John S. Barnes Corp.

JOHN S. BARNES CORP. John S. Barnes Corporation and Lodge No. 1553, In- ternational Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, and John L. Brown John S. Barnes Corporation and Lodge No. 1553, In- ternational Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases 13-CA-6407, 13-CA-6637, 13- CA-7049, 13-CA-7027, and 13-RC-10159 August 16, 1973 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On January 23, 1970, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-enti- tled case ' in which it found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The Board's Order direct- ed Respondent, inter aka, to offer to John L. Brown and Peter Roskopp, who were found to have been discriminatorily discharged, immediate and full rein- statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions and to make them whole for any loss of pay resulting from the failure to reinstate them, as provid- ed in the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. On March 11, 1971, upon petition for enforcement, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit entered its decree enforcing the Board's Order, without opinion.' Subsequently, Respondent's petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari was denied by the Court.' A backpay specification and notice of hearing were issued by the Regional Director for Region 13 on December 19, 1972, and the Respondent filed an an- swer to the backpay specifications on January 8, 1973. Pursuant thereto, a hearing was held before Admini- strative Law Judge Leo F. Lightner on March 22, 1973, at Rockford, Illinois, for the purpose of de- termining the amount of backpay due to Brown and Roskopp. On May 8, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Leo F. Lightner issued the attached Supplemental De- cision in which he found that Brown and Roskopp were entitled to the amount of backpay therein set forth. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Supplemental Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Adminis- trative Law Judge made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are 585 hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Ad- ministrative Law Judge's Supplemental Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and here- by adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen- dations of the Administrative Law Judge. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board hereby orders that Respondent, John S. Barnes Corporation, Rockford, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make John L. Brown and Peter Roskopp whole by payment to them of the amounts set forth by the Administrative Law Judge in the attached Supplemental Decision, plus interest, less deductions required by state and Federal laws. ' 180 NLRB 911 Z No 24, 021, September Term 1970 3 404 U S 854 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LEO F. LIGHTNER, Administrative Law Judge: This supple- mental proceeding to determine backpay, with all parties represented, was heard before me in Rockford, Illinois, on March 22, 1973, on the specifications of General Counsel, as amended, and the answer, as amended, of John S. Barnes Corporation, herein Respondent.' Generally, the issues liti- gated were the amounts of backpay due John L. Brown and Peter Roskopp from Respondent, if any. However, also considered are questions of whether Borwn and Roskopp used due diligence in seeking employment, suffered a willful loss of earnings by quitting a job after obtaining employ- ment, and other defenses advanced by Respondnet, set forth infra. All parties were afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evi- dence, present arguments, and thereafter to file briefs. Briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent have been carefully considered. Upon my observation of the witnesses, and upon consid- eration of the pleadings, testimony, exhibits, and the entire record in the case,2 I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Background and Pleadings On January 23, 1970, the Board issued its Decision and Order, reported as 180 NLRB 911, directing, inter alia, that 1 Backpay specifica tions and notice of hearing were issued on December 19, 1972, and amended , as set forth infra, during the hearing 2 Inadvertent errors in the record are hereby corrected 205 