Marlene Industries Corp.

50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Marlene Industries Corporation; Decaturville Sports- wear Co., Inc.; Trousdale Manufacturing Co., Inc.; Westmoreland Manufacturing Corporation; Frisco Sportswear Co., Inc.; Aynor Manufactur- ing Company, Inc.; Loris Manufacturing Com- pany, Inc.; Charles Meltzer, Individually and as President of Marlene Industries Corporation; Samuel Meltzer, Individually and as Treasurer of Marlene Industries Corporation ; Abraham Dan- sky, Individually and as Vice President of Marlene Industries Corporation; Ray Rindone; Daniel Beitsch ; L. E. Broyles; C. M. Jones; Victor Mar- tin; Lloyd Eppersimons; W. J. Schwartz and Aynor Development Corporation and Interna- tional Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. Cases 26-CA-2158, 26-CA-2216, 26-CA-2216-2, and 26-CA-2276 June 8, 1970 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS MCCULLOCH, BROWN, AND JENKINS On July 3, 1967, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-en- titled case, finding that the Respondents had dis- criminated against certain named employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.' The Board's Order directed, inter alia, that the Respondents offer immediate and full reinstatement to 17 em- ployees and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by virtue of Respondents' discrimination against them. On January 29, 1969, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit enforced the rein- statement and backpay provisions of the Board's Order. On August 14, 1969, the Regional Director for Region 26 issued and served upon the parties a backpay specification and notice of hearing. The Respondents filed an answer thereto on September 13, 1969. Upon appropriate notice issued by the Regional Director, a hearing was held before George A. Downing, Trial Examiner, for the pur- pose of determining the amounts of backpay due the claimants. On January 13, 1970, the Trial Examiner issued his attached Supplemental Decision in which he found that the claimants were entitled to specific amounts of backpay. Thereafter, the Respondents and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Supplemental Decision and sup- porting briefs. ' 166 NLRB 703, enfd 406 F 2d 886 (C A 6) Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connec- tion with this case to a three-member panel. 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 Supplemental Decision and the entire record in the case, including the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein. The Trial Examiner found that Letha Tyler Miller, who had no interim earnings , did not make a reasonable effort to obtain employment during the backpay period, that she incurred a willful loss of earnings, and that she was thus not entitled to backpay. The General Counsel excepts to this find- ing and we find merit in the exception. It appears from the record that Miller reported to the South Carolina State Employment Service of- fice every week for 22 weeks and was referred by it to only one employer, who did not hire her. There is no indication that the office found her job seek- ing inadequate and she continued to receive unem- ployment benefits for the maximum allowable period. In addition to her unsuccessful personal ap- plication, she applied by telephone to two local em- ployers who declared they were not hiring. Thereafter, Miller traveled from 60 to 115 miles from her home in search of work. In company with another discriminatee she drove 60 miles to Lake City, South Carolina, where they were informed that jobs were available if they lived in Lake City. After searching for a place to live during the remainder of the day they were unable to find hous- ing accommodations and did not, therefore, report for work. On another occasion, Miller drove 115 miles to Charleston where she was denied employment because of a rule requiring a year's residence in Charleston. In our opinion the Respondent has failed to sustain the burden of establishing that Miller willfully incurred a loss of interim earnings. We shall, therefore, reverse the Trial Examiner's Decision insofar as it relates to Miller and direct that she be granted the amount of backpay claimed in the General Counsel's specification. ORDER On the basis of the foregoing Supplemental Deci- sion and the entire record in this case , the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the 183 NLRB No. 3 MARLENE INDUSTRIES CORP. Respondents , Marlene Industries Corporation; Decaturville Sportswear Co., Inc .; Trousdale Manu- facturing Co., Inc.; Westmoreland Manufacturing Corporation ; Frisco Sportswear Co., Inc.; Aynor Manufacturing Company , Inc.; Loris Manufactur- ing Company, Inc.; Charles Meltzer , Individually and as President of Marlene Industries Corporation; Samuel Meltzer, Individually and as Treasurer of Marlene Industries Corporation ; Abraham Dansky, Individually and as Vice President of Marlene In- dustries Corporation ; Ray Rindone ; Daniel Beitsch; L. E. Broyles ; C. M. Jones ; Victor Martin; Lloyd Eppersimons; W. J. Schwartz and Aynor Develop- ment Corporation , Aynor and Loris, South Carolina , their officers , agents , successors , and as- signs, shall pay to the employees involved in this proceeding , as net backpay herein determined to be due the amounts set forth opposite their names in the recommendations of the Trial Examiner and shall, in addition , pay to Letha Tyler Miller, as net backpay , the amount of $3,265, with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum computed on the basis of the quarterly amounts of net backpay due, less any tax withholding required by law. SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION GEORGE A. DOWNING, Trial Examiner: This is a proceeding on a backpay specification issued by the Regional Director on August 14, 1969, pursuant to Section 102.52, et seq., of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, for the purpose of determining the amounts of backpay which will make whole 17 employees (Stanford Roberts, Mary Roberts, Geneva (Allen) Edge, Margaret Dell Jor- dan, Harry D. Rabon, Minnie Bourne Lane, Letha (Tyler) Miller, Ruth Gerrald, Edna Alford Gerrald, Barbara (Smith) Johnson, Pauline Strickland, Nan- nie Martin, Christine Sellers, Drunella Lewis, John G. Disher, Joe D. Doyle, Jr., and Eugene D. Skipper) in the manner directed by the Board in its Decision and Order, 166 NLRB 703, enfd. 406 F.2d 886 (C.A. 6). The hearing was held herein at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, on October 7 and 8, 1969, pursuant to due notice. Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel and by Respondents. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACTS 1. INTRODUCTION AND ISSUES The backpay specification, pursuant to Board regulations, contained computations of the gross ' Aerovox Corporation, Johnson Manufacturing Co , Carolina Strand Co , Wolverine (Franklin) Brass Works, Mullins Textile Mills, Southern Packaging & Storage Co , and Aberdeen Mfg Co (variously referred to in 51 backpay, the interim earnings, the claimed expen- ses, and net backpay due in each calendar quarter for each of the 17 discriminatees except Eugene D. Skipper, whose interim earnings exceeded his backpay in each quarter. Respondents by answer admitted that the gross backpay was correctly com- puted for each employee but contested in each case the accuracy of the interim earnings set out in the specification, charging that each employee had in- curred a willful loss of earnings in certain quarters by refusing to accept substantially equivalent em- ployment at comparable plants located in Mullins, Conway, and Myrtle Beach, by failing diligently to search for work, and (in some cases) by voluntarily terminating their alternative employment for no valid reason. The burden of proof was upon the General Coun- sel, of course, "to establish the damage which has resulted from Respondents' established discrimina- tory discharge, i.e., the gross backpay over the backpay period." Mastro Plastics Corporation, 136 NLRB 1346, enfd. 354 F.2d 170 (C.A. 2), cert. de- nied 384 U.S. 972. As Respondents conceded the correctness of the computations of the gross backpay, the only issues herein concerned the in- terim earnings and the diminution of damages, and on those the burden was on Respondents, "whether