Mansion House Center Management Corp.

684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mansion House Center Management Corporation and its successor, Remsco Management Corporation, Inc. and Central Parking System of St . Louis, Inc. and Charles Dickens, Jr. Case 14-CA-46052 January 24, 1974 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On March 15, 1973, Administrative Law Judge John M. Dyer issued the attached Supplemental Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Remsco Management Corporation, Inc., filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National ' Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three -member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Supplemental Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Adminis- trative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondents, Mansion House Center Management Corporation and its successor, Remsco Management Corporation, Inc., and Central Parking Systems of St. Louis, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. I In overruling the exceptions of Respondent Remsco , we further find that the Supplemental Decision of the Administrative Law Judge , which we affirm here, is supported by the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Golden State Bottling Company, Inc., d/b/a Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company, 414 U.S. 168 (Dec. 5, 1973), 84 LRRM 2839. SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JoHN M. DYER, Administrative Law Judge : On January 1, 1972, the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and Order in case 195 NLRB 797 which found that Mansion House Center Management Corporation, herein called Respondent Mansion House Management, and Central Parking System of St. Louis, Inc., herein called Respondent Central Parking, had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended. The Board directed that Respondent Mansion House Management and Respondent Central Parking, which had jointly violated the Act by discharging Respondent Central Parking's employees Norman Adams, Fred Hahn, Herbert Cavitt, and Paul Mintner, reinstate them and make them whole and that Respondent Mansion House Management reinstate and make whole it's discriminatorily .discharged employees, William Bassett, Robert Farr, and K. D. Hollifield. This Decision and Order was enforced by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on May 23, 1972. Paul Mintner returned to work at Respondent Central Parking a little over 3 weeks after his discharge and there are no issues concerning his reinstatement or backpay. Respondent Central Parking offered reinstatement to Adams, Hahn, and Cavitt on February 25, 1972, and Respondent Mansion House Management offered reins- tatement to Bassett, Farr, and Hollifield on April 8, 1972. There is no question concerning reinstatement of the discriminatees. Respondent Mansion House Management was the management agent for the Mansion House Center complex at all times material herein, until August 1, 1972, when Remsco Management Corporation, herein called Respon- dent Remsco, took over its duties and has since managed the complex which consists of apartments, offices, stores, and a parking garage located near the Mississippi River in St. Louis. The parties to this proceeding were not able to reach agreement as to the amounts of backpay due the seven individuals and therefore the Board's Regional Director of Region 14 issued a backpay specification and notice of hearing on October 18,, 1972, setting forth backpay computations including admissions of interim earnings of the discriminatees. On October 26, 1972, Respondent Mansion House Management submitted an answer and a motion to dismiss it from the backpay proceeding. The answer stated that it's operation of the complex had been terminated and it lacked knowledge of the allegations concerning backpay. The motion stated that on or about August 1 , 1972, it had turned over control of the Mansion House Center complex to Respondent Remsco and while it continued as a legal entity, it had no assets, real, or personal, and suggested that any further proceedings concerning it should be considered moot. General Counsel filed in opposition to Respondent Mansion House Management's motion to dismiss and further moved to strike its answer. On November 27, 1972, Administrative Law Judge Authur Leff denied Respondent Mansion House Manage- ment's motion and on December II he granted General Counsel's motion to strike Respondent Mansion House Management's answer. Specifically Judge Leff noted that there had been no response to General Counsel's motion 208 NLRB No. 104 MANSION HOUSE CENTER MANAGEMENT CORP. from Respondent Mansion House Management , following a notice to show