to say that the Respondent has affirmatively made out a case of inadequate search for work. Apparently, however, the Respond- ent does not contend that it has affirmatively shown an inadequate search for work. If I understand the Respondent's position, it is that there is such discrepancy between Blakemore's testimony and her affidavit that neither her testimony nor her affidavit should be given any credit and that it should be inferred, without such evidence, that she made no reasonable effort to find work. This I am unable to do. I have viewed Blakemore's testimony with suspicion because I believe she was disposed to give an impression of greater effort to find work than she in fact made. Unless pinned down to a specific time in a question, she would give an answer which would take advantage of the widest literal meaning the question could have. This device indicates a willingness to permit the questioner to form false conclusions. It does not involve a complete fabrication. In concluding that the Respondent has not shown a willfully incurred loss, I find it appropriate to mention that, although the Respondent offered in evidence the two affidavits of Blakemore, it did not offer the Form 916 which, I infer, is the document referred to in the affidavit as the one in which are listed the names of places where Blakemore sought work. Although the Respondent appears, in the reopened hearing, to have somewhat impaired the credibility of the claimant, it has not nullified all her testimony of efforts to procure employment, for some of which I find supporting evidence in the record. I therefore confirm my previous findings with only such modifications as are noted herein, which do not change the computation of backpay. Mary C. Ehlen 27 The Respondent questioned Eblen about her intent not to return to the Respond- ent's employ before the strike "was settled" as she had stated, in fact, in a pretrial statement she gave the Board. Although the Respondent did not specifically so state, I take it that the Respondent was contending that since it has been found that the strike was not formally ended until March 25, 1952, Ehlen was saying in her affi- davit, that she had no intent to return to the Respondent's employ before that date. This altogether ignores the fact that Ehlen not only had stated in her affidavit that she did not report to work after the strike began because she did not want to cross the picket line, therefore intimating that she intended to remain out as long as there was a picket line, but it ignores also the fact that she did, indeed, apply for rein- statement on January 13, 1952, after the picket line was gone and more than 2 months before the formal end of the strike. I therefore find no merit in such con- tention of the Respondent if, in fact, that is the Respondent's contention. Aside from the foregoing, the Respondent merely elicited that Ehlen may not have kept her registration at the State employment service active during all the time she was unemployed. This, however, does not negate the fact that Ehlen made 21 See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO ., INC. 1 1325 an independent search for work. Even under the doctrine of the Harvest Queen Mill & Elevator Company case,28 later modified by Southern Silk Mills, Inc.,29 failure to register or keep registration active at a governmental employment service was not held to bar the backpay claim. The Board there said, "If evidence showing a failure of registration is adduced, additional evidence may then be presented to prove that no other reasonable effort to obtain desirable new employment has been made." 30 The Respondent has not presented such additional evidence. I find no reason to change or modify my original findings. Ida Granados (Marino) 31 No question asked of this witness affected her earlier testimony or my findings in my Supplemental Intermediate Report. In fact, if counsel for the Respondent had been aware of all that was stated in her affidavit, he probably would not have called Granados back. Dorothy Meadows 32 By Meadows' affidavit dated August 18, 1955,33 the Respondent sought to show that Meadows had quit desirable employment and therefore suffered a willful loss. The evidence does not accomplish its purpose, first, because at the time Meadows quit that job she was not, according to my computation. awarded backpay (she quit the job in September of 1953, and I had found that she was entitled to backpay until June 26, 1953, the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement), and, second, because her reason for quitting was that the company she was then working for was moving to another town about 30 miles from where Meadows lived 34 My original findings stand as previously recorded. Carmen Zamora 35 No evidence was adduced which would in any respect affect my original findings. Audrey Crain 36 It was stipulated that, if Crain were recalled, she would testify that she received the Hersey letter in 1953 and did not respond to it. This merely fortifies the evidence adduced at the first backpay hearing and requires no change in the Supplemental