from the willful loss of earnings by the failure to either look for or keep a substantially equivalent job or from the unavailability of a job at Respon- dents' plant for some reason unconnected with the discrimination." Id., and cases there cited at foot- note 11. Though Respondents' admissions made it un- necessary for the General Counsel to offer proof on his part of the case, he made available to Respon- dents each of the discriminatees for examination concerning their efforts to obtain interim employ- ment. Respondents also called the office manager of the South Carolina State Employment Service (Employment Office herein) at Conway and representatives of some seven employing concerns' in the general area of Aynor and Loris (where Respondents' plants were located), the latter of whom testified concerning the general opportuni- ties for employment at their plants and, in some cases, concerning the absence of applications from the discriminatees involved herein. As an understanding of local geography is neces- sary in evaluating the efforts which the dis- criminatees made to seek employment, it will be helpful to note the location of the various towns and communities and of the various plants which are mentioned in the record. Both Aynor and Loris are in Horry County, in which most of the communities were located, in- cluding the towns of Conway (the county seat) and Myrtle Beach, a beach resort on the Atlantic the record as Conway Textiles, Carolina Textiles, and the "curtain facto- ry") 427-258 O-LT - 74 - 5 52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ocean. All of the discriminatees lived in Horry County, mostly within a few miles of either Aynor or Loris but a number lived in more remote rural areas on RFD routes. Aynor is some 15 miles from Conway on Road 501 and Loris is some 19 miles from Conway on Road 701. Myrtle Beach is 15 miles from Conway in an opposite direction. Marion and Mullins were in the adjoining county of Marion and were approximately 20 miles northwest of Aynor. Tabor City, although only 6 miles from Loris, was in North Carolina, and "Ihiteville was some 23 miles beyond Loris. Other more distant points at which some of the discriminatees sought employment were Lake City, around 50 miles west of Conway; Florence, some 50-odd miles west of Conway; Charleston, some 110 miles south of Con- way, and Laurinburg, North Carolina, some 75 miles northwest of Conway. Aerovox was located at Myrtle Beach; Wolverine Brass was about halfway between Myrtle Beach and Conway on Road 501; Johnson Manufacturing and Carolina Strand were on the same highway, coming into Conway; and the curtain factory was in Con- way. Mullins Textile and Southern Packaging were in Mullins. We shall begin with the evidence concerning the employment situation generally and the functioning of the Employment Office and shall then turn to the testimony of the individual discriminatees regarding their efforts to find work. H. THE STATE EMPLOYMENT OFFICE; EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES GENERALLY Respondents called Brantley Richardson, office manager of the Employment Office in Conway, but did not call other representatives of that office in denial of statements attributed to them by Stanford Roberts and Christine Sellers, two of the dis- criminatees, concerning the futility of referring them to employers in the area. See section III, infra. Richardson testified that the Conway office has jurisdiction over Horry County and that a separate office has jurisdiction over Marion County, in which Marion and Mullins are located. Unem- ployed claimants are interviewed and are required to file a written claim for unemployment compensa- tion as well as an application for work which is filed according to the type of work in which the appli- cant is experienced or interested. Claimants are required to come personally each week to the of- fice to receive compensation benefits and are inter- viewed again concerning their efforts to find work. Applicants are sometimes given tests (for certain employers) for finger dexterity and mechanical ap- titude. The office receives from employers in the county requests or "orders" for employees and thereupon reviews the applications to determine whether there are qualified applicants. Such applicants are inter- viewed again for suitability for the job openings and are then referred to the employers. Applications are not considered to be current after 60 days, and they are thereafter placed in the inactive file, which is not examined unless they have been renewed. In making referrals the office considers the normal commuting distance to work to be 20 miles, and Aynor and Loris were within that distance from Conway. Richardson estimated that a majority of the fac- tory employers in the county requested referrals from his office and that 30 percent of the total requests were for factory jobs. The Conway area furnished the greatest number of jobs on a year- round basis, though on a seasonal basis there were more jobs at Myrtle Beach and the adjoining beach areas.2 Information is sometimes exchanged with the .Marion office if one or the other is unable to fill all employer orders. Though information may also be exchanged with offices in North Carolina, Richard- son could recall no requests for employees at Tabor City or Whiteville and testified the only referrals which he could recall to North Carolina were for agricultural work. As for the Air Force Base near Myrtle Beach, no requests were received from the U.S. Government for workers and most of those employees were under Civil Service. To be eligible to receive unemployment benefits claimants were required to show a continuing search for work and a continuing ability to work. The maximum for which benefits could be drawn during any 12-month period was 22 weeks, though applications might thereafter be renewed if the clai- mants were still unsuccessful in finding work. Turning now to the employer representatives called by Respondents, we begin with Bobby L. Edgar, of Aerovox, who went with the company on December 19, 1966, and whose testimony was based on personnel records. Edgar testified that the company manufactures ceramics capacitators in the operation of which certain manual dexterity is necessary. The Employ- ment Office gives tests for such aptitudes in con- nection with referring applicants and written appli- cations are taken only from employees who bring in a card showing that they have passed the test. Even then applications are not taken unless there are openings or unless the Company is aware of an early need for more employees. Applications are kept on file only 3 months except for those who are employed. Edgar produced the application of Mary Roberts who was hired January 18, 1966, and who left on August 16, 1966. Geneva Allen Edge filed an appli- cation dated July 2, 1965, was hired on August 4, There was no evidence, however, that the Conway office referred any one of the discrimmatees to a seasonaljob at Myrtle Beach or to any other employer there save Aerovox MARLENE INDUSTRIES CORP 53 and quit voluntarily on November 12, 1965. Joe Doyle, Jr., filed an application dated March 29, 1966, was hired on March 30, and worked only 1 day when he was laid off because of a cutback in the number of employees. There was no record covering Christine Sellers Albert Whitehead, of Wolverine (Franklin) Brass Works, testified that the company was new in the area and its operations (manufacturing plumbing fixtures), being rather difficult, resulted in a high turnover of employees. Some 45 of its 250 em- ployees were women who worked in assembling and packaging the finished product. Personnel files were periodically cleaned out and Whitehead, who went with the company in November 1966, found no applications on file from the discriminatees ex- cept for Nannie Martin, who was hired on June 13, 1966, after filing two applications, one in October 1965 and one on June 1, 1966. Gerald Render, of Carolina Strand Company, testified that the company manufactured uphol- stered chairs, that it used sewing machines , and that approximately one-third of its 65 employees were women. Applicants were usually referred by present employees but some referrals are made by the Employment Office. Formal applications were not always required but hirings were made after oral