NLRB No. 94 586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent make whole John L. Brown, from the day of his discharge, on March 9, 1965, and Peter Roskopp from the date of his discharge, on May 26, 1965, until each was offered reinstatement, in accordance with the computation established by the Board, less interim earnings.; On March 11, 1971, upon petition for enforcement, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit en- tered its decree enforcing the Board's Order, without opin- ion. N.L.R.B. v. John S. Barnes Corporation, 77 LRRM 2372. On October 12, 1971, the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari. John S Barnes Corporation v. N L.R. B., 404 U.S. 854 (1971). At the outset of the hearing, Respondent withdrew any objection asserted in its answer in regard to the accuracy of the formula used in the specifications to determine the amounts of backpay due. The formula is in conformity with Board decisions. However, Respondent, in its answer and at the opening of the hearing, asserted that Brown had received additional earnings from self-employment during the backpay period, and that Brown was discharged for cause, from interim employment, on or about January 9, 1971, and that his probable earnings in such interim em- 3 F W Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 In substance, the formula provides as follows (1) The gross backpay for Brown and Roskopp was determined by com- paring the gross earnings of each, for the year of 1964, the last full year they were employed by Respondent , to the average gross earnings for the same year of three comparable employees, Grant Rhodes, Otto Biderbost, and Arthur Wemmer The earnings of Brown, for 1964, were 126 36 percent of the average, and the earnings of Roskopp, for 1964, were 102 84 percent of the average The backpay period of Brown is from March 9, 1965, to Febru- ary 4, 1972, when Brown declined an offer of reemployment by Respondent The backpay period of Roskopp is from May 26, 1965, to December 6, 1972, when Roskopp declined an offer of reemployment by Respondent The gross backpay for each calendar quarter for Brown is 126 36 percent of 1/4 of the average gross pay received by the three named comparable employees during the year in which the calendar quarter fell , and the gross backpay for each calendar quarter for Roskopp is 102 84 percent of 1/4 of the average gross pay received by the three comparable employees during the year in which that calendar quarter fell (2) During the backpay periods of Brown and Roskopp, each would have received in profit sharing at the end of each year the same proportion of the gross earnings of each as the proportion of gross earnings of other eligible employees who worked during the backpay periods An appropriate measure of the profit sharing each discrimmatee would have received is, for Roskopp 102 84 percent of the profit-sharing amount, and for Brown 126 36 percent of the profit-sharing amount Arthur Wemmer, a comparable employee, re- ceived each year (3) Interim earnings are admitted to be those amounts for each discrimina- tee for each calendar quarter set forth in the column headed "Interim Earn- ings" in for Brown and for Roskopp in the charts below (4) The net backpay due each discrimmatee for each calendar quarter in his backpay period is the difference, if any, between his gross earnings, including profit sharing, in the last quarter of each year, and interim earnings for that quarter (5) The gross earnings for each discriminatee at the beginning of his backpay period were estimated by multiplying his gross earnings for the full quarter by a fraction representing the number of weeks from his discharge to the end of the quarter, divided by the number of weeks in the full quarter Thus, the gross backpay for Brown, in 1/65 quarter is 3/13 of what would have been his full gross backpay for the whole quarter, and the gross backpay for Roskopp in the 2/65 quarter is 5/13 of what would have been his full gross backpay for the whole quarter (6) The gross earnings and interim earnings of Brown for the 1/72 quarter are estimated by multiplying the full gross earnings and the full interim earnings for that quarter by 5/13, the fraction representing that part of the quarter, from the first day of the quarter to the date reinstatement was offered Brown