Intermediate Report. Jennie Carrisosa 37 On further cross-examination, counsel for the Respondent asked Carrisosa if she had registered at the California State employment service following her discharge at the Respondent. After her recollection had been refreshed by a pretrial affidavit which she had given the Board, Carriososa answered that she had not. Although her affidavit said that she had worked at Frances of Hollywood from September 1951 to about March 1952, Carrisosa was unable to remember that this was a fact. She also could not remember, when shown her affidavit, that she told the Board's agent who took her statement that she had not looked for work at all between the time she was laid off at Frances of Hollywood until she was recalled in September 1952. In her affidavit she states: " 90 NLRB 320, 322 "116 NLRB 769, 770-771 Whereas, under the Harvest Queen decision , registration with a governmental agency was deemed conclusive proof that a reasonable search for employment had been made, the Board in Southern Silk Mills, Inc., gave registration value only as prima facie proof and not conclusive proof This is not equivalent to say- ing that failure to register is proof of willful failure to seek work. See Ozark Hardwood Company, 119 NLRB 1130, 1135. 10 See also Ozark Hardwood Company, 119 NLRB 1130, 1133-1135 81 See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings. " See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings. "Only one paragraph was offered in evidence by the Respondent. When the'General Counsel offered the entire affidavit in evidence, it was received as his exhibit. 34 See East Texas Steel Castings Company, Inc., 116 NLRB 1336, 1347. " See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings. " See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings 37 See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings. 1326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In March [1952] I was laid off. I was laid off about 6 months. I did not look for work anywhere else because I had promise of recall from Frances of Hollywood 38 A vague expectation of recall to Frances of Hollywood does not justify a failure to look for work.39 I therefore change my previous finding and eliminate all backpay for the third quarter of 1952. In Carrisosa's affidavit is a statement that in June or July 1953 she received a letter from the Respondent offering her job back. This does not alter my finding that back- pay is due to Carrisosa until August, first, because this statement does not have the quality of testimony and, second, because it could have alluded to the Respondent's letter of July 30, 1953, recalling to work those who had evinced an interest in return- ing. But even if she had received the June 12 letter it does not appear that she had in fact been reinstated before August 1953. In the case of others who accepted rein- statement, the Respondent delayed until that time before actually reinstating them. I find no reason, therefore, to make any further change in my original finding. Donna Danner 40 I am uncertain as to what the Respondent's contentions may be with respect to Danner. Counsel for the Respondent sought, apparently, to prove that Danner was unemployed in 1952 until August of that year because of illness and that she was therefore not in the labor market. On the record 1 cannot so find. Counsel for the Respondent asked Danner, "Isn't it a fact, Madam, that you began working at Irving Schute in September 1951, and then you quit there because of illness, and you remained out until August of '52 because of illness?" Danner answered "No, I was operated on in January of 1952 " Counsel then asked, "But isn't it a fact that you did not secure employment until August, 1952 because you were hospitalized and because of your illness, and you were recuperating?" Danner answered,, "Well, I was recuperating up until, oh, about June, and from June on I was seeking employ- ment again." Counsel then showed Danner her affidavit, dated August 25, 1956, which she had made for the Board's staff and asked her to read it to see if it refreshed her recollection as to how long she was sick and recuperating in 1952. Danner did so and answered, "June, 1952. Yes, that would be about right." Respondent's counsel then asked, "Then I will ask you again, it is a fact, isn't it, that you quit Irving Schute sometime in October 1951 because of illness, and you were then unem- ployed until August, 1952 because of hospitalization and illness and recuperation?" Danner answered, "That's right." If counsel argues that the last answer negatives all others, I disagree. The question is misleading in its implication that Danner had not recuperated sufficiently to look for work until August. No doubt, because of illness, she became unemployed and because she had so become unemployed, she remained unemployed until August, but this does not mean that she was unable or unwilling to work until August. On the record, I attribute no other meaning to Danner's last answer. The Respondent did not offer Danner's affidavit in evidence. On redirect examination Danner