interviews, usually by Render, who hired 90 'percent of the employees. Applications were destroyed after 6 months and Render testified he would ordinarily remember only employees who were still working for the company and that other- wise he remembered a few names (of the dis- criminatees ) because he had just gone over them. As to whether each of the discriminatees had ever applied for work at the plant Render testified he was not aware that any of them had done so. Dur- ing the backpay period the company hired a total of 41 employees. J. Grier Johnson, president of Johnson Manufac- turing Company, testified that his company manu- factured upholstered lounges, employing some 100 employees of whom some 18 or 20 were women operators of sewing machines. Hirings were generally made on oral interviews as applicants came in, the women being interviewed by Johnson's wife. Some referrals were made by the Employment Office. Johnson estimated his hiring from May 1965 through the end of the year at 15 to 20 and in 1966 through August 4 at 25. Stanford Roberts, Mary Roberts, and John G. Disher did not make application to Johnson's knowledge, nor to his recollection did Joe Doyle, Jr., ever come to the plant. Johnson was aware that under child labor laws 18 was the youngest age at which employees could work where machinery was involved. Concerning Harry Rabon, Johnson's testimony was ultimately to the effect that Rabon worked 3 consecutive days to February 28, 1966, and did not return to work thereafter. Rabon was discharged as of March 8 for failure to report to work, and John- son informed him when he returned for his check that the reason was "irregular work habits." Though Johnson admitted that Rabon told him at that time he had to be a witness at the Air Force Base for the Union at Aynor Manufacturing Com- pany, Johnson was not aware prior to the discharge that Rabon was a witness in the Board hearing. Myrtle Gause of Aberdeen Manufacturing Com- pany (the curtain factory) testified that the com- pany employed sewing machine operators and other employees in allied services. Gause could not recall whether the company advertised for em- ployees during the backpay period, in which it hired from 250 to 300 employees, but testified that it did take referrals from the Employment Office. Based on her notebook in which she had listed the names of applicants, Gause testified ultimately that none of the 16 discriminatees filed a written appli- cation. Though Gause testified initially that she had applications for Margaret Dell Jordan and Harry Rabon, she testified when recalled that she found none from either. Her testimony reflected con- siderable confusion regarding Jordan, however (there were at least three Margaret Jordans in the county, one presently in Aberdeen's employ), and Gause admitted that at one time she directed her secretary to call Margaret Jordan to work but did not specify Margaret Dell Jordan. Hilliard S. Dura of Mullins Textile Mills testified that the company employed sewing machine opera- tors and other employees in allied services. It had around 560 employees and a labor turnover of about 25 percent per annum. It hired 168 new em- ployees from May 1 to December 31, 1965, and 183 from January 1 through August 31, 1966. John G. Disher filed an application on March 5, 1966, was hired on March 7, and voluntarily quit on May 14, 1966. Pauline Strickland filed an appli- cation on February 15, 1966, was hired on Februa- ry 21 as a collarette operator, and quit the same day.' James Snowden, of Southern Packaging Storage Company, testified that the. company packages O- rations for the Armed Forces and does some storage It works on a contract basis and may be shut down for as much as a month or so at a time. Dexterity tests are given applicants by the Employ- ment Office and he takes employees who are referred by it. The company employs around 500 employees, with a turnover of 10 to 15 percent per year. Snowden produced the application of Ruth Ger- rald apparently dated in November 1966, and an ' General Counsel's objection was sustained to Dura's assumption that Strickland quit because she could not do the work, though Strickland's later testimony was precisely to that effect (see sec 111, infra ) 54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD earnings record showing earnings from January 12 through June 22 , 1966, and from August 9 to December 20, 1966 . Snowden admitted , contrary to counsel 's assumption , that there were no earnings from July 1 through August 4 ; and the earnings record otherwise appears to accord with the figures in the specification. III. THE TESTIMONY OF THE DISCRIMINATEES A. Stanford Roberts Stanford Roberts was employed as an electrician and maintenance man at the Aynor plant . Though Respondents concede that the manner of comput- ing Roberts' backpay accords with the Board's for- mula approved by the Supreme Court in N.L.R.B. v. Seven- Up Bottling Company, 344 U . S. 344, his testimony throws considerable light on the difficul- ties which he and the other discriminatees faced in finding work in the area. Roberts testified that when first interviewed at the Employment Office he was informed by a Mr. Sessions that there would be no trouble finding him a job because Aerovox ( at Myrtle Beach) was look- ing for an electrician . When Roberts returned the following week , however , Sessions told him that because he had been fired at Aynor , Aerovox would not hire him because "they wasn 't hunting no union organizers." On a subsequent occasion after Roberts was laid off during an interim employ- ment at Lord Electric Company, he returned to the Employment Office to apply for unemployment compensation and was interviewed by a Mrs . Ricks. Mrs. Ricks informed him that he would be able to receive benefits because the office had been unable to find him a job before and that this was due to the fact that all of the discriminatees had been fired on account of the Union. Though Respondents contend that backpay would be tolled for a few weeks in the spring of 1966 when Roberts was temporarily laid off by Lord Electric Company, Roberts testified he was permitted to draw unemployment compensation after Mrs. Ricks informed him why the office could not find him a job . He was also informed that other plants in the area had all the electricians they needed. As for self-employment , Roberts testified he was without the tools and equipment necessary to set himself up again in the house wiring business in which he once engaged. B. Christine Sellers Christine Sellers, who registered for unemploy- ment shortly after her discharge on August 2, testified she sought work every day except Satur- days and Sundays . In addition to applying to the seven concerns whose representatives testified herein , Sellers sought work from employers in Marion ( Herbert Mills) and Mullins (Glenn 's Sport- swear and Rickeys ) and through the Employment Office in Marion . At Florence, some 52 miles away, she applied to Electric Motors and to the papermill. She also went with Letha Tyler Miller to Lake City (some 45 miles from her home ) where they ob- tained a job on condition they get a place to live in Lake City , but being unable to find a place to stay they did not report to work . In a number of cases Sellers listed Aynor Manufacturing on her applica- tion as a prior employer and was informed in all such cases that the employer was not hiring. She did not go to Tabor City or to Whiteville, North Carolina, testifying she had never been to either town. Sellers testified the Employment Office referred her to only two employers , Aerovox and the curtain factory . On her first application to Aerovox , Sellers listed Aynor as a prior employer and was informed that the Company did not need any help . Sellers returned sometime later , however, and filed another application under her maiden name, Smith, was hired under that name , but was discharged after 2 days by a letter which informed her she was no longer needed. Sellers also testified to a conversation with Mrs. Ricks at the Employment Office in Conway con- cerning a posted notice which listed openings for sewing machine operators. After making a phone call, Ricks informed Sellers that "they " could not use her because she had been "mixed up in that union stuff ... at Aynor." Sellers testified to a similar