ployment, during the period from the date of discharge to the next interim employment should have been included as interim earnings. Respondent also asserts that Brown failed to make a reasonable search for interim employment during the first and second quarters of 1971, and that Roskopp failed to make a reasonable search for interim employment following his discharge on May 26, 1965. The facts relative to these asserted defenses are considered infra. Respondent sought to assert that the F. W. Woolworth formula, of quarterly computation, should not be followed, contending that if the entire backpay period was computed as a unit, no backpay would be due. This is the precise problem which was considered by the Board in F W. Wool- worth. The Board found: "The cumulative experience of many years discloses that this form of remedial provision falls short of effectuating the basic purposes and policies of the Act." 90 NLRB at 291. In addition, it must be observed that the court has enforced the Board's Order, including the Woolworth formula, and certiorari was denied by the Su- preme Court. I find no merit in this contention. Respondent asserted, as an affirmative defense, that nei- ther Roskopp nor Brown would have accepted an offer to return to work prior to the time such an offer was made. An offer of proof was rejected. Counsel for the General Coun- sel, in his brief, calls attention to the Board's holding in Kaase 5 in which the Board held: "As an employee who had been discriminatorily discharged, Randles was entitled to a valid offer of reinstatement from the Employer before mak- ing an election as to whether he would return to [work]." I find no merit in this contention. Brown's Employment Record Respondent contends that Brown did not exercise essen- tial diligence in obtaining employment during the backpay period. The evidence relative to Brown's employment, and his efforts to obtain employment, is next considered. When Brown was discharged by Respondent, on March 9, 1965, he was employed in the stockroom, and was receiv- ing the rate of $2.20 an hour. Three days later, he was employed by W. F. and John Barnes, a separate corpora- tion, as an assembler, at the same hourly rate. However, he received less hours of work. He remained in that employ- ment for a period of 14 or 15 months, then voluntarily quit .6 Brown asserted that he commenced employment at Bar- ber Coleman the day following his separation from W. F. and John Barnes, as an assembler. Vernie Anderson, who has been employment supervisor at Barber Coleman for 9-1/2 years, credibly related that the employment records of that firm reflect that Brown was initially employed on May 10, 1966, and voluntarily quit on September 9, 1966, and 5 The Richard W Kaase Company, 162 NLRB 1320, 1331 6 Brown's explanation was that the foreman made him nervous and it was for this reason that he voluntarily quit In view of his immediate employment thereafter, at a higher rate of pay, I attach no significance to this voluntary separation from employment East Texas Steel Castings Company, Inc, 116 NLRB 1336, 1347-48, enfd 255 F 2d 284 (C A 5, 1958) Brown asserted he took a medical examination prior to going to work at W F and John Barnes , but did not take medical examinations subsequently, prior to employment at Barber Coleman or W A Whitney I find no merit in Respondent's contention in its brief that days lost for medical examina- tions should be deducted from backpay JOHN S. BARNES CORP. was paid at the hourly rate of $2.67 Anderson related that Brown was reemployed on December 27, 1966 , and conti- nuously thereafter until July 3, 1970.7 Anderson asserted that Brown was again employed in August 1971, at a rate of $4.13 an hour . Brown was still so employed at the time of the hearing herein. Brown credibly related that , immediately after leaving Barber Coleman, he was employed by W. A. Whitney as an assembler. He asserted his reason for changing was that Whitney was a smaller company with more opportunity for advancement. He remained with Whitney until Friday, De- cember 23, 1966. His reason for leaving was the doors were left open, causing the shop to become cold in the winter. He returned to Barber Coleman on December 27. Brown as- serted his rate of pay at Whitney was the same as it had been at Barber Coleman. During the period of the