Associated Transport Co. of Texas, Inc.

62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Associated Transport Company of Texas, Inc., and Transamerica Transport, Inc. and General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union No. 968, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Cases 23-CA-2636, 23-CA-2690, and 23-CA-2690-2 November 9, 1971 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On October 8, 1968, the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and Order in the above- entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent Associ- ated Transport Company of Texas, Inc., had, inter alia, violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.' The Board's Order directed Respondent Associated, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, to offer immediate and full reinstatement to 17 employees and to make them whole for the period of time for which they were discriminatorily denied employment. On June 2, 1970, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the Board's Motion for Judgment by Default and on June 23, 1970, issued its judgment enforcing the Board's Order in full against Respondent Associ- ated, "its officers, agents, successors and assigns." 2 On October 8, 1970, the Regional Director for Region 23 issued and served on the parties a backpay specification and notice of hearing which alleged, inter alia, that Respondent Transamerica Transport, Inc., was an "alter ego" and/or "successor" employer of Respondent Associated, and as such was jointly and severally liable with Respondent Associated for remedying the unfair labor practices found. Thereaft- er, Respondent Associated filed an answer to the specification and Respondent Transamerica filed an answer and a first amended answer. Respondent Associated's answer did not specifical- ly dispute the accuracy of the figures used in computing gross backpay set forth in the backpay specification and made no effort to explain its failure to do so, as provided by Section 102.54(b) and (c) of 1 173 NLRB 100. 2 N.L.R.B. v. Associated Transport Company of Texas, Inc, No. 28469. 3 The Trial Examiner granted the General Counsel 's motion for j udgment on the pleadings against Respondent Associated. 4 Respondent Transamerica moved that the record be reopened so that it might have an opportunity to subpena witnesses necessary for its defense and to permit testimony on the backpay of Leonard R. Dravecky. The motion is denied for the reasons that Respondent had ample opportunity to subpena witnesses during the course of the hearing which extended from January 26 to March 9, 1971, and we have accepted, see infra, social security records pertaining to the interim earnings of Leonard R the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. On November 20, 1970, the General Counsel filed a motion to strike a portion of the answer of each Respondent, a motion that specific calculations of the amounts of net backpay be deemed true and correct, and a motion for judgment on the pleadings against both Respondents. Respon- dent Transamerica filed an opposition thereto. On January 14, 1971, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued rulings on General Counsel's motions wherein he granted the motion that specific calculations of the amounts of backpay due be deemed to be admitted as correct because of Respondent Associated's failure to plead specifically as required by Section 102.54(b) of the Board's Rules. The Trial Examiner also granted the motion to strike part of Respondent Associated's answer because it attempted to put in issue subject matter which had been fully litigated and determined adversely to Respondent Associated in the prior unfair labor practice proceeding. However, the Trial Examiner referred the motion for judgment on the pleadings against Respondent Associated to the Trial Examiner conducting the hearing, and denied both motions as to Respondent Transamerica without prejudice. On May 28, 1971, Trial Examiner Asher issued the attached Supplemental Decision in which he found that 17 claimants were entitled to backpay.3 Thereaft- er Respondent Transamerica filed exceptions to the Supplemental Decision and a supporting brief.4 The General Counsel filed limited cross-exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Supplemental Decision. On Septem- ber 2, 1971, Respondent Transamerica filed a supple- mental memorandum brief.5 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding 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 Trial Examiner's Supplemental Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings,6 conclusions, and Dravecky. 5 On June 8, 1971, the Board issued an Order To Show Cause why the Board should not receive evidence in the form of Social Security Administration documents, or why Respondent Transamerica should not be permitted to file a supplemental brief with the Board based on said documents. The General Counsel, on June 15, 1971, in a response to the Board's Order To Show Cause stated that he had no objection to the receipt of the Social Security documents attached to the Board's Order or to Respondent Transamerica being permitted to file a supplemental brief based on this exhibit. 6 In section B, 2, (a), (ii), and fn. 18 of his Supplemental Decision the 194 NLRB No. 12 ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT CO. OF TEXAS, INC. 63 recommendation of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein. 1. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, for the reasons set forth in his Supplemental Decision that Transamerica is a successor to Associated and that both are jointly and severally liable for all backpay to the 17 claimants listed in the attached Appendix. We also find, however, that Transamerica is the "alter ego" of Associated. Thus, the record shows that Calvin Barker, Sr., former president of Associated, in documents filed with the Railroad Commission of Texas, swore under oath that he "controls" Transam- erica. In J. Howard Jenks, d/b/a Glendora Plumbing,? the Board found that a successor was an "alter ego" where the "principal investor in the new Company ... the owner of [the predecessor] . . . remained in control." As the record shows that control of the two Respondents has not changed, we find that Transam- erica is an alter ego of Associated. Accordingly, we find that the Trial Examiner's grant of the General Counsel's motion for judgment on the pleadings against Respondent Associated is applicable as well to Associated's alter ego, Transamerica. 