conversation with Ricks in August 1966, subsequent to the reinstatement date. C. Drunella Lewis Respondents make no real attack on the interim earnings of Drunella Lewis but point to her as an example of what an industrious individual could do who wanted to work . One phase of Lewis' testimony , however, should be noted as corroborat- ing Letha Tyler Miller that the basis of the latter's rejection by Manhattan Shirt Company of Char- leston was a company rule requiring a 1-year re- sidence in Charleston . Lewis testified the rule ex- isted but was waived in her case because an excep- tion was permitted where there was an old em- ployee who would vouch for the applicant . Lewis' sister-in-law had worked for the company some 10 years. D. Geneva Allen Edge The specification eliminated from the backpay period in the case of Geneva Allen Edge the period from November 12, 1965, to April 16, 1966, and the further period from April 20 to May 3, 1966. Of the remaining periods for which backpay is claimed , Respondents question Edge's interim earnings only in the second quarter of 1965, follow- ing her discharge on May 19, contending that Edge did not seek work before she applied to Aerovox on July 2 . Respondents otherwise cite Edge as a sig- MARLENE INDUSTRIES CORP. nificant example of how one could obtain work in Horry County if he actively sought it. Though Edge testified concerning her attempts to obtain work with such employers as Conway Tex- tile and either Johnson Manufacturing or Carolina Strand and also with various retail stores and the Conway hospital, she was unable to fix the time of those attempts and finally admitted that she could not say "truthfully" whether she applied to any concern before she filed her written application with Aerovox. On the basis of that testimony and Edge's admitted failure to register with the Employ- ment Office, I find that she made no reasonable ef- fort to obtain work before July 1, 1965. E. Ruth Gerrald Ruth Gerrald lived some 14 miles from Aynor at the time of her discharge and some 25 or 30 miles from Conway. She registered for unemployment benefits at the Conway office and drew compensa- tion until Christmas. Though Gerrald went to Con- way each week to get her check she did not seek employment there because (she testified) it was too far from her home and she also denied that the of- fice referred her to any prospective employers. Sometime later, however, Gerrald's records were transferred to the Marion County office from which she was referred to Southern Packaging, at which she obtained employment on January 12, 1966. Though Gerrald had once worked for Mullins Tex- tile she did not apply there for she considered the work to be too hard. Gerrald has also formerly worked at Herbert Mills in Marion but did not apply there either though she did go to some de- partment stores in Mullins. F. Letha Tyler Miller Letha Tyler Miller had no interim earnings dur- ing the backpay period. She lived with her parents, who not only supported her but made the payments on her car and paid for its upkeep and operation. Miller registered for unemployment compensation and drew benefits for the maximum of 22 weeks. The Employment Office suggested only one place of employment, Aerovox, and Miller applied, listing Aynor Manufacturing Company as a prior em- ployer. She was not hired. Miller also called on the telephone to Franklin Brass and to Nye's Pharmacy but was told they were not hiring. In company with Christine Sellers, Miller drove to Lake City, some 60 miles from her home, and was informed that they could have jobs on condi- tion they live in Lake City. They were unable to find a place to live after searching the remainder of the day and did not report to work on the job. Miller was also refused a job by Manhattan Shirt 55 Company at Charleston (some 115 miles away)4 because of a rule requiring a year's residence in Charleston. See Drunella Lewis, supra. Miller did not apply to Conway Textiles because, she testified, she was allergic to fiberglass of which she understood the curtains were made. She did not apply to Carolina Strand Company and, as for Johnson Manufacturing, she did not know exactly where it was and did not know that it used sewing machines in making upholstered furniture. G. Minnie Bourne Lane Minnie Bourne Lane had extensive experience in operating various types of sewing machines in the garment industry but had no experience on other work. Lane had no interim earnings after her discharge until she began working for Aerovox on July 19, 1966 (on a job for which she had to be trained). However, the specification eliminated the entire period from February 16 to August 4, 1966, because of pregnancy. Under Lane's testimony she registered with the Employment Office and also actively sought em- ployment at a number of concerns. She first went to Aerovox shortly after her discharge, to the curtain factory, to Johnson Manufacturing Company, and to Wolverine Brass Company, asking for any job she could do. She also filed an application with Respondents' plant at Loris and was informed by a Mrs. Medlin that she would be called if there were an opening. Lane did not apply to Mullins Textile because the distance (40 miles) was farther than she wished to commute. In general her applications were made to plants and factories in the line of work in which she was experienced, and she did not apply to such concerns as motels, restaurants, stores, or gift shops because she was without ex- perience in those lines of work. The Employment Office referred her to only two places, Conway Textile and Respondents' plant at Loris, and she applied to both without success. H. Margaret Dell Jordan Margaret Dell Jordan had no interim earnings during the period prior to the offer of reinstatement on August 4, 1966. Backpay was disclaimed, how- ever, during the period from July 1 to 14, 1965, because of illness and consequent unavailability for work and again from November 10, 1965, to May 11, 1966, because of pregnancy. Under Jordan's testimony she actively sought work in the area from numerous manufacturing concerns and retail establishments. On August 13, 1965, however, the Employment Office issued a determination finding that Jordan had not been available for work within the meaning of the South Carolina Statute because: Miller testified that she was also accompanied on that trip by Christine Sellers but Sellers denied she went to Charleston I conclude that Miller was mistaken in identifying Sellers as the person who accompanied her 56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The claimant is not making an active per- sonal search for work . In the past few weeks she has not applied to any employer for work. Further , she thinks she is pregnant and she is not interested in working at this time . In order to be eligible for benefits a person must be able, available and actively seeking regular full time work without limitation or restriction. The General Counsel represented that Jordan was in fact in the first stages of pregnancy during the 2 weeks of illness first eliminated from the specification and that the pregnancy continued into the period beginning November 10. The terminal date of that period , May 11, 1966 , was 3 months subsequent to the birth of the child. Jordan testified that a few days after her discharge she applied to the Employment Office and that she drew compensation benefits both be- fore and after her baby was born . She denied that after she knew she was pregnant she made no real efforts to find a job. I. Pauline Strickland Pauline Strickland had no employment prior to her job at the Aynor plant where she operated a machine doing "tagging." Strickland registered for unemployment at the Conway office and was referred by it to only one employer, the curtain fac- tory, which permitted her to file an application but never called her in to work. Strickland lived on RFD out of Galivant 's Ferry, some 7 miles from Aynor , some 22 miles from Con- way, and around 22 miles from Mullins. Her only employment during the backpay period was for I hour at Mullins Textile Company on February 21, 1966, and although the specification listed her earnings at $1.15, Strickland testified she did not receive even that sum, for she walked off the job without notice to the employer because she was unable to do the work . ( See fn . 