cause order issued December 1, 1972, and he thereafter ordered that the allegations of the backpay specification be deemed admitted by Respondent Mansion House Management in accordance with Section 102.54 (c) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, and he further ordered that Respondent Mansion House Management be precluded from _introducing any evidence at the hearing controverting the allegations of the backpay specification insofar as they related to it and its liability. On October 27, 1972, Respondent Central Parking filed a motion for a more definite statement which was opposed by the General Counsel on November 2, 1972. Respondent Remsco, filed a motion for a more definite statement on November 3, 1972, which was opposed by the General Counsel on November 8, 1972. Administrative Law Judge Authur Leff denied the motions of Respondent Remsco and Respondent Central Parking on November 27, 1972. Respondent Central Parking filed its answer on Decem- ber 8, 1972, which in effect said it had insufficient information to respond regarding the interim earnings of the discrimmatees. The answer admitted the basis of some of the computations but denied liability in the amounts claimed except for Paul Mintner, whom it agreed was owed net backpay in tie claimed sum of $409.60. The answer claimed that on February 20, 1971, Respondent Mansion House Management had ordered it to reduce the guard force from five to three and that two of the four discriminatees would have been laid off on that date. Respondent Remsco filed an answer on December 6, 1972, admitting that Respondent Mansion House Manage- ment had ceased to operate the Mansion House Center complex on or after August 1, 1972, and that it operated the complex thereafter. Respondent Remsco denied that it was a successor employer to Respondent Mansion House Management or that it was jointly and severally liable to remedy the unfair labor practices of its claimed predeces- sor as pled in the supplemental backpay specification. Respondent Remsco's answer admitted the propriety of the computation methods but said it was without knowledge of the allegations concerning the individual discriminatees. As to Cavitt, Farr, Hahn, and Hollifield, it pled that they had more interim earnings than those reported and that they were not available for work at all times, and specifically that Hollifield and Cavitt did not make an active search for work. On November 2, 1972, the Regional Director of Region 14 issued an amendment to the backpay specification admitting that discriminatee Cavitt was unavailable for employment from February 21 through March 13, 1971, while he was attending school and further was unavailable for work from January 1 through February 25, 1972. This supplemental hearing was held on December 18, 19, and 20, 1972, in S. Louis, Missouri. All parties were given full opportunity to appear, to examine and cross-examine the witnesses, and to argue orally. Briefs have been received from Respondent Remsco and Respondent 685 Central Parking and the General Counsel, and have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in this case including my evaluation of the reliability of the witnesses, based both on the evidence received and my observation of their demeanor, I make the findings and conclusions set forth below: 1. ALLOCATION OF BACKPAY RESPONSIBILITY As stated above, Respondent Mansion House Manage- ment is deemed to have admitted the pleadings in the backpay specification. It made no appearance in this hearing although it was aware of it. Under the terms of the order mentioned above and without any appearance by it, I conclude and find that Respondent Mansion House Management is jointly and severally liable for the amounts of backpay specifically found hereafter for the employees of Respondent Central Parking and is liable for the amounts of backpay hereafter found to be due its former employees. It was stipulated by the parties that in February 1971, Respondent Mansion House Management instructed Respondent Central Parking to reduce its guard force by two men and that such reduction was accomplished on February 18, 1971, and remained at the lowered level throughout the backpay period. It was further stipulated that such a reduction would have been made on the basis of seniority which would have meant that Adams and Cavitt would have been laid off on that date. Respondent Central Parking is therefore jointly and severally liable for the backpay of Hahn and Mintner throughout the entire backpay period and is jointly and severally liable for Adams and Cavitt only until February 18, 1971, with Respondent Mansion House Management being solely liable for them after that date while being jointly and severally responsible for them prior thereto and being similarly liable for Hahn and Mintner. 