reaffirmed that she had started looking for work in June 1952, after her illness; and the General Counsel offered in evidence a card received by Danner from the California State employment service showing that Danner had registered there on June 10, 1952. It also shows entries for July and August. Danner's affidavit apparently contained as a reason for her quitting Central Elec- tronics in May 1953, that "there were too many bosses" and because she wanted a better job, because she acknowledged at the reopened hearing that this was an addi- tional reason for quitting. At the original backpay hearing Danner testified that she quit because work was slack and she wanted to be busier, that the boss left the day she quit and there was no one to make assignments. She had, at the original hearing, testified that there were too many bosses at Central Electronics Danner testified that Central Electronics did "fold up right after that " She started her new job 2 days after leaving Central Electronics. Even though Danner's next job paid less 88 Also, according to this affidavit, Carrisosa went to the hospital sometime in September 1952 and was under doctor's care for the balance of the year 80 L B Ho8iery Co , Incorporated et at , 99 NLRB 630, 633. Even if the third quarter of 1952 were not eliminated because of willful idleness, I should find that Carrisosa was not entitled to more than $4 net backpay. Through a misreading of the social security information, I failed in my Supplemental Intermediate Report to show interim earnings of $228 which should have been offset against the $232 backpay for that period 40 See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1327 than at Central Electronics, it does not appear that the net effect of her change. of jobs was a loss of earnings. Under the circumstances, I find no reason to disallow backpay during the succeeding period. The Respondent asked Danner if, while she was working at all the other places where she worked, she had no intention of returning to¶he"Respondent even if they offered her a job. I sustained an objection to this question unless the Respondent would limit this question to a time when the Respondent did offer Danner a job 41 My original findings are reaffirmed. Mae Boggs 42 At the first hearing, Boggs had testified that she had not received the Hersey letter which-the Respondent mailed to her at an address in San Diego. As shown at the re- opened hearing, Boggs' affidavit of September 24, 1956, contained the statement, ac- cording to questions asked on cross-examination: ,In about July 1953, possibly July 27th, I received a letter from Knickerbocker asking me to go back to work. I did not answer it. I had not received any notice that the strike was over I felt that if I returned at that time it would be as a strike breaker. Boggs' memory was inadequate to supply any information about this. The statement in the affidavit constitutes an admission of receipt of the letter. I do not, however, rely on it as evidence of the date of receipt. In view of the weakness of Boggs' memory, I should not rely on her estimate of the date even if, under the rules of evidence, her affidavit had the quality of testimony. Furthermore, under the rule of the Jay decision,43 the date of actual receipt of the offer is immaterial inasmuch as Boggs did not accept anyway. Consequently, my original findings remain un- disturbed. Juanita Alamillo (Carlin),44 The Respondent introduced into evidence the Form 916 which Alamillo had filled in and given to Board agents. There are in this document two things which might be argued to constitute evidence against the claimant's interest. Only one of these was the basis of questioning and the other appears on its face to be self-explanatory. The one which was the subject of questioning was the listing of the date of March 10, 1952, as the time of registration at the State employment service (called Dept. of Unemployment by Alamillo in the form). Although the form requests the dates of all visits to, a Government agency to look.for a. job, register for unemployment checks, or register for relief, Alamillo had given only the one date. From this, the Respondent seeks to discredit Alamillo that she looked for work between March and September 1952. However, on this form, in another column, Alamillo stated that she collected unemployment checks from March 17 to September 8, 1952. In my Supplement Intermediate Report, I took notice of the fact that such checks could not continue to be received unless Alamillo had returned regularly to the unem- ployment office and given evidence of a search for work. I find no cause here to alter my original findings. The other questionable matter in the Form 916 is in the section calling for the listing of periods of illness, and other causes for unavailability for employment. Under the heading of ",Dates" are two columns headed, one, "From," the other, "To." Following'this is a column for "Reason." On the first line under these head- '1 Although I have allowed questions put in a different form to ascertain if claimants had at any time made up their minds