strike at Barber Coleman, from May until October 1967, Brown was employed by W. A. Whitney, for 3 months, as night foreman , at a rate of $2.79 per hour, plus a night bonus of 8 or 10 percent . His reason for leaving was that he was discharged 8 Brown credibly related that he was employed by Ekstrom Carlson 3 days after his termination at Whitney, as an as- sembler, on the night shift. His rate of pay was $2.75 per hour, and a few days later he was raised to $2.90 per hour. He continued this employment until he returned to Barber Coleman at the end of the strike. Brown explained his layoff at Barber Coleman, on July 3, 1970, as resulting from a general layoff. Brown explained he had 4 years seniority and the layoff included individuals with as much as 17 years seniority. Brown related that he was employed at Barnes Drill, commencing in August 1970, as an assembler, and was laid off in November 1970. He then was employed at Peterson- Kruse from November 1970 until January 9, 1971.9 Brown related that he was employed as an assembler , commencing at the rate of $3.40 per hour , increased at Christmastime to $3.50 per hour. Brown related the circumstances surrounding his dis- charge at Peterson Kruse He credibly asserted that Pe- terson and Kruse were both in the office , and that he was advised that their payroll was too great for the amount of money coming in and that they could not afford to keep him any longer. Brown denied that he was ever disciplined while working for Peterson Kruse. This assertion stands undisput- ed and is credited. Kruse credibly asserted that the reason for Brown's layoff was that they required someone who could not only assem- ble but also do the machining of parts preparatory to the assembly work . Kruse asserted that as time went on they ' Anderson related that there was a strike at Barber Coleman from May until October 1967 8 Brown credibly related that he was a friend of the superintendent, that the superintendent was fired in the morning and he was fired the same night He was given no reason for his discharge except they were not satisfied with him as a foreman Brown asserted that he was employed by Whitney I day after the strike commenced at Barber Coleman The specifications reflect that his income from that employment was in the second and third quarter of 1967 9 Robert Kruse, secretary treasurer of Peterson Kruse, Inc , corroborated Brown as to his period of employment, relating that it commenced the last week in November and continued until January 9, 1971. 587 realized that Brown was not qualified to do the more skilled work, and this was the reason for the termination, as Brown had completed all of the work he could do without machin- ing capability. Kruse asserted that the reasons given to Brown for his termination, at time of termination, were the same as the reasons recited herein by Kruse.1° It is patent that Brown was unemployed from January 9, 1971, until August 1971, when he was reemployed by Barber Coleman. Respondent contends that Brown failed to make adequate efforts to obtain employment during this period. The evidence relative to Brown's efforts and his other activi- ty during this period is next set forth. Brown asserted that, during the period in question, he went to Rehnberg-Jacobson, W. F. and John Barnes, Inger- soll, Johnson's Drill Head, Sunstrand, Mechanics, Rock- ford Clutch, Barber Coleman, and some 50 or 60 small shops, as well as employment agencies, in the Rockford area. Brown credibly related that the tool industry in the Rockford area was not hiring, that the industry was "down" at that time, and that most of the places where he sought employment would not even accept an application.ii Brown acknowledged that during his layoff in 1971, com- mencing in May, he did the carpentry work in aiding his son-in-law build a house, for which he received no compen- sation. Brown credibly related that he would look for work at least 4 days a week, spending 2 or 3 hours each day. He would then commence working on his son-in-law's house at approximately 11 a.m. Brown asserted there were fewer than 10 days, out of 100 while he was working on the house, that he did not seek employment at one or more plants, prior to his commencement of the work on the house. Brown acknowledged that he applied for and received un- employment compensation