3, supra). Strickland testified she looked for employment "off and on" after her discharge and, in addition to Mullins Textile and the curtain factory, she applied to Aerovox , Johnson Manufacturing, and Franklin Brass, noting her prior employment at Aynor. She filed an application at Franklin Brass and was told she would be called if needed, but she was not called. She was informed similarly at Johnson Manufacturing that she would be called if needed and on a subsequent call that statement was re- peated . She also called the Aynor plant and asked for her job back and she filed an application at Loris plant 2, but was told nothing. Except for riding with other employees or neighbors Strickland was without transporation after she lost her car in September 1965. Strickland testified , however , that she drove with her sister to Laurinberg , North Carolina ( 52 miles ), and sought work at some four cotton mills, the towel factory, and the watch plant . If successful in obtaining work there, she intended to move her family. Strickland , who was a widow with several chil- dren , was examined sharply concerning her ability to support her family in the face of the fact she was without income . Strickland explained that her chil- dren received through their father $200 a month from social security payments on which the family subsisted , and though she suggested that a boy friend might have given her $ 10 or $25 , she denied he in fact had done so. J. Edna A . Gerrald The testimony of Edna Gerrald showed that her opportunities for employment were drastically limited . She and her husband ( a farmer) lived on RFD out of Galivant 's Ferry some 10 or 12 miles from the Aynor plant to which Gerrald had usually commuted by hitchhiking with other employees. She lived some 20 to 22 miles from Mullins and about the same distance from Marion . Conway was further away in an opposite direction. Gerrald registered with the Employment Office in Marion County and was referred by it to Mullins Textile. On September 27, 1965 , the office issued a determination upholding her refusal of work there because the job was 20 miles from her home, required some overtime work , and Gerrald could not arrange suitable transportation. Gerrald also sought work at Herbert Mills at Marion , explaining that she could arrange transpor- tation there , but she was informed that it was not hiring anyone . She made calls to the Loris and Aynor plants but was informed there were no job openings and they were not taking applications. Gerrald also filed an application at the Employ- ment Office for work at Southern Packaging, stat- ing she would take any job she could get in a facto- ry. She made no attempt to seek work in Conway or that area because she was unable to obtain trans- portation to and from work. Gerrald made no at- tempt to obtain employment as clerk or cashier in any restaurant, motel, department store, or drug- store testifying the compensation was to her knowledge too little ($20 a week) to justify trans- portation expenses. Aside from occasional use of her husband's truck , Gerrald had no means of transportation and she was able to get to Mullins to pick up her checks only by riding with another employee. K. Barbara Smith Johnson Barbara Smith Johnson, age 22 , a single girl prior to her marriage in February 1967, lived with her parents and paid no board or rent. She rode to and from the Aynor plant , some mile or so from her home, with another employee. Following her discharge Johnson 's parents took care of all her financial needs, including food , clothing, and trans- portation. Johnson registered for unemployment at Conway and received benefit payments from that office. Her MARLENE INDUSTRIES CORP. only interim earnings were in the second and third quarters of 1966 when she received $160.20 from a five and ten cent store in Conway and $26.40 from Burger Chef.5 Johnson testified that after registering for unem- ployment she immediately started to look for work, knowing that she had to do so. She went first to Aerovox, took the test at the Employment Office, and passed it. Though Aerovox informed her it did not need anyone, Johnson nevertheless returned three or four times altogether. Johnson also went to Franklin Brass on two or three occasions and ap- plied to a number of stores in Conway who used sales clerks, such as Jerry Cox' Department Store, Jones' Dime Store, Nye's Drugstore, Edwards Dime Store, and Conway Bakery. Johnson also applied to the curtain factory every 2 or 3 months without success. She did not go to Johnson Manufacturing for she assumed it hired only men and she did not go to Conway Textiles. Though the Employment Office referred her to the Loris plant, she did not apply for she considered it useless to do so.' Johnson was driven by her father in the course of the foregoing searches for work and he also drove her to and from the job she later worked at. She sought no jobs in any of the stores at Myrtle Beach (some 30 miles away) because the transportation expense was out of proportion to the earnings on such jobs. Employment at Conway, however, was feasible because her mother worked there. L. Nannie Martin Nannie Martin had no prior employment before going through a training program at the Aynor plant to learn the operation of a sewing machine. She lived some 7 miles from Aynor in the direction of Conway and rode to work with Minnie Bourne Lane. Martin's husband worked at Myrtle Beach and used his own car for transportation to his job, passing by Franklin Brass at Conway and Aerovox at Myrtle Beach. When Martin registered with the Employment Office on August 4, she did not specify any particu- lar job but simply stated that she needed a job. She drew compensation benefits until December 30, and on her final visit to sign for her last check she was referred to the curtain factory, to which she had previously applied. Though she procured a health card as required and returned on three more occasions, she was not hired. Martin also applied to Franklin Brass on two or three occasions before her compensation ended and to Aerovox and was finally hired by Franklin Brass in the second quarter of 1966. She commuted to that job by riding with another employee. 'The employment at Burger Chef was developed during Johnson's testimony at the hearing and pursuant to stipulation of the parties, received after the hearing, the specification is hereby amended to reflect those, earnings and the consequent diminution of net backpay from $227 to $201 in the third quarter of 1966 57 Though knowing of Johnson Manufacturing and Carolina Strand, Martin did not apply to them, being unaware that they used sewing machines in the manufacture of furniture. She did not seek a job in any restaurant or retail or grocery store at Myrtle Beach or Conway, testifying she did not know anything about that kind of job. M. Mary Roberts Mary Roberts (wife of Stanford) applied to the Employment Office for unemployment compensa- tion shortly after her discharge and also sought work unsuccessfully at a food store in Aynor, at the curtain factory, and at Herbert Mills in Marion. In January 1966 she obtained employment at Aerovox in Myrtle Beach where she had previously worked in 1950. Roberts testified that the Employment Office gave her the names of no employing concerns where she might obtain work and there is no testimony to the contrary. Roberts knew that John- son Manufacturing Company and Wolverine (Franklin) Brass were in Conway but did not apply to them. She did not know of Carolina Strand. N. John G. Disher John G. Disher, presently in the Armed Forces, was underage, not only when he worked at the Loris plant but during the backpay period, and the Employment Office informed him that because of that it would be difficult to find work for him. Disher testified, however, that he sought work at various places such as service stations, grocery stores, the furniture plant at Mullins, and a plant at Marion. He did not apply, however, to Carolina Strand and he never heard of Johnson Manufactur- ing Company. Neither did Disher apply to Southern Packaging in Mullins across the street from Mullins Textile where he worked in the first and second quarters of 1966. During Disher's testimony it developed that he also worked for Siding, Inc., in the fourth quarter of 1965 with net earnings of $337.50 and