11. RESPONDENT REMSCO'S POSITION AND RESPONSIBILITY Regarding Respondent Remsco, the backpay specifica- tion stated: Since on or about August 1, 1972, Remsco has been, and is a successor employer to Mansion House Center Management Corporation and, as such , is jointly and severally liable fully to remedy the unfair labor practices committed by its predecessor. In answering this allegation Respondent Remsco said only "It denies the allegations of paragraph I (e)." In its brief Respondent Remsco stated that when it took over management of the complex , all of the discriminatees who desired reinstatement had been reinstated and thereafter worked for it and that the only remaining item is backpay, for which, it states, it is not responsible. Respondent Remsco's brief maintains that it is not a successor to Respondent Mansion House Management. Its brief urges for the first time, that it was not proven that it 686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was a successor with knowledge of the unfair labor practices so it contends it should not be required to remedy the backpay obligation. As to successorship, the General Counsel adduced testimony which established that Respondent Remsco is engaged in exactly the same business as Respondent Mansion House Management, i.e., the management of the Mansion House Center complex. Insofar as the affected employees are concerned, the guards continued their employment with no hiatus, in the same positions, with the same responsibilities, receiving the same pay and other benefits and with the same minor supervision. There were no changes as far as the employees are concerned except for upper supervision and a new name on the paychecks. The only possible conclusion is that Respondent Remsco is a successor employer to Respondent Mansion House Management since it took over management of the same premises with the same employees receiving the same pay and under the same working conditions. I so conclude and find. The question of Respondent Remsco's knowledge of the unfair labor practices of its predecessor at the time it took over (August 1, 1972) was not raised by its answer nor did it raise such during the trial of this case. The Board's Rules and Regulations, Section 102.54 (b) provides: Denials shall fairly meet the substance of the allegations of the specification denied. When a respon- dent intends to deny only a part of an allegation, the respondent shall specify so much of it as is true and shall deny only the remainder. As to all matters within the knowledge of the respondent, including but not limited to the various factors entering into the computation of gross backpay, a general denial shall not suffice. As to such matters, if the respondent disputes either the accuracy of the figures in the specification or the premises on which they are based, he shall specifically state the basis for his disagreement, setting forth in detail his position as to the applicable premises and furnishing the appropriate supporting figures. Respondent Remsco's answer did not raise lack of "prior knowledge" as a basis for its position concerning its liability, though such an issue would certainly have been uniquely within its knowledge. In Perma Vinyl Corporation, 164 NLRB 968. the Board at 969 after discussing the appropriateness of a successor employer remedying the unfair labor practices of its predecessor, said the following: if the unfair labor practice has been the discrimina- tory discharge of employees, this responsibility should include the reinstatement of the discriminatees without loss of pay. Of course, no such adjudication of liability can be made without affording the bona fide purchaser a full opportunity at a hearing, after adequate notice, to present evidence on the question of whether it is a successor which is responsible for remedying a prede- cessor's unfair labor practices. The successor would also be entitled, of course, to be heard against the enforcement of any order issued against it. Respondent Remsco had the responsibility to establish that it was not a successor employer (if it was not) and that when it took over it was without notice of the unfair labor practices of its predecessor. Its present claim that such has not been proven is an attempt to put the burden of proof other than where the Board said it rests. It did not raise it as an issue in its answer while under a clear burden to do so if indeed it was an issue. Respondent Remsco further did not avail itself of the opportunity to produce any such evidence at the trial of this case and it can not now escape liability by claiming that such was not proven. General Counsel's voluntary production of testimony concerning interim