2. In its supplemental memorandum brief, Tran- samerica requested, inter alia, that the social security records be ruled controlling as to any interim earnings not testified to by claimant Leonard R. Dravecky or, in the alternative, if it appears that there are discrepancies, that the hearing be reopened unless Dravecky waives said discrepancies. The General Counsel and the Charging Party, having been served copies of Respondent Transamerica's supplemental memorandum brief, have not responded thereto. In these circumstances, and in the abence of any objection, we grant Respondent Transamerica's request to admit the documents into evidence8 and deny its request to reopen the hearing. The use of such reports from the Social Security Administration has been well recognized by the Board and the courts .9 Accordingly, we find that the social security records are controlling as to interim' earnings of Leonard R. Dravecky where his testimony is at variance with those records. We include as interim earnings, however, those amounts testified to by Dravecky which are not included in the social security records. An analysis of these records shows certain discre- pancies in Dravecky's testimony as to the source and the amounts of money he earned during certain quarters of the backpay period and we have modified the amount of backpay due. We find that Dravecky is entitled to backpay as follows: 1967--3 (3 weeks) Gross backpay due (3x155) 465 Less: interim earnings 0 0 Net backpay 465 465 1967-4 ( 9 weeks) Gross backpay due (9x155) 1,395 Less : interim earnings Key Oil Company 415 415 Net backpay 980 1968--1 (1 week) Gross backpay due 155 Less: interim earnings Hardy Equipment Co. Key Oil Company 10 82 10/ M.W 180 62 Net backpay 0 1968-2 (13 weeks) Gross backpay due (13x155) 2,015 Less : interim earnings Hardy Equipment Co. 88 Wilcox Construction Co. 580 668 Net backpay 1,347 Trial Examiner inadvertently stated that certain events relatmg to Leonard 10/ Contrary to the Trial Examiner we include R. Dravecky occurred in February and March 1970. The record shows that $180 as interim earnings during this period these events took place in 1968. We hereby correct these inadvertent errors. 7 172 NLRB No. 197. as it was reported by Key Oil Company to 8 The social security records are marked Resp. Exh. 3. the Social Security Administration as wages. 9 Cf. L. B. Hosiery Co, Incorporates 99 NLRB 630, 638; East Texas Steel Castings Company, Inc, 116 NLRB 1336, 1340. 64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1968-3 (11-1/2 weeks) ' Gross backpay due (11-1/2x155) 1,783 Less : interim earnings Wilcox Construction Co. 561 561 Net backpay 1,222 1968-4 (13 weeks) Gross backpay due (13x155) 2,015 Less: interim earnings Wilcox Construction Co. 796 Wyatt's Division, U.S. Industries 122 918 Net backpay 1,097 1969-1 (13 weeks) Gross backpay due (13x155) 2,015 Less : interim earnings Wyatt's Division, U.S. Industries 113 North Loop Equipment Co. 426 Atlas Truck Lines 42 R. W. McKinney 29 Norman & Son Inc. 16 626, Net backpay 1,389 1969-2 (13 weeks) Gross backpay due (13x155) 2,015 Less: interim earnings North Loop Equipment Co. 1,592 R. W. McKinney 270 1.862 Net backpay 1969-3 Gross backpay due interim earnings exceeded gross backpay due 1969-4 (4 weeks) Gross backpay due (4x155) Less : interim earnings Humble Oil & Refining Co. 11 (Larson's Enco Service Station) Net backpay 620 228 153 392 11 Social security records show that Dravecky had interim earnings in amounts of $228 and $364 in 1969--4 and 1970-1, respectively, from Humble Oil & Refining Co., whereas Dravecky testified that he had interim earnings during these same periods from Larson's Enco Service Station. Since we are unable to resolve this conflict from the'record we direct the Regional Director to ascertain whether Larson' s Enco Service Station is a subsidiary or lessee, etc., of Humble Oil & Refining Co. If that is so,then the backpay remains the same . If the Regional Director determines that Dravecky received wages from both Larson's Enco and Humble Oil & Refining Co. during the period then his backpay should be adjusted accordingly. 4 ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT CO. OF TEXAS, INC. 1970-1 ( 13 weeks) Gross backpay due (13x155) Less : interim earnings Humble Oil & Refining Co. - (Larson ' s Enco Service Station) Llj Coulter & Bayett (C & B Truck & Material Services) Net backpay 1970-2 (13 weeks) Gross backpay due (13x155) Less : interim earnings Coulter & Bayett (C & B Truck & Material Services) C.C. Dean L.O. Block Net backpay 1970-3 (13 weeks) Gross backpay due (13x155) Less : interim earnings L.O. Block Willful loss 7-1/2x155 Net backpay Total net backpay due through 1970---3 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondents, Associated Trans- port Company of Texas, Inc., and Transamerica Transport, Inc., their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, 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 attached Appendix, plus interest accrued to the date of payment in accordance with the formula set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. APPENDIX William E. Allen $ 877 Marvin Lee Ayles 93 Joe T. Bailey 788 Clifford R. Buck 871 Thomas E. Courtney 0 Leonard R. Dravecky, 8,9991 Elmer H. Henry 974 Hollis Jack Holmes 424 Leonard C. Jenkins 138 Conda Muse 443 Hurles E. Pace 483 Harvey H. Sanders 111 Carl E. Satcher 333 C. W. Stone 626 364 858 165 268 949 632 863 65 2,015 1,222 '793 2,015 1.382 633 2,015 1,495 520 $8,991.00 C. B. Trout 130 Roy L. Wiggins 696 David W. Williams 104 1 This figure is backpay due through the third calendar quarter of 1970 . only. For this period Dravecky is entitled to backpay in the amount of $8,991 . Net backpay from October 1, 1970, through January 26, 1971, the date that Dravecky was offered reinstatement, is still to be determined - TRIAL EXAMINER'S SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION SYDNEY S. ASHER, Trial Examiner: On October 8, the Board issued its Decision and Order directing Associated Transport Company of Texas, Inc.,' herein called Respon- dent Associated, among other things, to make whole William E. Allen, Marvin L. Ayles, Joe Bailey, Clifford R. Buck, Thomas E. Courtney, Leonard R. Drevecky, Elmer H. Henry, H. J. Holmes, Leonard C. Jenkins, Conda Muse, Hurles E. Pace, Harvey H. Sanders, Carl E. Satcher, C. W. Stone, C. B. Trout, Roy Wiggins, and David W. Williams for their losses resulting from unfair labor practices committed by Respondent Associated in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act 2 On June 2, 1970, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the Board's motion for judgment by default and on June 23, 1970, issued its Judgment enforcing the Board's Order against Respondent Associated, "its officers, agents, successors and assigns." 3 i Mr. Klepak filed an answer on behalf of Respondent Associated but withdrew his appearance prior to the hearing and did not participate thereafter. 2 173 NLRB No. 23. 