not to accept reinstatement if offered at any time after a certain date, I have refused consistently to require the claimants, while on the stand, to speculate on whether or not they would have returned at indefinite or inconclusive times if an offer of reinstatement had been made, although in fact they were not offered re- instatement The Respondent's question, if answered by Danner in the affirmative, - would not have foreclosed her claim, because it would have shown only a disposition to remain where she was during the times she was employed and would not have covered the times when she was unemployed Hence, it would not have shown a final or ir- revocable decision not to return to the Respondent if offered reinstatement R K Rahirg Co? p , 120 NLRB 772, Pacific itmerican Sliipowners Assn , 98 NLRB 582, 603, Fox Mid- we8t A.mnsement Corporation, 98 NLRB 699, 720, footnote 15. 42 See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings 43.Ja11 Company, Inc., 103 NLRB 1645, enfd 227 F. 2d 416 (C A 9) 44 See Supplemental Intei mediate Report for original findings 1328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ings, in the respective columns, Alamillo had inserted the dates March 1952 , Decem- ber 31 , 1952, and "Due to Pregnancy." A literal reading of this would seem to indicate that Alamillo was unavailable for work between March and the end of December 1952 . However, on the two lines beneath the first appear scratched out dates in the "From" column, the dates March 7, 1954, and February 23, 1955, in the "To" column and, in the "Reason" column, the words "2nd column are birth dates of children ." Obviously, then, Alamillo had not followed the form and given the information requested but had substituted the birth dates of her children. I find that this does not affect Alamillo 's testimony or my findings. Elsie Contreras 45 In an apparent attempt , to show that Contreras was not in the labor market be- tween February 23 and September 1952 , the Respondent offered in evidence a four- page, typewritten document bearing Contreras ' signature on three of the pages, preceded by the words "Yours truly." On the first page is a heading , "Statement of Claimant for Purposes of Back Pay," followed by what might be topics on which information was supplied, such as "Friends who know you in case you move," "Information regarding your employment," "Date started working for this company," "Periods of Illness." Each of these headings was followed by what presumably is information supplied about these topics. Following the last mentioned heading is, "Feb 23, 1952-Sept 1952 Not paid during this period ." The Respondent asked the claimant no questions at all. I am unable to find from this that Contreras was ill for the full period shown between February and September or that, if ill, she was unable to work, because the second page of this statement shows periods of em- ployment and lists, in the period between January 1, 1951 ( an apparent typographical error for 1952 ) and March 31, 1952, employment at Clearbeam, and gives the ex- planation of the reason for leaving as "laid off," in the period between April 1 and June 30, 1952, employment at Wallace Slade, and in the period July 1 to September 30, 1952, employment at Mr. Howe on a Government job. I do not find that she was employed through each of the quarters shown, but the form does show actual em- ployment at some time in each quarter. Contreras' social security record shows earn- ings for the first quarter of 1952 in the amount of $445 .50, for the second quarter in the amount of $198.40 at two different employers , and for the third quarter in the amount of $186.08 at two different employers , Howe Foundry & Machine Co. and Pacific Mercury Television Mfg. Corp . The latter had not been mentioned in the "Statement of Claimant for Purposes of Back Pay ." Inasmuch as the document has an apparent conflict or ambiguity on its face, an explanation would be in order, but the conflict does not necessarily impair the credibility of Contreras , because there may be an explanation which would eliminate the apparent conflict. I find that the Respondent has failed to prove that Contreras was not in the labor market in 1952. This form , however, shows Contreras' rate of pay at Clearbeam as 95 cents an hour instead of 90 cents as I had found in my Supplemental Intermediate Report. This does not alter any finding I made even as to the date when she left Clearbeam, which I had computed from her rate of pay, for the difference of 5 cents an hour would not even make a full day's difference and my computation took into account the figures shown in the social security information. The form introduced at the hearing might tend to show that Contreras quit at Clearbeam at a time when her job was working on a punch press, as she testified, and then had been rehired to work on rubber toys and walkie-talkies and been laid off later, for she lists all three types of work and lists seriatim , down the column of rea- sons for leaving, three explanations , the first one, quit, the next two, laid off. This also was unexplained . However, it gives more meaning to her original testimony. I find that the Respondent has not sustained its burden of proof to show that Contreras sustained a willful loss or withdrew from the labor market. ' Jeronima Bernal 46 At the first backpay hearing Bernal testified that she did not recall having received the Hersey letter. At the reopened hearing, upon being shown an affidavit executed by her on August 29, 1956 , and being shown that it stated , "I recall that I received the so called Hersey letter in June 1953," Bernal testified that she received "one letter from Mr. Hersey ." She testified that she did not remember which one she had 46 See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings 46 See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1329 received . After being shown a further statement from the affidavit reading, "I be- lieve I received another letter from the company . This letter also offered reinstate- ment," and being asked if she remembered having received another letter from the company, she answered that she received one letter from Hersey and recalled no others. Inasmuch as I previously found that the Respondent's liability for backpay ceased as of the date when- delivery of the Hersey letter was attempted , it is immate- terial whether or not Bernal received it. The Respondent at the original backpay hearing introduced in evidence a large, four-page, post office receipt for registered mail stamped at the time the Respondent sent the offer of reinstatement to a number of the claimants in June 1953. On this exhibit were notations made, not by the post office, but by someone employed by the Respondent, showing, among other things, dates of receipt of the letters , in cases where they were received , and shown , in a number of instances , by the letters "L.R." in the space where the date of receipt was usually written , that the letter was re- turned undelivered . These letters (L.R.) follow the name and address of Bernal on this post office receipt . On the entire record, I find no reason to alter my original findings on Bernal. Santosh Kelkar 47 Although Kelkar was cross-examined by the Respondent's counsel, there is no indication that any of his pretrial statements was used , and I find nothing in the record which requires any change in my original findings. Beatrice Muller 48 Muller's recollection was not refreshed by being shown a Form 916 questionnaire which she signed. There was little information on it aside from the notation that she had sent her W-2 Forms (withholding tax forms ) to someone, possibly the Re- gional Office, and a listing of registration dates at the "U .S. Employment Office" in San Fernando, in 1952 and 1954. If the W-2 forms are within the scope of the Board's order for production of pretrial statements , the record does not disclose that the Respondent failed to receive copies of them , and it does not show that , if it had requested them and not received them, they were in the possession of the General Counsel at the time of the request and had not already been returned to Muller. The Respondent questioned Muller at some length about why she had not, as she admitted , asked for a transfer to a different job at U.S. Flare instead of quitting be- cause of the nauseating odor. Her answer was, in effect , that she had no reason to believe there were other jobs available in view of the fact that the company was a small one. I am unable to determine on the record whether or not her conclusion, based on her observation , was a reasonable one, and it was not shown that, if she had asked for a transfer she would have received it. I find no reason to change any Melba Lopez 49 At the reopened hearing, counsel for the Respondent questioned Lopez about her failure to return to the Respondent in August 1953 when she was offered a job on the assembly line. Lopez' testimony at the reopened hearing was that this job would have paid $ 1.05 an hour instead of $ 1, as previously found, and that the job on the molding machine would have paid $1.35 instead of $1.25, as previously found. Ac- tually, the variance is immaterial . At the time the offer was made, Lopez was mak- ing $1.55 an hour at Pacific Airmotive, but she testified that she would have returned to the Respondent's employ at $ 1.35 had she been offered her former position be- cause at Pacific Airmotive she had no seniority , since she had just started working there. Following August 1953, Lopez did not return to the Respondent until she was offered reinstatement in 1955. I find no reason to change the findings in my Supplemental Intermediate Report except as to the rates of pay, herein shown, which do not affect the results. Cecelia Ramirez 50 At the original backpay hearing , Ramirez testified that she quit Sensenbrenner's employ because the work was only 2 or 3 days a week and that there was only a short time between her quitting and her finding of her next job. At the reopened hearing, Ramirez was shown a Form 916 which she had prepared for the Board in findings previously made. 47 See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings. ^ See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings 4e See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings 50 See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings. 1330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD July 1955, which contained a statement that, in the third quarter of 1953, Ramirez was unemployed from July 17 to October. She was asked by the Respondent if she had quit her job at Santa Fe Cigars (Sensenbrenner's) on July 17. She answered, "Must have been July 17, in between July or September, something like that, Sep- tember or something. I can't remember very well." In an affidavit which she exe- cuted on March 16, 1956, she stated that she had worked for Santa Fe Cigars until September 18, 1953, that she went to the employment office and got a job at Stand- ard Coil and worked there for about a month in October or November. An exam- ination of the social security information introduced in evidence in the original back- pay hearing discloses that, in the third quarter of 1953, Ramirez was paid $307.65 by Sensenbrenner (Santa Fe Cigars). This is obviously more than she would have earned between July 1 and July 17. In the second quarter, when Ramirez had worked for the same employer from May 12 to June 30, 1953, she had received $281.63. I find on the entire record, therefore, that, on a part-time basis, Ramirez must have worked for Sensenbrenner until some time in September . I find no reason to change my original findings on this point. The aforementioned affidavit , written in longhand by a Board agent, contains a paragraph about the Respondent's offer of reemployment in 1953. I show this paragraph as it appears, including a few lines of writing each of which contains a line through it as though to cancel it: In June or July 1953, when I got the letter from Knickerbocker telling me I could have my job back again I saw a man I believe was Mr. Cook-who told me they were in the process of moving the plant and that they would call me. AFeisstd Aesgtiot 496 3 -1 d-id get a eell bttt -1 eettldti't etfFesage 1,Petaspe4tttoft €e flee stew leeation Abetet 9 weeks la7tee' J eei;lled and asked to go bae-k to work eiatd the S 51 In September 1953 I called Knickerbocker and asked to talk to Mr. Cook. A woman answered and after I told her that I wanted to,return to work there-she asked me to wait a•few minutes-then she told-me-that I was supposed to have been back to work sometime in August and that in the meantime they had filled my job. She told me to call back again. I called her back several times but was always turned down. Even though Mr. Cooke promised to call me after they moved the plant, I never got the call. When questioned about the deleted words, Ramirez denied that she "got a call in August 1953 to come back to Knickerbocker and . couldn't arrange transporta- tion to their new location." She specifically denied receiving a call, but did state that "I know there wasn't any transportation at all. I couldn't.get transportation." Ramirez was asked why the passage was crossed out and said she did not know. Ramirez was not asked when it was that she learned that she could not get trans- portation to the Respondent's new location. This may have been something she got by hearsay after 1953. If she had known it in September 1953, it is unlikely that she would have called the Respondent to try to get employment. Yet this por- tion of her testimony carried a ring of truth. The witness did not appear to be the type to resort to guile. The fact that certain statements in the affidavit were crossed out could have a logical explanation, as, for example, that the Board agent had jumped to a conclusion and had written down what he did before he discovered his error. This might also explain the lack of any initials for the strikeout, because he would be correcting his own mistake rather than Ramirez' mistake I noticed some tendency on Ramirez' part to testify without regard to logical order or gram- -matical use of tenses. She might well have told the Board agent that she learned that she was supposed to return to the Respondent in August before she had told him that she did not learn this until September when she called the plant to see if she could come back. On the record as it stands, I find no reason to alter my original findings Nadine Rillera (Del Pilar) 52 Rillera was notified to return for further cross-examination but did not appear. The Respondent nevertheless offered in evidence portions of two affidavits which this claimant had executed. The entire affidavits are in evidence as General Coun- sel's exhibits, but for the purposes of these proceedings I have not considered more than the point raised by the Respondent. As the evidence offered by the Respondent tended to corroborate my original findings, I find no reason to change them. Except as modified herein, I recommend the adoption of the findings and con- clusions reached in my Supplemental Intermediate Report. -The cancellation is not initialed as I have noticed it usually is in such cases. 6' See Supplemental Intermediate Report for original findings