earnings and the criteria of successor- ship does not mean that he should have undertaken to prove the question of "prior knowledge," which was not placed in issue by Respondent Remsco. I conclude and find that the issue of the successor's prior knowledge of the predecessor's unfair labor practices is a matter of defense to be raised by the alleged successor and that in the absence of any such notice or offer of evidence by Respondent Remsco, it is too late to raise the issue in its brief. I find that such issue is not a matter of affirmative proof to be borne by the General Counsel. I therefore find and conclude that Respondent Remsco is a successor of Respondent Mansion House Management with knowledge of its predecessor's unfair labor practices and having the consequent responsibility to rectify the unfair labor practices of its predecessor. Since the backpay due the discnminatees is the sole remaining item to be remedied, I conclude and find that Respondent Remsco stands with and in the place of Respondent Mansion House Management and is jointly and severally liable and solely liable in those areas where its predecessor is, and must fulfill the backpay obligations spelled out in this decision where its predecessor is unable to do so. III. THE BACKPAY CLAIMS A. Norman L Adams The backpay specification alleges that Adams' backpay runs from the first quarter of 1971 thru the first quarter of 1972 when Adams was offered reinstatement. Adams was a part-time employee at Respondent Central Parking, and the specification lists no interim earnings, travel, or expensives and concludes that the amount of net backpay due equals the amount of gross backpay. At Respondent Central Parking Adams worked from 6 p.m. to 12 midnight on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday and had as his main position a full time job at Wagner Electric Company, where from late 1970 through 1972, he was working 10 hours a day. He admitted that after being laid off at Respondent Central Parking, twice prior to February MANSION HOUSE CENTER MANAGEMENT CORP. 26, 1971, he was offered his job there and refused on each occasion because, as he put it, they had no decent communications between the men and the head of Respondent Central Parking. Further Adams admitted he did not look for work partly because he was working so much overtime at Wagner Electric. During the backpay period Whalen Security contacted him saying they would like to hire him but he did not go there to apply for work. He stated he had one communication with another security agency but didn't bother to follow it up since he was working so much overtime. During the hearing Adams stated that he had not been advised that he had to look for work following his layoff and in essence admitted he did not do so. In summary, Adams had a principal job which was supplying him witha lot of overtime work . He refused job offers at ,Respondent Central Parking because he wanted to return there only on terms which he felt were proper and which amounted to some form of agreement between the employees and Respondent Central Parking, or at the very least what Adams termed better communications between employees and the Company. Adams not only did not seek other employment but did not pursue a promising lead of other employment. I conclude and find that Adams withdrew from the part- time labor market when he was laid off until he accepted reinstatement and pursued only his main job. I therefore conclude and find that there is no backpay due Norman L. Adams. B. William Bassett Bassett's primary job was with the A. O. Smith Company, where, during January 1971, he was working from 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. He worked for Respondent 'Mansion House Management on the 4 p.m. to 12 midnight shift on Saturday, Sunday, Mondays, and Tuesdays prior to his layoff. Shortly thereafter Bassett moved to the second shift at A. O. Smith but was uncertain whether this move was due to a partial layoff or because he requested it. In any event he worked on the second shift receiving a pay differential until just after he was reinstated by Respon- dent Mansion House Management. His testimony is uncontradicted that within the first 2 weeks of his layoff, he applied for work at three security agencies and filed employment applications with them. He testified that during that period he visited one of them (Whalen) at least twice more after hearing rumors of a new contract and that they would be hiring. Bassett testified that he contacted these three agencies once or twice a week during his layoff, called the other security agencies listed in the phone book on various occasions during that period, and answered newspaper ads for guards. During his phone contacts he would