3 N.LR.B v. Associated Transport Company of Texas, Inc., No. 28469 (C.A. 5). 66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A controversy having arisen over the amounts of backpay due under the terms of the Board Order and court decree, on October 8, 1970, the Board's Regional Director for Region 23 issued backpay specification and notice of hearing setting forth the specific amounts of backpay which the General Counsel claims are due each of the claimants. This alleged, among other things, that Respondent Associated ceased operations on or about December 15, 1969, and that Transamerica Transport, Inc., herein called Respondent Transamerica, is an "alter ego" and/or "successor" employer of Respondent Associated and, as such, jointly and severally liable with Respondent Associat- ed in remedying the unfair labor practices found by the Board. A copy of the backpay specification and notice of hearing was served upon each of the Respondents. Thereafter Respondent Associated filed an answer and Respondent Transamerica filed an answer and a first amended answer. Respondent Associated's answer alleges, among other things, that Respondent Associated "ceased active operations in December 1969" and entered into a contract of sales with Transamerica on December 11, 1969, whereby Transamerica agreed to purchase "all trucks, trailers, auto parts, and office furniture owned by Associated." Thereafter the General Counsel filed a motion to strike a portion of the answer of each Respondent, a motion that certain factual allegations of the backpay specifications (specific calculations of the amounts of net backpay due) be deemed true and correct, and a motion for judgment on the pleadings against both Respondents. Respondent Transamerica filed an opposition thereto. On January 14, 1971, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued rulings on General Counsel's motion to strike portion of answer and motion for judgment on the pleadings. As to Respondent Associated, he granted the motion that specific calculations of the amounts of net backpay due be deemed to be admitted as correct, and also granted the motion to strike part of Respondent Associated's answer. The motion for judgment on the pleadings against Respondent Associated was "referred to the Trial Examiner conducting the hearing for such disposition as he may deem appropriate." As to Respondent Transamerica, Trial Examiner Leff denied both motions without prejudice. Pursuant to notice, a supplemental hearing was held before me in Houston, Texas, on January 26 and March 9, 1971. All parties were given an opportunity to be represented and to participate fully in the hearing. After the close of the hearing the General Counsel and Respondent Transamerica filed briefs, which have been duly considered.4 Upon the record of the supplemental hearing, and from my observation of the witnesses who testified' therein, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT A. Liability of Respondent Associated As mentioned above, Trial Examiner Leff ruled that the computations of the net backpay due each of the claimants 4 Respondent Transamerica's brief contains a request "that no Trial Examiner's decision be filed in this matter until such time as the Social Security Administration's and other records relating to the backpay of Leonard Drevecky be furnished to counsel for Transamerica and "be deemed admitted by Respondent Associated to be true and that said Respondent be ... precluded from introducing any evidence at the hearing controverting said allegations." As these allegations must be deemed to be true, and as there is no further question of the liability of Respondent Associated with regard thereto, the General Counsel's motion for judgment on the pleadings against Respondent Associated, on which Trial Examiner Leff reserved ruling, is now granted. Accordingly, Respondent Associated is liable for backpay to the various claimants in the following amounts: 1. William E. Allen Gross weekly backpay: J $ 104. Period : 9/11/67 through 7/13/68. 1967--3 (3 weeks) Gross backpay (3 x $104) Less: Interim earnings (South Hampton Co.) $ 312 Net backpay 171 141 1967-4 Gross backpay (13 x $104) 1,352 Less: Interim earnings (Younger Bros.) 608 (Teamsters Local No. 968) 300 908 Net backpay 444 1968-1 Gross backpay (13 x $104) 1,352 Less: Interim earnings (Younger Bros .) 1.060 Net backpay 292 Total $877 In each remaining calendar quarter in his backpay period, interim earnings exceeded gross backpay due. 2. Marvin Ayles Gross weekly backpay: $121. Backpay period: 9/11/67 through 11/10/68. 1967-3 (3 weeks) Gross backpay (3 x $121) $ 363 Less : Interim earnings (Industrial Personnel) 270 Net backpay 93 Total $93 In each remaining calendar quarter in his backpay period, interim earnings exceeded gross backpay due. reasonable time for the preparation and filing of a supplemental Brief by counsel for Transamerica be granted." The request is denied. 5 Computed in accordance with a formula described in the specifications, to which neither Respondent objects. ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT CO. OF TEXAS, INC. 67 12 weeks) 3. Joe T. Bailey d 1969--3 ( Gross backpay (12 x $88) Less: Interim earnings 1,056 016 1 s Gross week back : $89• Back9a __ y perio 9/11/67 through 9/23/68. 1967--3 (3 weeks) 267 (City of Beaumont) Net backpay . 40 Total $871 Gross backpay (3 x $89) $ -0- Less: Interim earnings 267 Net backpay . Thomas E. Courtney 1967--4 Gross weekly backva : $93. Backpay period: Gross backpay (13 x $89) 1,157 Less: Interim earnings l Fowler) 840 9/'11/67 through 1/1/69. I (Erce 317 Net backpay 19681 n each calendar quarter during his entire backpay period , interim earnings exceeded gross backpay due. Gross backpay (13 x $89) 1,157 Less: Interim earnings (Ercel Fowler) 494 le Transport Co.) 45 9953 (E 6. Leonard R. Drevecky Gross weekly backpay: $155. Backpay period: ag 204 Net backpay September 11, 1967, through present. Excepted periods: December 3, 1967, through Total $788 In each remaining calendar quarter in January 26, 19968, February 24 through May 15, 1968, and July 17 through December 1, 1969. his backpay period, interim earnings 1967--3 (3 weeks) exceeded gross backpay due. Gross backpay (3 x $155) $ 465 4. Clifford R. Buck Less : Interim earnings -0- Net backpay $465 Gross weekly backpay: $88. Backpay period: 9/11/67 through 9/20/69. 