during the period of time in question. I am unable to find, from this recitation, any evidence which would support a finding that Brown failed to make an adequate effort to obtain employment. In so finding, I am not unmindful of Brown's continuous employ- 10 Kruse acknowledged that Brown had been at the Peterson Kruse plant the Wednesday preceding this hearing, March 21, to ascertain if Peterson would appear and give testimony Brown was advised that Peterson had had a heart attack 3 months previously It was Brown's decision not to subpena Peterson John Peter Olson is secretary of Respondent It appears undisputed that Olson met with Peterson and Kruse on August 29, 1972. Olson asserted the reason for his trip to the Peterson Kruse plant was to determine Brown's employment record Olson related that after obtaining Brown's date of hire and date of termination Peterson advised him that Brown was discharged "because of causing internal discontent and the use of alcohol" It is patent that Brown was never advised of any reason for his discharge other than that related by him His recitation was corroborated by Kruse The interest of Olson, as officer of Respondent, in the outcome of the case is patent His recitation does not establish the facts asserted by him I find accordingly 11 Guy Stubblefield has been business representative of the Union since January 1, 1964 Stubblefield corroborated Brown as to the employment conditions at the time in question Stubblefield related that he deals with from 18 to 21 employers in the Rockford area, and is president of the Rockford United Labor, which is the Central Labor Council of the AFL- CIO, Stubblefield related that his membership in the Union has been as high as 2,600 that with layoffs commencing in mid-1970 his membership went down to 2,200, and that in 1971 it reached a low point of 1,850 active members Stubblefield asserted that, during this period, Rockford was rated as being above 6 percent unemployed, and that none of the shops with whom the Union had contracts were hiring, other than replacements when someone quit or retired, and that almost all of the machine shops had men laid off during that period of time 588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD merit record from March 1965 to January 1971. Counsel for General Counsel, in his brief, correctly urges that the test is whether the discriminatee made an honest good-faith effort to find employment or, as stated by the court in Golay,12 whether he was reasonably diligent. Cousnel for General Counsel, in his brief, correctly urges that the burden of establishing a diminution of the damages resulting from discnminatee's asserted lack of diligence in seeking interim employment falls on Respondent. 3 Respondent's contention that Brown did not make an adequate effort to obtain employment during the period from January to August 1971, is without evidentiary sup- port. I so find. Brown acknowledged that, inferentially, during his peri- od of unemployment in 1971, he was asked by Kruse to go to National Lock to repair a machine which he had fixed. He asserted he was aware of the fact that National Lock employees were on strike and that he advised Kruse he would not cross the picket line. He estimated that the work might have required 5 or 6 days. Respondent, in its brief, asserts that Brown's failure to accept the assignment by Kruse constituted a wilful loss of earnings. Respondent relies on the Vapor Blast case.14 Re- spondent contends that the work offered was not the work of strikers. I find the case cited inapposite, and Respondent's contention without merit. Brown credibly related that in July 1970, after he was laid off by Barber Coleman, he purchased a leaf-raking ma- chine. As a result, he obtained three jobs, for which he received $10 or $15 each, which was less than the cost of the machine. Thereafter, he gave the machine to his son-in-law. Respondent's contention, in its brief, that this $30 should be added as interim earnings disreagrds the fact that the ven- ture comprised a loss. I find no merit in Respondent's con- tention. Brown's other earnings, from self-employment, are set forth infra, as amendments to the specifications. Roskopp's Efforts to Obtain Employment Roskopp was discharged by Respondent on May 26, 1965. Roskopp had been employed by Respondent as an