explain that he had a regular full-time job and wanted a part-time job that could range up to 40 hours a week, but was never offered a job. He stated he understood a number of the security agencies looked with disfavor on employees working for them as a second job. 687 Respondent Remsco indicated it felt Bassett's transfer to the second shift at A. O. Smith cast doubt on whether he was really seeking a job. Bassett testified that he could have worked a day shift for a security agency as. he did when he first returned to the Mansion House complex before transferring back to the first shift at A . O. Smith so he could work the second shift at the Mansion House complex. Respondent Remsco offered no testimony that Bassett at any time withdrew from the part-time job market or that he failed to search for work. The testimony demonstrates he continually sought work throughout the backpay period although such search was unsuccessful. The only testimony offered in this area by Respondents was a witness called by Respondent Central Parking who was a director of personnel for the Wells Fargo Security agency and had held this position since March or April 1972 until the date of the hearing. He testified in general that his company has a large percentage of turn-over in guards each month and that he is continuously advertising for and hiring people for full-time and part-time jobs. The specific undenied testimony of Bassett concerning his search for work far outweighs this general testimony which is not even contemporary as to the time when work was sought by Bassett and the other discriminatees. I find and conclude that William Bassett throughout the backpay period was in, and remained in, the market for part-time employment in the same manner in which he had been employed by Respondent Mansion House Manage- ment and that his search for work was adequate. I therefore conclude and find that Bassett is due, backpay in the net amount of $4,422.40 plus interest as more specifically set forth in Appendix A, attached to this decision. C. Herbert Lee Cavitt Cavitt testified that when he first went to work for Respondent Central Parking at the Mansion House complex, his primary job was with a grocery warehouse as a warehouseman. This warehouse closed around October 10, 1971, and thereafter his sole job was at the Mansion House complex until he was laid off in January 1971. He then sought work with several security agencies and sought guard work with a number of the large companies in St. Louis such as General Motors, Chrysler, Wagner, Emer- son, and McDonnell Aircraft. He also sought work at various grocery warehouses in the area, and sought a warehouseman's job through the Teamsters hiring hall but was unsuccessful. For a number of months prior to his layoff Cavitt was taking a home study course with an "over-the-road truck- driver" training school, and took a three week "behind-the- wheel" course at the school from February 21 through March 13, 1971. This period was deleted by the amend- ment to the backpay specification as a time when Cavitt was unavailable for work. When he returned from the school, Cavitt sought work as a truckdriver, which would ordinarily pay more than a guard position. During the first 688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD part of April 1971, he found such a job and from then on his intenm earnings exceeded his gross backpay. Respondents offered no direct testimony regarding Cavitt's search for work but merely cross-examined him in that regard. I conclude and find that Cavitt was in the employment market for the period of time set forth in the backpay specification as amended, and made an adequate search for employment. I conclude and find that Herbert Cavitt is due backpay in the net amount of $572 plus interest as more specifically set forth in Appendix B, attached to this Decision. D. Robert Farr Robert Farr testified his job at the Mansion House complex was his only job and after being laid off he immediately began calling other security agencies for work and got a job with Patton Security Inc. around January 25, 1971. He continued to be employed by Patton until the beginning of October 1971, when he quit because of a changed job assignment. Farr, who is 59 years old testified that he was switched from a job he enjoyed at the Washington Hotel, which required him to patrol the eight floors of the building and the outside parking lot , to a job at an insurance building downtown . The new job, which he remained on only a short while, required patrol of 12 floors of one side of the building and eight floors (mostly warehouse space) on the other side within an hour. Farr protested that there was not enough time to do the job and asked to be transferred . He was told that the