1967-4 (9 weeks) In 1967--3 (3 weeks only) interim earnings Gross backpay (9 x $155) 1,395 Less : Interim earnings exceeded gross backpay due. (Key Oil Co.) 415 Net backpay 980 1967--4 Gross backpay (13 x $88) 1,144 1968-1 (4 weeks) Less: Interim earnings Gross backpay (4 x $155) 620 (Adair Construction) 120 Less: Interim earnings (Beaumont Transit Co.) 150 (Key Oil Co.) 180 (Beaumont , Pound Dept.) 625 895 (Hardy Equipment) 82 262 Net backpay 249 Net backpay 358 1968--1 1968--2 (6 weeks) Gross backpay (13 x $88) 1,144 Gross backpay (6 x $155) 930 Less: Interim earnings Less : Interim earnings (City of Beaumont) 834 (Hardy Equipment) 88 Net backpay 310 (Wilcox Constr., Co.) 580 668 Net backpay 262 1968--2 Gross backpay (13 x $88) 1,144 1968--3 Less: Interim earnings Gross backpay (13 x $155) 2,015 (City of Beaumont) 1.001 Less : Interim earnings Net backpay 143 (Wilcox Constr. Co.) 561 Net backpay 1,454 1968-3 Gross backpay (13 x $88) 1,144 1968-4 Less: Interim earnings Gross backpay (13 x $155) 2,015 (City of Beaumont) 1,015 Less : Interim earnings Net backpay 129 (Wilcox Constr. Co.) 796 Net backpay 1,219 1968--4, 1969-1, & 1969-2, interim earnings exceeded gross backpay 68 1969--l Gross backpay (13 x $155) Less : Interim earnings DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (North Loop Equipment) Net backpay 1969-- Gross backpay (13 x $155) Less : Interim earnings (North Loop Equipment) Net backpay 2,015 425 1,590 2,015 In 1969-3 (2 weeks) interim earnings exceeded gross backpay. 1969--4 (4 weeks) Gross backpay (4 x X155) Less : Interim earnings (Larson's Enco) Net backpay 620 320 1970--1 Gross backpay (13 x $155) Less : Interim earnings (Larson's Enco) 320 (C & B Truck Material) 858 1.178 Net backpay 2,015 1970--2 Gross backpay (13 x $155) Less: Interim earnings (C & B Truck) (C. C. Dean) (L. 0. Block) Net backpay 1970--3 Gross'backpay (13 x $155) Less : Interim earnings (L. 0. Block) Net backpay 2,015 300 837 115 268 949 1,332 683 2,015 632 1.383 Total 9 $9,954 7. Elmer H. Henry Gross weekly backpay: $89. Backpay period: September 11, 1967, through November 8, 1968. In each of 1967--3 (3 weeks only), 1967--4. and 1968--1, interim earnings exceeded gross backpay due. 1968-2 Gross backpay (13 x $89) 1,157- Less : Interim earnings (Jenkins Sand Co.) 618 Net backpay 539 1968--3 Gross backpay (13 x $89) 1,157 Less : Interim earnings (Scurlock Oil Co.) 33 (Beard & 1a rtin) 689 722 Net backpay 868 Total $974 In 1968--4 (5 weeks only) interim earnings exceeded gross backpay due. 8. Hollis Jack Holmes Gross weekly backpay: $95. Backpay period: September 11, 1967, through June 10, 1968. 1967-3 (3 weeks) Gross backpay (3 x $95) $ 285 Less : Interim earnings (Burns Intl. Detective) 249 Net backpay 36 1967--4 Gross backpay (13 x $95) 1,235 Less: Interim earnings (Burns Detective) 1,036 Net backpay 1968--1 Gross backpay (13 x $95) 1,235 Less: Interim earnings (Burns Detective) 1.128 Net backpay 1968--2 (10 weeks) Gross backpay (10 x $95) 950 Less: Interim earnings (Burns Detective) Net backpay 9. Leonard C. Jenkins 435 199 107 82 Total $424 Gross weekly backpay: $93. Backpay Period: September 11, 1967, through present. 1967--3 (3 weeks) Gross backpay (3 x $93) $ 279 Less: Interim earnings (.Maritime Guard) Net backpay 198 81 In each calendar quarter from 1967-4 through 1970--3, with the exception of 1969--3, interim earnings exceeded gross backpay. 1969--3 Gross backpay ( 13 x $93) Less : Interim earnings (Maritime Guard) Net backpay $ 1,209 1,152 57 Total J $138 6 Up to the end of 1970-3 only. Net backpay due thereafter not mcluded. 7 Up to the end of 1970-3 only. Net backpay due thereafter not included. ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT CO. OF TEXAS, INC. 10. Conda Muse Gross week) backpay : $105. Back a Period: September 11, 1967 , through October 20, 1966 . Excepted period : September 13 through November 15, 1967. 1967--4 (6-1/2 weeks) Gross backpay (6-1/2 x,$105) Less : Interim earnings (Teamsters Local 968) Net backpay 683 650 33 1968--1 Gross backpay ( 13 x $105) 1,235 Less: Interim earnings (Big Mack Trucking) 655 (Teamsters Local 988 ) 300 955 Net backpay 410 Total $443 In each remaining calendar quarter in his backpay period, interim earnings exceeded gross backpay due. 11. Merles E. Pace Gross weekly backpay : $95. Backpay period: September 11, 1967, through August 5, 1968. 1967 --3 (3 weeks) Gross backpay (3 x $95) $ 285 Less: Interim earnings (Farm & Ranch Agri-Chemical) 223 Net backpay 57 1967--4 Gross backpay ( 13 x $95) 1,235 Less : Interim earnings (Farm & Ranch) 26 (N.P.C., Inc.) 47 (Woodward Inc.) 368 (Younger Bros .) 368 809 426 Net backpay Total $483 In each remaining calendar quarter in his backpay period, interim earnings exceeded gross backpay due. 12. Harvey H . Sanders Gross weekly backpay: $77. Backpay period: September 11, 1967 , through February 12, 1968. 1967--3 (3 weeks) Gross backpay (3 x $77) $ 231 Less: Interim earnings (John Dollinger, Jr.) 32 (Herman Weber) 27 (Carey Architectural Millwork) 77 136 Net backpay For 1967--4 interim earnings exceeded gross backpay. 1968--1 (6 weeks) Gross backpay (6 x $77) Less : Interim earnings (John Dollinger) Net backpay 13. Carl E. Satcher 462 446 69 95 16 Total $111 Gross weekly backpay : $97. Backpay Periods: January 12 through January 19, 1967, and September 11, 1967, through May 31, 1968. 1967-- 1 (1 week) Gross backpay (1 x $97) $ 97 Less : Interim earnings Net backpay For 1967--3. 1967--4. & 1968--1 interim earnings exceeded gross backpay. 1968-2 (9 weeks) Gross backpay (9x $97) Less : Interim earnings (Dixie Transport) 43 (South Hampton ) 594 637 Net backpay 873 236 Total $333 14. C. W. Stone Gross weekly backpay : $53. Backpay p eriod: September 11, 1967, through February 13, 1968. 1967--3 (3 weeks) Gross backpay (3 x $58) $ 174 Less: Interim earnings -00- Net backpay 174 1967--4 Gross backpay (13 x $58) 754 Less : Interim earnings (Teamsters Local 968) 650 Net backpay 1968- 1 (6 weeks) Gross backpay (6 x $53) Less : Interim earnings Net backpay 104 Total $626 70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 15. C. B. Trout Gross weekly backpay: $130. Backpay periods: May 8 through May 15, 1967, and September 11, 1967 through September 1, 1968. 1967-2 ( 1 week) Gross backpay (1 x $130) $ 130 Less : Interim earnings -0- Net backpay 130 Total $130 In each calendar quarter in the second backpay period, interim earnings exceeded gross backpay due. 16. Roy L. Wiggins Gross weekly backpay: $95. Backpay periods: February 5 through February 12, 1967, and March 24, 1967, through March 31, 1969. 1967-1 (2 weeks) Gross backpay (2 x $95) Less : Interim earnings $ 190 (Consolidated Freightways) 111 Net backpay 1967-2 Gross backpay (13 x $95) Less : Interim earnings (Leeway Motor Freight) 29 J. V. Harrison Truck) 189 (Consolidated Freightways) 82 1,235 (Texas Solvent $ Chemicals ) 658 958 Net backpay 1967-3 Gross backpay (13 x $95 ) $1,235 Less : Interim earnings (Texas Solvent) 542 (Pacific Molasses Co.) 353 895 Net backpay 79 277 340 Total $696 In each remaining calendar quarter in his` backpay period, interim earnings exceeded gross backpay due. 17. David W. Williams Gross weekiy backpay: $104. Backpay period: February 5 through February 12, 1967. 