the specifi- cation was amended accordingly on motion of the General Counsel. Disher testified he was discharged from that job for being underage (17 ). Disher voluntarily quit his job at Mullins Textile on May 14, 1966 (following his grandmother's death), and went back to live with his mother at her request. Though Disher claimed continuing efforts to obtain work after that he was able to recall only a single application, to Electrosystems, sometime in June 1966. s That conclusion seems patently justified since none of the dis- cnmmatees obtained reinstatement either at Loris or Aynor at any time prior to August 4, 1966 See also the testimony of Stanford Roberts and Christine Sellers 58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 0. Joe D. Doyle, Jr. Joe D. Doyle, Jr., who lived some 12 to 14 miles out of Conway, was employed at Loris plant 1. His only earnings during the backpay period were $8.76 in the first quarter of 1966 and $21.66 in the second quarter. Though Doyle was married and had one child, the family was supported by the earnings of his wife, who was employed during the entire backpay period at the Loris plant. Doyle testified he registered for unemployment at Conway just after his discharge and first applied for work at a Firestone recapping plant at Tabor City, after stopping at a few service stations on the way, and he also went to Loris plant 2 on one or two occasions. The Employment Office required him to fill in a sheet each week listing the places he looked for work and on his weekly trips to that of- fice he sought work at service stations and at Car- roll Motors (the Ford Dealer). Doyle also went to Aerovox and a couple of service stations at Myrtle Beach, using his wife's car after he dropped her off from work. The Employment Office referred him to a part-time job at the steam plant where he helped to unload a boxcar for a few hours. He was later hired at Aerovox on a cleanup job but was laid off in 2 or 3 days. Doyle later went back to Aerovox after taking a test at the Employment Office but was not hired. Doyle could commute 'to Aerovox because his brother worked there and he could have accepted work at Tabor City because he could have dropped his wife off on the way through Loris. Otherwise Doyle was limited in transportation to riding with neighbors and relatives. Though Doyle had done sanding for a furniture company in a prior employment he did not know of such a place as Johnson's Manufacturing Company or Carolina Strand. Neither did Doyle apply at the curtain factory because he was allergic to fiberglass, knowing through a sister-in-law em- ployed there that the product was used in making curtains. Though knowing of Franklin Brass he did not go there because friends who worked there in- formed him it was "an awful job" and dangerous. Finally Doyle testified he went to Laurinberg, North Carolina, where he applied to Parr Gas Com- pany, to several service stations, and to Prince's Chevrolet. P. Harry D. Rabon Harry D. Rabon, discharged on June 28, 1955, registered for unemployment benefits on July 2 and drew benefits for 22 weeks. Rabon testified he went everywhere he knew to seek employment, including Johnson Manufacturing Company, Jerry Cox Com- pany, Wolverine Brass , the curtain factory, Aerovox, Stilley Plywood Company, Goodson Con- r Confusion between the testimony of Rabon and of J Grier Johnson (see sec 11) concerning the days on which Rabon worked was resolved by Rabon 's timecards which showed that he worked on 4 consecutive work- struction Company at Aynor, and several service stations around Conway. He also applied to Carolina Strand and to Southern Packaging in Mul- lins but he did not know that Mullins Textile was also there. Rabon was hired at Johnson Manufacturing Company in late February 1966 but was discharged after a few days.? During that employment he was subpenaed to testify in the unfair labor practice case in this proceeding and he showed the subpena to Johnson's daughter-in-law, who informed him it was okay to be off. However, after he returned to work the following Monday morning, Johnson told him he was being laid off because his job had run out. Rabon showed his subpena to Johnson, who looked at it but did not revoke the layoff. The specification also listed subsequent employ- ments at Schoolfield Industries, Mullins, and at Nye's Pharmacy, Conway, though Rabon testified he believed the Schoolfield employment was prior to that at Johnson Manufacturing. Rabon was similarly under the impression that he had worked at Conway Fence Products in 1965 but subsequent production of a W-2 form established that that em- ployment was in 1967. Further confusion concerning the dates of Rabon's visits to the Employment Office in 1965 resulted from production of a booklet in which the dates of certain visits were noted. Following careful examination of the booklet, however, the Trial Ex- aminer suggested to the parties that the entries therein related to the year 1968, and that was stipu- lated to be correct. IV. CONCLUDING FINDINGS We begin by noting that in order to establish a willful loss of earnings Respondents are faced with the necessity of overcoming the testimony of the discriminatees, who were called to testify concern- ing their efforts to obtain employment, and that with few exceptions there was no direct refutation of the latter testimony by representatives of em- ploying concerns in the area. Furthermore, Richardson's testimony concerning the routines of the Employment Office itself added support to the testimony of the discriminatees (all of whom re- gistered with it except Geneva Allen Edge) since eligibility to continue receiving unemployment benefits was made contingent upon a weekly show- ing to the office of reasonable efforts to obtain work. Of prime significance also was the undenied testimony of Stanford Roberts and Christine Sellers concerning statements of Sessions and Ricks at the Employment Office regarding the futility of refer- ring applicants known to have been discharged by Respondents for union activities. In addition, days, i e , Wednesday and Thursday at the end of 1 workweek, and Friday and Monday at the beginning of the next MARLENE INDUSTRIES CORP. testimony by a number of other discriminatees showed that in a substantial number of cases prospective employers lost interest where the appli- cations listed, or the applicants mentioned, prior employment at Aynor or Loris. Sellers' testimony furnished a graphic example. When first referred to Aerovox, she listed Aynor as a prior employer and was informed that no help was needed. She was hired on a subsequent application, however, when she resorted to the subterfuge of giving her maiden name and omitted mention of her employment at Aynor. It is also to be noted that Respondents made no showing that any discriminatee failed to apply for work to any employer to whom the Employment Office referred him. The absence of written appli- cations in the files of the employing concerns was not of significance for two reasons: first, the per- sonnel files were periodically cleaned out, and second, testimony by the discriminatees showed that in many cases oral applications were summari- ly rejected and no written applications were taken. In the face of the foregoing, the general testimony by representatives of the employing con- cerns regarding the number of hires and the rate of turnover during the backpay period was of little sig- nificance. Indeed the evidence strongly suggests that for the most part there was little interest in the employing community in taking on employees who had been discharged at Aynor and Loris, a fact which was explicitly recognized by two representa- tives of the Employment Office. It is in the light of the foregoing that final conclu- sions are made on Respondents' contentions that the discriminatees removed themselves from the labor market or suffered a willful loss of earnings. Stanford Roberts: As I have found without sub- stantial basis Respondents' contentions concerning Roberts' interim earnings, I adopt the computations set forth in the specification and find that Roberts is due the total sum of $1,093. See Appendix A.s Christine Sellers: Respondents' contentions that Sellers showed a lack of diligence in seeking work and that she should not be rewarded for her in- dolence can be viewed only