only available other jobs would pay less than what he was getting, which was the same amount he had received from Respondent Mansion House Management. Farr said he could not live on less and quit and sought other employment. Within 2 or 3 weeks Farr secured a job with Sentry Security Agency, Inc., to patrol the exterior of three companies, Tennessee-North Carolina Truck Line, South- west Body, and Churchill Truck Line. He testified that he lived about eight blocks from the location of the three companies and drove his car there and sometimes patrolled the area on foot, and at other times drove his car around the area. While so employed his car quit running and he quit the job because he felt too much walking would be involved. This would have been all outside work during the winter. In contrast his job at the Mansion House complex involved an hour's patrol of the complex which would have been partly outside and partly inside the four -block-long and two-block-wide structure. In about 1 week Farr got a job with Security Forces, Inc., where he worked from November or December 1971 to the first part of January 1972. He testified that this Company promised him full-time work but the amount was reduced until he was working only 2 or 3 days a week. When the Company did not give him full-time employment , he quit to seek a full-time job and shortly got a job as the security man for the George Washington Hotel where he had previously worked for Patton Security Inc. He remained at the George Washington Hotel until he was offered and accepted reinstatement by Respondent Mansion House Management. Respondent Remsco takes the position that Farr 's job at Patton Security was somewhat comparable to his employ- ment at the Mansion House complex and that he should have kept such job and that backpay should be limited to the intenm amount he lost before securing that job . Respon- dent Remsco asserts that Fan quit several other jobs after that without having any job waiting for him and that backpay over and above the first quarter should be denied. There is nothing in the record to indicate how long this job at the insurance building would have lasted. There is no contention by Respondent Remsco that Farr did not diligently seek work during the periods he was out of work or that he left the job market . It appears from the testimony that the amount of patrolling to be done at the insurance company building of 12 floors on one side and 8 on another within an hour is considerably in excess of the duties Farr had at the Mansion House complex or at the George Washington Hotel and that he had sufficient grounds to leave Patton's employ when they refused to transfer him to another job at the same pay rate. Farr left the employ of Sentry Security because his car broke down and he did not want to continue patrolling the exterior of the three companies on foot without the convenience of his car. Despite the seeming imprudence of not continuing his job until he could effect repairs on his car, we must consider that in order to get to this job Farr would have had to walk eight blocks there, patrolled the exterior of the three locations for 8 hours and then walked back home. This would have meant that during the winter of 1971-72, Farr a 59-year-old man of slight stature, would have been exposed to the elements for some 9 or 10 hours each day with no chance of getting in his car to get warm or relieve his feet. Farr worked at this job as long as he had a minimum of personal comfort in that he was able to get out of the weather by using his car despite not being compensated for its use. Under these circumstances I consider his reasons for quitting , while not the most judicious, at least reasonable, and I would not penalize him in any manner for leaving this job and seeking another position. Farr's next employment was with Security Forces, Inc., which promised him a full-time , 40-hour-week position. When he found he was only working 2 or 3 days a week, he left and apparently within a few days secured work at the George Washington Hotel at a rate roughly equivalent to that which he had been making at the Mansion House complex. Having determined that Farr had sufficient reason to leave each of these three interim jobs , I will not penalize him for so doing by cutting off any part of his backpay period. I therefore conclude and find that Robert Farr is due backpay in the net amount of $1,547 . 