1967--1 (1 week) Gross backpay ( 1 x $104) $ 104 Less : Interim earnings Net backpay -0- $104 Total $104 B. Liability of Respondent Transamerica 1. In general a. Facts as to successorship As the Board previously found, Respondent Association is a Texas corporation with its principal office in Dallas, Texas, and previously operated terminals in Dallas, Houston, and Beaumont, Texas. The Dallas terminal was closed before December 15, 1969 . Respondent Association was, prior to December 15,8 engaged in the business of transporting by truck petroleum, petroleum products, and dry bulk commodities. Respondent Transamerica filed Articles of Incorporation with the secretary of state of Texas on December 3, and its corporate existence began shortly thereafter. Its stated purposes include: "To engage in the business of truck transportation, whether as a common carrier or otherwise." On December 11 both Respondents entered into a contract, to take effect on December 16, whereby Respondent Associated sold all its tangible assets (tractors, trailers, parts, tools, office furnishings, etc.) and some intangible assets (prepaid insurance and utility deposits) to Respondent Transamerica in return for a promissory note in the sum of $2,500 and the assumption by Respondent Transamerica of liens outstanding on this equipment. Respondent Associated retained some intangible assets, such as accounts receivable and a bank account. December 15 was the last date on which Respondent Associated carried out its primary function of transporting goods, and it did not retain any employees after that date. Thereafter, its only operation appears to have been to "phase out" its accounts receivable. It "retained one little office in the corner" of its former principal office at 6840 Forest Park Road, Dallas. No Certificate of Dissolution has been filed by Respondent Associated, and it is still legally in existance. On December 16 Respondent Transamerica began operations at all the former locations of Respondent Associated, including 6840 Forest Park Road, Dallas. These were the same operations in which Respondent Associated had engaged. There was no hiatus; the operations continued without interruption when Respon- dent Transamerica took over. Respondent Associated had operated under two certificates issued by the Railroad Commission of Texas. Shortly after December 16 both Respondents jointly applied to the Commission for leave to transfer these certificates to Respondent Transamerica. The commission ultimately approved the transfer. Calvin A. Barker was president and a stockholder of Respondent Associated. He made all major management decisions. He has no financial interest or corporate office in Respondent Transamerica and is considered "retired." His son Calvin A. Barker, Jr. who had been on the payroll of Respondent Associated, is currently general manager of Respondent Transamerica. Adrian F. Peterson, at one-time vice president and a stockholder of Respondent Associated, became president, a director, and a stockholder of Respondent Transamerica upon its inception. Edna 8 All dates hereafter refer to the year 1969, unless otherwise noted ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT CO. OF TEXAS, INC. 71 Frenzel, secretary-treasurer and a stockholder of Respon- dent Associated on and before December 15, became secretary-treasurer, a director, and a stockholder of Respondent Transamerica upon its inception. There was no change in her duties. Marc H. Richman, who had been on the payroll of Respondent Associated at one time, became vice president, a director, and a stockholder of Respondent Transamerica at its inception. The equipment used by Respondent Transamerica at first was confined to that which it had obtained from Respondent Associated. However, this property was insured by a different insurance carrier. Respondent Associated did not acquire any replacement or additional equipment for some time. At least at the Beaumont terminal, the tractors bore the name of Respondent Associated painted on their sides until June 1970, when the name of Respondent Transamerica was substituted. As of December 1 Respondent Associated had about 5 shop employees and employed 25 drivers, excluding lease operators. In addition to their regular pay (20 percent of their total revenue) those drivers who grossed $3,000 or more in any month for the company had received a bonus of 1-1/2 percent, and those who earned $4,000 or more for the company in any month had been paid a bonus of 3 percent. All employees of Respondent Associated contin- ued to work in the same capacities for Respondent Transamerica without interruption,9 and the same is true of the terminal managers. Eventually, of course, there were changes in personnel. The above-described system of compensation established by Respondent Associated for its employees, including the bonus, was continued in effect by Respondent Transamerica without change.10 After Decem- ber 15 the employees of Respondent Transamerica continued to receive their pay in checks bearing Respon- dent Associated's name and drawn on Respondent Associated's payroll bank account. Just how long this practice continued is not clear.11 In addition, for some time after December 15 the quarterly reports for unemployment taxes levied by the State of Texas were filled out in the name of Respondent Associated. This practice was eventually changed, probably in April 1970.12 After December 15 Respondent Transamerica served the same customers who had previously been serviced by Respondent Associated. Eventually some old customers were lost and some new ones acquired. For about 3 months the printed waybills used by Respondent Transamerica bore the name of Respondent Associated, but after that period of time they were altered. Prior to December 15 Respondent Associated had 9 There is evidence tending to indicate that the terminal managers were instructed to have each employee fill out an application to work for Respondent Transamerica. However, Hollis J. Holmes, a driver in the Beaumont terminal, testified that he never filled out such an application. Although the General Counsel called for the production of such applications, it is not clear from the record whether they ever were, in fact, produced. 10 Respondent Associated had established a group health insurance program for its employees, paid for entirely by the employees. It is not clear whether this program was continued by Respondent Transamerica. 