as the extravagant hyperbole of an advocate, for Sellers' testimony showed her to be probably the most active of all of the discriminatees in seeking work. She had a car and she used it day after day looking for a job. The failure to take a job at Lake City represented no willful loss of earnings because she was unable to meet the condition that she find a place to live there. I therefore adopt the computations set forth in the specification and I find that Sellers is due the total sum of $2,466. See Appendix A. Drunella Lewis: Since Respondents' brief does not question Lewis' interim earnings, I adopt the computations contained in the specification and " In the interest of brevity the Appendix has been condensed to a quar- terly summary of gross backpay , net interim earnings, and net backpay, 59 find that Lewis is due the total sum of $465. See Appendix A. Geneva Allen Edge: As I have upheld Respon- dents' contention that Edge made no effort to ob- tain employment prior to July 1, 1 find that she was not entitled to backpay in the second quarter of 1965, computed at $285. Adopting the remainder of the computations, I find that Edge is due a total sum of $353 ($638 less $285). See Appendix A. Ruth Gerrald: Gerrald's testimony showed that she sought no employment in the Conway area though she went there each week until Christmas 1965 to pick up her compensation check. Neither did she seek work at Mullins Textile or Herbert Mills, though she had formerly worked at both plants. It was not until Gerrald's compensation benefits ended that she sought and obtained work at Southern Packaging at Mullins on referral by the employment office of Marion County. I therefore conclude and find that Gerrald made no reasonable search for work during the last two quarters of 1965, that she incurred a willful loss of earnings, and that she is entitled to no backpay in those quarters. Adopting the computations for the quarters in 1966, I conclude and find that Gerrald is due the total sum of $553. See Appendix A. Letha Tyler Miller: Miller's testimony showed that over a total period of nearly 14 months she made personal application for only one job in Horry County (Aerovox) and two by telephone (Franklin Brass and• Nye's Pharmacy). Two other applications were made at distant points. Since the ownership of a car removed all transportation problems, the record suggests no reason why Miller, having nothing else to do, should not have made frequent and repeated searches for work. Cf. Christine Sellers, supra. I conclude and find in view of Miller's situation that her limited searches for work did not constitute a reasonable effort to ob- tain employment, that Miller incurred a willful loss of earnings, and that she is not entitled to any backpay. Minnie Bourne Lane: Respondents' contentions that Lane suffered a willful loss of earnings is based mainly on the view that employment was available in such quantities that she could have obtained work had she exercised reasonable diligence and in- itiative. At the beginning of this section I have out- lined at length the reasons why the apparent oppor- tunities for work available to the discriminatees herein were far from real, to the knowledge of representatives of the Employment Office. Lane re- gistered with that office and, in addition to applying to employers to whom it referred her, she actively sought work at a number of other concerns. I conclude and find that Respondent failed to establish that Lane suffered a willful loss of earnings and, adopting the computations contained there being no issues herein on such matters as transportation expenses, etc 60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in the specification, I find that Lane is entitled to the total sum of $1,891. See Appendix A. Margaret Dell Jordan: The Employment Office found in its determination of August 13, 1965, that Jordan had made no active personal search for work for several weeks and was not interested in working at the time. As the General Counsel made no attempt to establish that the office revoked that determination at any time prior to November 10, 1 therefore reject the backpay claimed for the third quarter (i.e., from July 14 through September 30) in the sum of $535, and for the fourth quarter (i.e., from October 1 through November 10) in the sum of $262. The evidence, however, does not support Respondent's contention that Jordon also incurred a willful loss of earnings in the period prior to July 1 , 1965, and subsequent to May 1 1, 1966, since Jordan's testimony shows she applied for work at numerous establishments in the area during those periods, and that she received compensation benefits prior to August 13. 1 therefore find that Jordan is due the total sum of $869. See Appendix A. Pauline Strickland: Strickland 's efforts to obtain work are to be measured in the light of her oppor- tunities for seeking work in the labor market which was available to her. In contrast to the situation of Sellers and Miller, Strickland was practically without means of transportation following the loss of her car in September 1965. She lived in a rural area some 22 miles from both Conway and Mullins and was forced to rely on such rides as she could obtain from neighbors, some of whom were also seeking employment. I conclude and find in view of the circumstances of her situation that Strickland made reasonable efforts to obtain work and did not voluntarily remove herself from the labor market. Indeed, there was very little market available to her within the distance which the Employment Office considered to be a normal one for commuting to and from work. Strickland's failure to remain at work at Mullins Textile did not constitute such a voluntary rejection of work as to disqualify her for backpay thereafter. The job was a new one for her which she found she was wholly unable to perform (she could not even thread the needle). If Strickland had, with knowledge of those facts, simply rejected the job offer, her refusal of the employment plainly would not have disqualified her for backpay. Adopting the computations set forth in the specification, I conclude and find that Strickland is entitled to a total sum of $2,830. See Appendix A. Edna A. Gerrald. Gerrald's situation as regarded the location of her home and the absence of trans- portation closely resembled Pauline Strickland's, supra. Her failure to accept work at Mullins (closer than Conway) was upheld by the Employment Of- fice of Marion County because she was unable to arrange transportation. Though employment in the town of Marion was feasible because Gerrald could have ridden with other employees , she was unsuc- cessful in her applications to Herbert Mills and Southern Packaging . Though transportation was also available to Aynor and Loris , Gerrald 's calls to Respondents ' plants there proved fruitless. I therefore conclude-and find that Gerrald made reasonable efforts to obtain work in the area of availability and that she did not incur a willful loss of earnings or withdraw from the labor market. In- deed , as in Strickland 's case there was very little of the market which was available to Gerrald. I therefore adopt the computations set forth in the specification and find that Edna Gerrald is enti- tled to the total sum of $2 ,562. See Appendix A. Barbara Smith Johnson : Johnson was another sin- gle employee who lived with and was supported by her parents and, though she had no car of her own (as Letha Tyler Miller had ), she was driven wher- ever she wanted to go by her father. Also unlike Miller, Johnson actively sought employment at nu- merous establishments during the backpay period. I conclude and find that Johnson made reasona- ble efforts to obtain work and that she incurred no willful loss of earnings . Adopting the computation set forth in the specification , as amended ( see fn. 5, supra ), I find that Johnson is due a total sum of $ 2,376 . See Appendix A. Nannie Martin: The evidence does not support Respondents ' contention that Martin waited until the end of her compensation benefits before seek- ing employment . Her testimony to the contrary also received inferential support from the Employment Office routines under which claimants were required to make weekly showing of active searches and of availability for work. I therefore conclude and find that Respondents failed