10 plus interest, as more fully set out in Appendix C, attached to this decision. MANSION HOUSE CENTER MANAGEMENT CORP. 689 E. Fred Hahn Mrs. Lenora Hahn testified that her husband, who died November 5, 1972, immediately began searching for work after being laid off on January 14, 1971, by telephoning security agencies such as Gateway, Security, and Whelan. His job at the Mansion House complex was his only job. She stated he made numerous phone calls in answering newspaper ads for guards which she brought to his attention. He got a temporary guard job with Gateway for the month of February 1971. Mrs. Hahn named a number of places where Mr. Hahn continued to look for work. She said he continued to answer newspaper ads and secured a job with Whelan Security beginning in April. In either the last part of the third quarter or at the beginning of the fourth quarter of 1971, Mr. Hahn became physically unable to work. Respondent Remsco said it was satisfied that Hahn made an adequate search for work , but Respondent Central Parking said it felt Hahn did not "diligently search out available work in a timely fashion" basing this statement on its conclusion that Hahn would have found work sooner if he had read the daily newspapers. It next claims that Hahn did not seek out work but rather waited for Whelan Security to give him work. Its conclusions are contrary to Mrs. Hahn's uncontradicted testimony and have no factual basis. I conclude and find that Fred Hahn made a diligent search for work, and did not remove himself from the labor market until his illness. I further conclude and find that backpay in the net amount of $965.14 plus interest is due the estate of Fred Hahn, as more fully set out in Appendix D, attached hereto. F. King Davis Hollifield Hollifield was first employed by Whelan Security in 1968 for a guard job with TWA and when TWA moved its offices to one of the tower buildings at the Mansion House complex, Hollifield worked there from 9 p.m. until 6 a.m. 5 days a week. After a while, he began working for Respondent Mansion House Management 2 days a week and testified, rather confusedly, that this grew from 2 to 5 days a week so that while working a full shift for TWA, he also worked for Respondent Mansion House Management from 12 p.m. until 8 a.m. so that there was overlapping time at least 3 days a week. Hollifield testified that when his assigned hours overlapped he would get someone to take his place on the TWA job for the overlapping hours. He also testified that during 1970-71 he had a third job which was cleaning up the interior of a fried chicken restaurant. When he was off, Hollifield said, he would trade work time with other guards and sometimes would be sent to the telephone company or other locations by Whelan Security. Sometimes he paid other guards to cover his shift. It appears from his testimony that Hollifield worked a great number of hours each week. When he was laid off by Respondent Mansion House Management in 1971 , Hollifield stated he continually sought employment both with security agencies-and with various manufacturers such as Scullin Steel Co. where he had been employed until 1965 as a coremaker . He filed an application there and continued to seek a job there throughout the backpay period. Hollifield testified..,that from the start of his layoff until he was offered reinstatement he kept notes of the places where he either applied for work in person or where he telephoned seeking work. When he was first questioned by an NLRB agent regarding computation of his backpay, he gave the agent the name of only six or seven places where he had sought work. Several months later he took the shoebox full of notes and copied it into a single list which was offered in evidence. This list consists of some 15 pages of dates, company names, addresses, and telephone numbers, some of which have a notation that he called but others have no notation. Hollifield testified that on the dates listed, he either telephoned or personally visited the listed company, seeking employment. Hollifield further testified that during the time he was laid off he was unable to find any other employment although he sought it including asking for extra employ- ment during the day from Whelan Security. From the description of Hollifield's activities while he was employed by Respondent Mansion House Manage- ment, it is clear that replacing that job would be most difficult since he was then working a great number of hours each week. Hollifield's demeanor did not inspire great confidence that the list of job applications which he presented was an accurate reflection of what he had done. However, his past work history indicating that he worked two or three jobs would seem to demonstrate that he was an ambitious man who sought a lot of work. In the absence of any evidence to show that Hollifield did not make an adequate search for work or that he took himself out of the job market , I credit his testimony and find that Hollifield remained in the labor market and made an adequate search for employment . I therefore conclude and find that K. D. Hollifield