11 Hollis J. Holmes, a driver employed at Respondent Transamenca's Beaumont terminal, testified that he was still receiving his pay on checks drawn on Respondent Associated 7s bank account as late as January 1971. On the other hand, Frenzel (who worked at Respondent Transamerica's Dallas office) testified that her paycheck was no longer drawn on entered into interlining agreements with certain other carriers. These contracts continued to be honored by Respondent Transamerica for some time after December 15. Ultimately, new agreements in Respondent Transameri- ca's name were executed. From its inception, Respondent Transamerica main- tained a separate bank account and its own set of financial records. However, as late as February 1970 its safety engineer addressed a communication to its drivers on paper bearing Respondent Associated's name typed at the top. And until March or April 1970 the dispatcher at Respondent Transamerica's Beaumont terminal continued to answer the telephone by saying "Associated." b. Contentions and conclusions regarding successorship The backpay specification alleges, and the answers deny, that Respondent Transamerica is an "alter ego" and/or "successor employer" of Respondent Associated, and as such is jointly and severally liable with Respondent Associated in remedying unfair labor practices found to have been committed by Respondent Associated , including backpay. Respondent Transamerica, in its brief, strenuous- ly maintains that the General Counsel "did not prove that Respondent Transamerica . . . is an alter ego and/or successor employer of Respondent Associated." Respondent Transamerica points out in its brief that there was record evidence "that the continuity of custom- ers, employees and corporate name was temporary and due to delay in approval of the transfer of operating permits." In addition Frenzel, a witness for the General Counsel, testified that Respondent Transamerica paid its employees with checks drawn on Respondent Associated's payroll account, and filed quarterly tax returns in Respondent Associated's name, only temporarily pending receipt of an employer's identification number from the Federal Government.13 Those arguments do not impress me. In the light of the continuity of operations, the continuity of employment and the identical employee complement (including terminal managers), the identical customers served, the identical interlining arrangements utilized, afid the identical equipment used, I am convinced, and find, that the employing industry remained substantially un- changed and that Respondent Transamerica is a successor employer of Respondent Associated.14 In Perma Vinyl Corporation, et al., the Board stated: 15 We are persuaded that one who acquires and operates a business of an employer found guilty of Respondent Associated's account by April 1970. 12 It is not entirely clear whether the employees at Beaumont and Houston were advised of the change of ownership. Frenzel testified that notices were typed for posting at the terminals. But Holmes testified that he never saw any such notice in Beaumont. 13 Respondent Transamerica produced no clear cut evidence of the date on which it received word of the approval of the transfer of the permits, or received a Federal employer's identification number, although such proof presumably was readily at hand. It is therefore difficult to determine whether it acted promptly after receiving such information. 14 Golden State Bottling Company, Inc., d/b/a Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of Sacramento and All American Beverages, Inc. d/b/a Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co of Sacramento, 187 NLRB No. 142. 15 164 NLRB 968, 969, enfd. 398 F.2d 544 (C.A. 5). 72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unfair labor practices in basically unchanged form under circumstances which charge him with notice of unfair labor practice charges against his predecessor should be held responsible for remedying his predeces- sor's unlawful conduct. [Fn. omitted.] When a new employer is substituted in the employing industry there has been no real change in the employing industry insofar as the victims of past unfair labor practices are concerned, or the need for remedying those unfair labor practices. Appropriate steps must still be taken if the effects of the unfair labor practices are to be erased and all employees reassured of their statutory rights. And it is the successor who has taken over control of the business who is generally in the best position to remedy such unfair labor practices most effectively. The imposition of this responsibility upon even the bona fide purchaser does not work an unfair hardship upon him. When he substituted himself in place of the perpetrator of the unfair labor practices, he became the beneficiary of the unremedied unfair labor practices. Also, his potential liability for remedying the unfair labor practices is a matter which can be reflected in the price he pays for the business, or he may secure an indemnity clause in the sales contract which will indemnify him for liability arising from the seller's unfair labor practices. [Fn. omitted.] , * * * * Our discussion thus far has dealt only with the bona fide purchaser of the employing enterprise. With respect to the offending employer himself, it must be obvious that it cannot be in the public interest to permit the violator of the Act to shed all responsibility for remedying his own unfair labor practices by simply disposing of the business. If he has unlawfully discharged employees before transferring ownership to another, he should at least be required to make whole the dischargees for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discharges until such time as they secure substan- tially equivalent employment with another employer. To the extent and in the manner indicated herein, the offending employer and his successor share a joint and several responsibility in the matter of backpay. On November 17, 1969, Peterson, as vice president of Respondent Associated, signed the "Notice to All Employ- ees" required by the Board's Order of October 8, 1968, and a certificate of posting submitted to the Regional Director in compliance therewith. He is currently president of Respondent Transamerica. In view of this fact it is found that Respondent Transamerica must be charged with notice of the unfair labor practices committed by its predecessor. It follows that, under the teaching of Perma Vinyl, both Respondents are jointly and severally liable for the backpay due the discriminatees, as found above,16 except 16 In this posture of the case, I deem it unnecessary to determine whether, as the General Counsel maintains, Respondent Transamerica is the alter ego of Respondent Associated. 