to establish that Martin incurred a willful loss of earnings and, adopting the computation con- tained in the specification , I find that Martin is due the total sum of $2,243 . See Appendix A. Mary Roberts: Though Roberts had previously worked for Aerovox , she did not apply there until January 1966 , when she obtained employment which lasted through the end of the backpay period. No explanation was made why Roberts failed sooner to go to Aerovox , and her searches el- sewhere were few in number, omitting such con- cerns as Johnson Manufacturing , Franklin Brass, and Carolina Strand . The inference is plainly war- ranted from the evidence that Roberts was content to stay home and do housekeeping until the ter- mination of her unemployment benefits. When those ended , she experienced no difficulty in going back to her former employer. I therefore conclude and find that Roberts made no reasonable effort to obtain work until January 1966, and that she incurred a willful loss of earnings during the quarters in 1965 . Adopting the computations for the quarters in 1966, I find that Roberts is due a total sum of $269. See Appendix A. MARLENE INDUSTRIES CORP. John G. Disher: Disher was severly handicapped in obtaining employment because of his age, an im- pediment recognized by the Employment Office. Despite that, Disher's testimony showed that he made an active search for work down to the time he quit Mullins Textile Mills on May 19, 1966. After voluntarily quitting that job, however, Disher made only a single attempt to find work, at Elec- trosystems. He did not work and sought no work el- sewhere , but simply remained at home pursuant to his mother's wish that he be with her. I therefore conclude and find Disher voluntarily withdrew from the labor market when he quit his job at Mullins Textile, and that he is entitled to no backpay thereafter. As the quit occurred almost precisely in the mid- dle of the second quarter I find that Disher's gross backpay ($720), when reduced by half ($360), is less than his interim earnings with Mullins Textile in that quarter ($372). I therefore find that Disher is entitled to no backpay in the second and third quarters ($348 and $349, respectively). Further- more, pursuant to amendment of the specification at the hearing, Disher's backpay for the fourth quarter of 1965 is reduced by the amount of his earnings at Siding, Inc. ($337.50); i.e., from $711 to $373. Adopting the computations for the remaining quarters , I conclude and find that Disher is due a total sum of $1,308. See Appendix A. Joe D. Doyle, Jr.: Though many of Doyle's searches of work were made at service stations, his testimony showed that he also sought employment at industrial plants such as Aerovox, Firestone, Parr Gas Company, and the Loris plant, as well as at auto dealers. Doyle also obtained brief part-time employment on referrals by the Employment Office but he was not rehired at Aerovox despite taking the required test. I conclude and find that Respon- dents' other evidence was insufficient to overcome Doyle's testimony concerning his attempts to find work and did not establish that Doyle removed himself from the labor market or that he incurred a willful loss of earnings. Adopting the computations contained in the designation, I therefore find that Doyle is due backpay in the total sum of $3,046. See Appendix A. Harry D. Rabon: Rabon's testimony showed that he actively sought employment and I find that 61 Respondent failed to establish that he suffered a willful loss of earnings . Much of the confusion reflected in the testimony was due to Rabon's un- certainty and errors regarding dates. The circum- stances of his discharge at Johnson 's Manufacturing did not reflect a voluntary quitting of employment. Certainly there was nothing irregular about his work habits, the reason to which Johnson testified, for Rabon had worked 4 consecutive days before being subpenaed to the Board hearing . But what- ever Johnson's reasons were, the evidence does not establish that the termination represented a volun- tary giving up of employment on Rabon's part. Adopting the computations set out in the specifi- cation, I conclude and find that Rabon is due the total sum of $2,224. See Appendix A. Summarizing the above findings, I find that the discriminatees are due the amount set opposite their names as listed below, plus interest to the date of payment as provided in the Board's decision, 166 NLRB 703: Stanford Roberts $1,093.00 Christine Sellers 2 ,466.00 Drunella Lewis 465.00 Geneva Allen Edge 353.00 Ruth Gerrald 553.00 Letha Tyler Miller 0.00 Minnie Bourne Lane 1,891.00 Margaret Dell 869.00 Jordan Pauline Strickland 2,830.00 Edna A. Gerrald 2,562.00 Barbara Smith 2,376.00 Johnson Nannie Martin 2,243.00 Mary Roberts 269.00 John G. Disher 1,308.00 Joe D. Doyle, Jr. 3,046.00 Harry D. Rabon 2,224 00 RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of the foregoing findings and con- clusions it is ordered that Respondents, their of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, pay to the employees the amounts set opposite their names as listed above, plus interest as prescribed. 62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX A Stanford Roberts Calendar Quarter Cross Backpav Net Interim Earnings Net Backpav 1965-2 $ 496.60 $ -0- $ 497.00 (5/17-6/30) 3 1071.96 593.00 479.00 4 1066.67 2037.25 -0- 1966-1 1080.01 2345.25 -0- 2 998. 31 881 .38 117.00 3 429.17 715.56 -0- (7/1-8/4) $1,093.00 1965-3 Christine Sellers (8/3-9/30) $ 432.76 -0- $ 443.00 4 568.09 -0- 568.00 1961-1 638.51 30.00 609.00 2 627.18 -0- 627.00 3 (7/1-8/4) 228.67 -0- 229.00 $2,466.00 1965-3 Drunella Lewis (8/16-9/30) $ 345.42 28.00 $ 317.00 4 590.63 695.17 -0- 1966-1 663.85 563.27 101.00 2 652.06 604.96 47.00 3 (7/1-8/4) 237.73 278.18 -0- $ 465.00 Geneva (Allen) Edge 1965-2 (5/19-6/30) $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- 3 618.59 347.05 272.00 4 (10/1-11 / 12) 280 .79 425.11 -0- 1966-1 -0- -0- -0- 2 (4/15-4/20) 463.58 474.08 -0- (5/3-6/30) 3 (7/1-8/4) 226.96 146.26 81.00 $ 353.00 MARLENE INDUSTRIES CORP. Calendar Gross Net Interim Quarter Backpay Earnings 63 Net Backpav Ruth Cerrald 1965-3 (7/16-9/30) $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- 4 -0- -0- -0- 1966-1 633.00 453.13 181.00 2 621.97 476.92 145.00 3 (7/1-8/4) 226.96 -0- 227.00 $ 533.00 Letha Tyler Miller This employee is due no backpay Minnie Bourne Lane 1965-2 (6/16-6/30) $ 110.40 $ -0- $ 110.00 3 732.39 -0- 732.00 4 667.25 -0- 667.00 1966-1 (1/1-2/16) 382.41 -0- 382.00 2 -0- -0- -0- 3 (7/1-8/4) -0- -0- -0- $1,891.00 Margaret Dell Jordan 1965-2 (5/19-6/30) $ 285.00 $ -0- $ 285.00 3 (7/14-9/30) -0- -0- -0- 4 (10/4-11/10) -0- -0- -0- 1966-1 -0- -0- -0- 2 356.86 -0- 357.00 3 (7/1-8/4) 226.96 -0- 227.00 $ 869.00 Pauline Strickland 1965-3 (7/23-9/30) $ 505.63 -0- $ 506.00 4 674.64 -0- 675.00 1966-1 708.01 1.15 707.00 2 688 .69 -0- 689.00 3 (7/1-8/4) 252.54 -0- 253.00 $2,830.00 - ii - 64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Calendar Quarter Gross Backpav Net Interim Earning Net Backpav Edna Alford rerrald 1965-3 (7/16-9/30) $ 514.84 $ $ 515.00 4 563.60 -0- 564.00 1966-1 633.72 634.00 622 00 2 621/97 . 3 (7/1-8/4) 226.96 -0- 227.00 $2,562.00 Barbara Smith Johnson 1965-3 (7/16-9/30) $ 514.84 $ -0- $ 515.00 4 563.00 -0- 565.00 1966-1 633.72 -0- 634.00 2 621.97 160.20 462.00 3 (7/1-8/4) 226.96 26.40 201.00 $2,376.00 Nannie Martin 1965-3 (7/22-9/30) $ 447.59 $ -0- $ 478.00 4 563.60 -0- 564.00 1966-1 633.72 -0- 634.00 2 621.97 55.27 567.00 3 (7/1-8/4) 226.97 390.05 -0- $2,243.00 Mary Roberts 1965-2 (4/28-6/30) $ -0- -0- $ -0- 3 -0- -0- -0- 4 -0- -0- -0- 1966-1 708.01 454.16 254.00 2 688.69 673.36 115.00 3 (7/1-8/4) 252.54 429.35 -0- 269.00 John G. Disher 1965-3 (8/26-9/30) $ 293.61 $ -0- $ 294.00 4 710.59 337.50 373.00 - iii - MARLENE INDUSTRIES CORP. 65 Calendar Quarter cross Backpay Net Interim Earnings Net Backpay 1966-1 $ 740.23 $ 98.75 $ 294.00 2 360 . 00 371.88 -0- 3 (7/1-8/4 ) -0- -0- -0- $1,308.00 1965-3 Joe D . Doyle, Jr. (8/4-9/30) $ 457.99 $ -0- $ 458.00 4 739 . 05 -0- 739.00 1966 -1 769 . 86 8.76 761.00 2 747 . 75 21.56 726.00 3 (7/1-8/4) 361.62 -0- 362.00 $3,046.00 1965-2 Harry Rabon (6/28-6 / 30) $ 19 . 96 $ -0- $ 20.00 3 660 . 18 -0- 660.00 4 639.69 -0- 640.00 1966-1 707 . 65 38 . 13 670.00 2 652 . 87 470.00 183.00 3 (7/1-8/4) 332.52 282 . 00 51.00 $2,224.00 - iv -