assembler in the pump department at the rate of $1.95 per hour, on the day shift, at the time of his discharge. Roskopp credibly related that he was employed the same day at Bar- tell Engineering Co., in Rockford, on the night shift at the rate of $3.15 per hour. He continued in that employment until July 12, 1965, when he quit. Roskopp asserted his reason for quitting was that he did not like the work and, in addition, his wife had recently had a child, and it was necessary for her to get up, when he arrived home in the morning, and go to her mother's so he could get some sleep. Roskopp was next employed by Mechanical Tool and Engineering, commencing July 13, 1965, as an assembler, on 12 Golay & Company Inc, v N L R B, 447 F 2d 290 (C A 7, 1971) 13 Mastro Plastics Corporation, et at 136 NLRB 1342, 354 F 2d 170 (C A 2, 1965), cert denied 384 U S 972 (1966) 14 Vapor Blast Independent Shop Workers Assn v N L R B, 305 F 2d 717 (CA 7, 1962) the day shift, at the rate of $2 an hour. Three months later he received two raises of 10 cents each the same day. Infer- entially about 1967, he was promoted to leadman, with an increase of 50 cents per hour. He became a working fore- man in 1969 and a foreman in 1970. Initially, he received $3.15 per hour as a foreman, but is now a salaried employee, supervising 20 employees. Respondent, in its brief, contends that Roskopp volun- tarily quit a job paying $3.15 per hour, during the second quarter of 1965. Respondent notes that there is no claim for backpay during the second quarter of 1965. Respondent asserts that, if Roskopp had not voluntarily quit, and ac- cepted the job paying $1.15 per hour less, inferentially there would be no backpay claim. The specifications relative to Roskopp reflect no claim for backpay after the second quar- ter of 1967, unquestionably the result of his promotions and higher earnings from July 1967 through December 1972. Counsel for General Counsel, in his brief, urges the appli- cation of the rule enunciated by the Board in Mastro Plas- tics, supra, in which the Board held: [A] claimant who obtains a job but then leaves for a justifiable reason is not deprived of all further claim; the assumption is that the reason for his quitting thejob would not have been present at Respondent's plant and therefore the job is not substantially equivalent. [Id. at 1349.] 15 Counsel for General Counsel, in his brief, correctly urges that Roskopp was employed by Respondent on the day shift. However, his employment at Bartell Engineering was on the night shift. The Board has held that a night-shift employee is not required to seek day-shift work. Richard W. Kaase, supra at 1332. The facts herein are that an employee, who normally works a day shift, accepted a night-shift assignment, which he then left because of conditions he found to be too diffi- cult a pattern of life for himself and his family. He promptly found other employment the following day. Counsel for General Counsel urges that Roskopp was not required to accept this employment, which in fact reduced the wrong- doing Respondent's obligation. It follows that he was not required to continue when there was good reason for leav- ing. In addition, there is no evidence herein that Roskopp's employment at Bartell Engineering would have continued through the second quarter of 1967, or that his earnings would have obliterated any claim for backpay as a result. I find Respondent's contention without merit. Computation John Brown At the outset of the hearing, counsel for General Counsel amended the specifications relative to Brown to reflect ad- ditional earnings from self-employment, during the third quarter 1965, in the amount of $200, reducing the net back- 15 See also East Texas Steel Casting Co, Inc, supra, Artim Transportation System, Inc, 193 NLRB 179, American Manufacturing Company of Texas, 167 NLRB 520 JOHN S. BARNES CORP. 589 pay amount to $251.29, and additional earnings from self- employment, during the third quarter 1966, in the amount of $120, reducing the net backpay amount for that period to $375.42 The gross backpay claim was accordingly re- duced by $320. Accordingly, having found that Brown at all times during the backpay period made a good-faith effort to find work, based on the formula in the specifications, as amended, I find the amounts by quarter of gross pay interim