17 The General Counsel, in his brief, concedes that the original backpay specification omitted interim earnings as follows: 1968-4- U S Industries, that Respondent Transamerica's liability to claimant Drevecky shall be limited as determined below. c. Findings as to commerce At the hearing the General Counsel, the Union, and Respondent Transamerica stipulated, and it is now found, that between January 1 and November 1, 1970, Respondent Transamerica performed services valued at more than $50,000 for firms (such as Humble Oil and Gulf Oil) each of which meets a jurisdictional standard of the Board. It is accordingly concluded that Respondent Transamerica is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that its operations meet the Board's standards for the exercise of jurisdiction. 2. In specific cases a. Leonard R. Drevecky At the hearing the General Counsel, the Union, and Respondent Transamerica stipulated that all computations of gross backpay and interim earnings contained in the backpay specifications are true and correct, except that as to Leonard R. Drevecky Respondent Transamerica "reserves the right to show additional interim earnings, possibly, as well as other defenses, for instance, that Mr. Drevecky did not seek employment, or something of that nature." The General Counsel, in his brief, agrees to increase Drevecky's interim earnings in several respects.17 In its brief, Respondent Transamerica raises five defenses in mitigation of backpay due. (i) Respondent Transamerica contends that Drevecky is not entitled to backpay for any time prior to .November 1967 because his inability to obtain a job during this period was due to a "hearing problem which made him unfit for work." In this connection, Drevecky testified that, from the beginning of his backpay period until he obtained employment with Key Oil Company in November 1967, he applied for work as driver or mechanic at five different firms and was refused by all because of bad hearing. He explained: "I am hard of hearing at different times and stages. My ears plug up:" And he also testified that it is "the type of thing that comes and goes." Furthermore, it is clear and I find that he had had this ear problem when he had been employed by Respondent Associated, as far back as 1965. At most, the record indicates an ailment which might have made it more difficult temporarily for Drevecky to find suitable employment. But in disagreement with Respondent Transamerica, I find insufficient evidence to justify a finding that Drevecky was physically "unfit for work" and therefore "out of the job market" prior to his employment by Key Oil Company in November 1967. (ii) Drevecky broke his collarbone on December 3, 1967, and his doctor did not release him for work until May 15, 1968. The backpay specifications exclude two parts of this period, December 3, 1967, through January 26 1968, and February 24 through May 15, 1968, but Respondent Inc., $122; 1969-1- Wyatt's Division, $210, and Atlas Truck Lines, $42. However, the record shows that Drevecky worked for Wyatt's Division for approximately 3 weeks, at a weekly wage of $72. The figure for Wyatt's Division should therefore be $216 instead of $210. ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT CO. OF TEXAS, INC. Transamerica maintains that the entire period should be excluded. Drevecky was injured on the job while working for Key Oil. He drew workmen's compensation benefits for a while. But in addition an official of Key Oil told him to "be in the office and walk around" for which, in January 1968, Key Oil supplemented his workmen's compensation benefits by paying him $180. Drevecky's testimony shows clearly that this was a donation: They gave me that on their own account to help me because they knew I was hard up. I didn't work even. ... They felt sorry for my family and gave me so much money every week to help feed my family. They helped me out, but not as a salary. They gave me what is called a donation from the company. * * * * * I didn't do no work when I was back there. In February 197018 Drevecky was injured in a bus accident. As a result, he was "sore" and "bruised up" for about 3 weeks. Before Drevecky was released by his physician from the collar bone injury, he went to work for Hardy Construction-probably in the last week of March 1970-doing "just manual labor." He testified: Q. And your doctor cleared you on that? A. I was on temporary duty. I had to do,something, as long as I was on temporary duty, that is on my record. Q. My question is did your doctor clear you to do that work? A. I didn't ask the doctor. Q. In other words you were capable of doing that work before your doctor cleared you? A. I was on temporary duty, so I figured, I was capable of doing something. I conclude that the money Drevecky received from Key Oil as a donation should not be counted as interim earnings. I further conclude that from the time of his accident on December 3, 1967, until March 23, 1968, the approximate date he began working for Hardy Construc- tion, he was physically unfit for work, and this period must be excluded. As for the period from March 23, 1968, when he started to work for Hardy Construction, until he was released by his doctor on May 15, 1968, I find that despite the doctor's delay' in releasing him, he was physically fit for work, as shown by the fact that he actually did work for Hardy Construction. Accordingly, this period will be included. (iii) In September 1968, while working for Wilcox Construction Company, Drevecky fell off a roof because of heat exhaustion. He was totally incapacitated for work for a week, and his physical condition limited him to part-time work for a period of about an additional week. Respondent Transamerica argues in its brief that "the 6 days which Drevecky was disabled and the 2 or 3 months which he was 18 Drevecky testified that it was before he worked for Hardy Equipment Company, and the record indicates that he started at Hardy in March 1970 73 partially disabled, should not be counted." But Drevecky's disability, total or partial, did not extend into the fourth calendar quarter of that year. I conclude that 1 week of total disability and another week of partial (50 percent) disability would fairly reflect the extent of Drevecky's incapacity. Accordingly, 1-1 /2 weeks should be excluded in the third calendar quarter of 1968. (iv) Respondent Transamerica maintains that Drevecky voluntarily quit the employ of Wilcox Construction Company without adequate cause. After leaving Wilcox, he went to work for U.S. Industries, Inc., and then for Wyatt's Division. The record is not clear as to how much time, if any, elapsed after he quit Wilcox until he secured other employment. Assuming without deciding that he was not justified in leaving Wilcox, there is no way of determining the extent of the willful loss caused thereby, if any. Respondent Transamerica further contends that Dre- vecky's backpay period should be tolled "during the times he voluntarily removed himself from the labor market for no good reason," specifically, after he quit the employ of Wyatt's Division "because of