earnings from Barber Coleman, other interim earnings, and net back- pay, due Brown for the period commencing March 9, 1965, and terminating February 4, 1972, are as shown in the at- tached Appendix Peter Roskopp At the outset of the hearing, counsel for General Counsel amended the specifications relative to Roskopp to reflect additional earnings, during the second quarter 1965, in the amount of $644.55, resulting from earnings from Bartell Engineering Co.,16 and eliminating any net backpay for that quarter. During the hearing, the gross amount due Roskopp was misstated as $2,301.27. In his brief, counsel for General Counsel calls attention to an error in addition, resulting in 16 inaccurately listed as Bartlett Engineering Co in General Counsel's brief a correction in the total amount due Roskopp to $2,334.90. Accordingly, having found that Roskopp at all times dur- ing the backpay period made a good-faith effort to remain employed, based on the formula in the specifications, as amended, I find the amounts by quarter of gross pay interim earnings from Bartell and Mechanics, and net backpay, due Roskopp for the period commencing May 26, 1965, and terminating December 6, 1972, are as shown in the attached Appendix. Conclusions and Recommendations On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I find and conclude the gross amount of backpay due John Brown is $12,758.85, and the gross amount of backpay due Peter Roskopp is $2,334.90. ORDER I recommend that Respondent, John S. Barnes Corpora- tion, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, be, and it is, hereby ordered to pay to John Brown the amount of $12,758.85, and to Peter Roskopp the amount of $2,334.90, in each instance, however, less the tax withholding required by Federal and state laws. 590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tr. Gross Backpay Interim Earnings a/ APPENDIX John Brown Interim Earnings Net Backpav 1-65 $ 468.70.&/ $ 211.40 $ 257.30 2-65 2,031.04 1,355.68 d/ 675.36 3-65 2,031.04 1,579.75 d/ 251.29 200.00 j/ 4-65 2,031.04 2,040.59 d/ 687.72 697.27 1-66 2,177.32 1,788.05 d/ 389.27 2-66 2,177.32 $1,125.70 945.60 d/ 106.02 3-66 2,177.32 1,368.73 313.17 b/ 375.42 120.00 j/ 4-66 2,177.32 114.16 2,143.05 b/ 693.08 772.97 1-67 2,206.98 1,970.97 236.01 2-67 2,206.98 1,086.43 921.01 b/ 199.54 3-67 2,206.98 1,422.81 J 294.33 489.84 b/ 4-67 2,206.98 1,668.73 686.66 f/ 0 111.84 1-68 2,197.54 2,229.25 0 2-68 2,197.54 2,364.60 0 3-68 2,197.54 2,100.75 96.79 4-68 2,197.54 2,313.43 0 Qtr. Backpay Interim Earnings A:MJ Interim Earnings Net Backpay 1-69 $2,371.40 $2,160.12 $211.28 2-69 2,371.40 1,902.64 468.76 3-69 2,371.40 2,007.56 363.84 4-69 2,371.40 2,507.08 184.66 320.'A 1-70 2,477.43 2,568.58 0 2-70 2,477.48 1,914.86 562.62 3-70 2,477.43 $2,162.88 c/ 314.60 4-70 2,477.43 317.51 c/ 1,532.78 765.53 1,392.72 e/ 1-71 2,384.54 143.46 549.70 e/ 1,691.38 2-71 2,384.54 2,384.54 3-71 2,384.54 1,868.85 515.69 4-71 2,384.54 2,993.65 0 1-72 917.13 h/ 650.56 i/ 266.57 $12,758.85 a/ From Barber Coleman. f/ From Ekstrom Carlson. b/ From W . A. Whitney. 3/13 of $2,031.04-$468.70. c/ From Barnes Drill. h/ 4/13 of $2,384.54-$917.13. d/ From W . F. and John Barnes. 1/ 5/13 of $1,691.46-$650.56. e/ From Peterson Kruse. j/ From self employment. JOHN S. BARNES CORP. 591 Qtr. Gross Backpay Peter Interim Earnings h/ Roskoff Interim Earnings c/ Net Backpay 1-65 2-65 $ 635.77 k/ $ $ 644.55 0 3-65 1,652.99 1,181.12 213.51 $ 258.36 4-65 1,652.99 1,494.53 705.94 547.48 1-66 1,772.05 1,616.47 155.58 2-66 1,772.05 1,717.52 54.53 3-66 1,772.05 1,663.81 108.24 4-66 1,772.05 1,743.57 657.57 629.09 1-67 1,796.19 1,771.52 24.66 2-67 1,796.18 1,426.16 370.02 3-67 1,796.18 1,912.17 0 4-67 1,796.18 1,975.47 0 91.02 Qtr. Gross Backpay Interim Interim Earnings 1/ Earnings m/ Net Backpay 1-68 $1,788 . 50 $1,898.20 0 2-68 1,788.50 2,319.84 0 3-68 1,788.50 2,102.64 0 4-68 1,788.50 2,404.01 0 1-69 1,930.00 2,112.34 0 2-69 1,930.00 2,579.84 0 3-69 1,930.00 2,153.45 0 4-69 1,930.00 2,521.07 0 260.71 1-70 2,016.34 2,498.41 0 2-70 2,016.34 2,592.98 0 3-70 2,016.34 2,309.17 0 4-70 2,016.34 2,660.66 0 623.04 1-71 1,940.69 2,263.80 0 2-71 1,940.69 2,461.00 0 3-71 1,940.69 2,524.08 0 4-71 1,940.69 2,819.94 0 1-72 0 Grand Total $2,334.90 k/ 5/13 of $1,652.99=$635.77. 1/ From Mechanical Tool & Engineering Co. m/ From Bartell Engineering Co.