family problems." The record shows that while Drevecky was working for Wyatt's Division his wife "had [him] picked up and put in a hospital" over Friday night, Saturday, and Sunday. On Monday, when he was discharged from the hospital, he returned to Wyatt's Division and discovered that he had lost his job because he "didn't call in when [he] was to come in before." For about a month after that Drevecky was out of work. During this month, he applied for work at three refineries, and was registered with the Texas Employment Commission. I conclude that he was separated from his employment at Wyatt's Division through no fault of his own, but involuntarily, and that he thereafter made reasonable and adequate efforts to obtain new employ- ment. Therefore his backpay should not be tolled during this period. (v) Drevecky voluntarily left the employ of L. O. Block after about 5-1/2 weeks of the third calendar quarter of 1970.19 He was being paid at the rate of $1.25 per load and his gross weekly pay averaged between $115 and $120. He worked full time, weather permitting. When asked why he left Block's employ, he replied: "I just went looking for a better job." He further testified: There were a lot of things they did that I didn't like, for the reason their truck equipment, you ask them to have something done to the truck and you couldn't get it done. Respondent Transamerica contends that Drevecky "voluntarily removed himself from the labor market and his backpay should be tolled from that point." Although under some circumstances a discriminatee may be justified in attempting to minimize backpay loss by looking for a better paying job, the facts do not convince me that this was such a case. I find that Drevecky quit Block's employ without sufficient justification and willfully incurred a loss. It does not follow, however, that his backpay should be tolled from that point. Instead, gross backpay due for 1970-3 will be continued throughout that calendar quarter and interim 19 This figure is derived by dividing $632, his gross earnings in the third - calendar quarter of 1970, by $115, the average weekly gross pay. 74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD earnings to offset gross backpay due will be computed as, "the amount of money he would have earned had he retained that job."20 The parties stipulated at the hearing that Drevecky was offered reinstatement on January 26, 1971, thus ending his backpay period. Taking into consideration the original backpay specifica- tions and the above-described modifications, I calculate Drevecky's backpay through the end of the third calendar quarter of 1970 to be as follows: Gross weekly backpay: $155. Backpay period: September 11, 1967, through January 26, 1971. Excepted periods: December 3, 1967, through March 23, 1968, September 1, 1968, through October 10, 1968, and July 17 through December 1, 1968. 1967--3 (3 weeks) Gross backpay (3 x $155) $ 465 Less: Interim earnings -0- Net backpay $465 1967--4 (9 weeks) Gross backpay (9 x $155) 1,395 Less: Interim earnings (Key Oil Co.) 415 Net backpay 1968--1 (1 week) Gross backpay (1 x $155) 155 Less : Interim earnings (Hardy equipment Co.) 82 Net backpay 1968-2 Gross backpay (13 x $155) 2,015 Less: Interim earnings (Hardy Equipment Co.) 88 (Wilcox Constr. Co.) 580 668 Net backpay 1968-3 (11-1/2 weeks) Gross backpay (11-1/2 x $155) 1,783 Less: Interim earnings (Wilcox Constr. Co.) 561 Net backpay 1968-4 Gross backpay (13 x $155) 2,015 Less: Interim earnings (Wilcox Constr. Co.) 796 (U. S. Industries) 122 918 Net backpay 980 73 1,347 1,222 1,097 1969--1 Gross backpay (13 x $155) 2,015 Less: Interim earnings (Wyatt's Div.) 216 (North Loop Equipment) 425 (Atlas Truck Lines) 42 683 Net backpay 1 1,332 1969-2 Gross backpay (13 x $155) 2,015 Less: Interim earnings (North Loop Equipment) 1,592 Net backpay 1969-3 (2 weeks) Interim earnings exceeded gross backpay. 21 1969-4 (4 weeks) Gross backpay (4 x $155) 620 Less: Interim earnings (Larson ' s Enco Service Station) 320 Net backpay 300 1970-1 Gross backpay (13 x $155) 2,015 Less: Interim earnings (Larson ' s Enco Service Station) 320 (C & B Truck & Haterial)858 1,178 Net backpay 837 1970-2 Gross backpay (13 x $155) 2,015 Less: Interim earnings (C & B Truck & Material)115 (C. C. Dean) 268 (L. 0. Block) 949 1,332 Net backpay 683 1970--3 Gross backpay (13 x $155) 2,015 Less: Interim earnings (L. 0. Block) 632 Wilfully incurred loss (7-1/2 x $155) 863 1,495 Net backpay 520 Total net backpay through 1970--3 $9,279 Drevecky's backpay from October 1, 1970, through January 26, 1971, is still to be calculated. 21/ During this calendar quarter Drevecky worked for North Loop Equipment Company as he had in 1969--1 and 1969--2. He is currently suing that Company for $242 in' backpay (overtime). Should he recover all or part of this amount, the receipts will have to be allocated to the three calendar quarters in question and possibly some adjustments must be made. 20 Mastro Plastics Corporation, 136 NLRB 1342, 1352, enfd. in part 354 F.2d 170 (CA. 2), cert. demed 384 U.S 972. ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT CO. OF TEXAS, INC. Drevecky's backpay from October 1, 1970, through January 26, 1971, is still to be calculated. b. Leonard C. Jenkins Although the matter is not entirely clear, it appears from statements made by the General Counsel at the hearing that Jenkins was offered reinstatement in February 1971, and that in the calendar quarters 1970-4 and 1971-1 his interim earnings exceeded gross backpay due. Apparently the General Counsel does not claim that any net backpay is due Jenkins for these additional calendar quarters but only for the $138 referred to above. RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of the foregoing, it is recommended that Associated Transport Company of Texas, Inc., Dallas, Texas, and Transamerica Transport, Inc., Dallas, Texas, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall jointly and severally pay to each of the individuals listed below the sum of money appearing opposite his name, plus interest as 75 set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, less deductions required by State and Federal laws: William E. Allen $877 Marvin Lee Ayles 93 Joe T. Bailey 788 Clifford R. Buck 871 Thomas E. Courtney -0- Lenorad R. Drevecky22 9,954 Elmer H. Henry 974 Hollis Jack Holmes 424 Leonard C. Jenkins 138 Conda Muse 443 Hurles E. Pace 483 Harvey H. Sanders 111 Carl E. Satcher 333 C. W. Stone 626 C. B. Trout 130 Roy L. Wiggins 696 David W. Williams 104 22 This figure is backpay due through the third calendar quarter of 1970 only. For this period, Respondent Associated's liability shall be linuted to the sum of $9,279 00. Net backpay from October 1, 1970, through January 26, 1971, is still to be determined. 194 NLRB No. 17