is due net backpay in the amount $5,395.20 plus interest as more fully set out in Appendix E, attached hereto. G. Paul Mintner As noted heretofore, the parties are in agreement that Paul Mintner made an adequate search for employment and did not remove himself from the labor market and that the backpay specification is correct. I conclude and find that Paul Mintner is due net backpay in the amount of $409.60 plus interest as more fully set out in Appendix F, attached hereto. RECOMMENDED ORDER 1 On the basis of the findings and conclusions set forth above it is hereby ordered that Respondent Central I In the event no e4ceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. I 690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Parking, Respondent Mansion House Management and Respondent Remsco, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, pay the discriminatees listed below the amounts set opposite their names, plus interest as prescribed, as backpay, making normal deductions for income tax and social security benefits. Norman L. Adams William Bassett Herbert Cavitt Robert Farr Fred Hahn K. D. Hollifield Paul Mintner -0- $4422.40 $ 572.00 $1547.10 $ 965.14 $5395.20 $ 409.60 MANSION HOUSE CENTER MANAGEMENT CORP 691 APPENDIX A NAME BASSETT, WILLIAM SOCIAL SECURITY NO. 490-26-8701 A. CALENDAR WEEKS AND GROSS NET INTERIM NET QUARTER PAY RATE BACKPAY EARNINGS BACKPAY 1971-1 11 @ $69.10 $760.10 NONE $760.10 1971-2 13@ 69.10 898.30 NONE 898.30 1971-3 13@ 69.10 898.30 NONE 898.30 1971-4 13@ 69.10 898.30 NONE 898.30 1972-1 13@ 69.10 898.30 NONE 898.30 1972-2 1@ 69.10 69.10 NONE $69.10 Total Net backpay $4,422.40 B. CALENDAR INTERIM GROSS TRAVEL AND NET INTERIII QUARTER EMPLOYER EARNINGS EXPENSES EARNINGS NO INTERIM EMPLOYMENT APPENDIX B NAME CAVITY, HERBERT SOCIAL SECURITY NO. 494- 36-3073 A. CALENDAR QUARTER 1971-1 1971-2 1971-3 1971-4 1972-1 WEEKS AND PAY RATE 8@ $71.50 13 @ 71.50 13 @ 71.50 13 @ 71.50 GROSS NET INTERIM BACKPAY EARNINGS NET BACKPAY $572.00 NONE 929.50 $1,205.79 929.50 1,444.51 929.50 1,444.51 NOT AVAILABLE FOR EMPLOYMENT Total Net Backpay $572.00 NONE NONE NONE $572.00 692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. CALENDAR QUARTER INTERIM EMPLOYER GROSS EARNINGS TRAVEL AND - EXPENSES NET INTERIM EARNINGS 1971-2 J. S. Alberici Constr. Co. St. Louis, Mo. $1,205.79 NONE $1,205.79 1971-3 Schwerman Trucking Co. 1,444.51 NONE 1,444.51 1971-4 SAME 1,444.51 NONE 1,444.51 APPENDIX C NAME FARR, ROBERT SOCIAL SECURITY NO. 490-14-5584 A. CALENDAR QUARTER WEEKS AND GROSS PAY RATE BACKPAY NET INTERIM EARNINGS NET BACKPAY 1971-1 11 @ $84.71 $ 931.81 $ 533.OU $398.81 1971-2 13 @ 84.71 1,101.23 1,116.00 NONE 1,101.23 1971-3 13 @ 84.71 1,101.23 956.00 145.23 1971-4 13 @ 84.71 1,101.23 383.00 717.83 1972-1 13 @ 84.71 1,101.23 816.00 285.23 1972-2 1 @ 84.71 84.71 352.00 Total Net Backpay $1,547.10 B. CALENDAR QUARTER INTERIM G EMPLOYER E ROSS TRAVEL AND ARNINGS EXPENSES NET INTERIM EARNINGS 1971-1 Patton Security, St. Louis, Mo. $ 533.00 NONE $ 533.00 1971-2 SAME 1,116.00 NONE 1,116.00 1971-3 SAME 956.00 NONE 956.00 1971-4 Sentry Security, St. Louis , Ho Security Forces, 2511.40 St. Louis , Mo. 132.00 NONE 383.40 MANSION HOUSE CENTER MANAGEMENT CORP. 693 1972- 1 Security Forces $176 .00 NONE George Wash . Hotel 640.00 NONE $816.00 1972-2 SAME 352.00 NONE 352.00 APPENDIX D NAIE HAHN, FRED SOCIAL SECURITY NO. 494-03-6366 A. CALENDAR WEEKS AND GROSS NET INTERIM NET QUARTER PAY RATE BACKPAY EARNINGS BACKPAY 1971-1 11 @ $106 . 82 $1,175 . 02 $587 . 20 $587.82 1971-2 13 @ 106.82 1,388.66 1,084 . 00 304.66 1971-3 13 @ 106.82 1,388.66 1,316.00 72.66 1971-4 UNAVAILABLE FOR EMPLOYMENT 1972-1 UNAVAILABLE FOR E14PLOYIIMT Total Net Backpay $965.14 B. CALENDAR INTERIM GROSS TRAVEL AND NET INTERIM QUARTER EMPLOYER EARNINGS EXPENSES EARNINGS 1971 - 1 Gateway Security, St. Louis , Ho. $403.20 Whelan Agency, St. Louis , .40. 184.00 NONE $587.20 1971-2 Whelan Agency 1,084 . 00 NONE 1,084.00 1971-3 SAME 1,316.00 NONE 1,316.00 694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX E N :-iE FIOLLIFIELD, K. D. SOCIAL SECURITY NO. 426-44-7728 A. CALENDAR QUARTER WEEKS AND PAY PATE GROSS BACKPAY NET INTERIM EARNINGS NET BACKPAY 1971- 1 11 @ $84.30 $927.30 NONE $927.30 1971-2 13 @ 84.30 1,095 . 90 NONE 1,095.90 1971-3 13 @ 84.30 1,095.90 NONE 1,095.90 1971-4 13 @ 84.30 1,095 . 90 NONE 1,095.90 1972-1 13 @ 34.30 1,095.90 NONE 1,095.90 1972-2 1 C 34.30 $84.30 NONE 84.30 Total Net Backpay $5,395.20 B. CALENDAR QUARTER INTERIM EMPLOYER GROSS EARNINGS TRAVEL AND EXPENSES NET INTERIM EARNINGS NO INTERLI E:1PLOYIENT APPENDIX F NAME MINTER, PAUL SOCIAL SECURITY NO. 479-09-8094 A. CALENDAR QUARTER WEEKS AND PAY RATE GROSS BACKPAY NET INTERIM EARNINGS NET BACKPAY 1971-1 3 . 2 @ $128 $409.60 NONE 409.60 TOTAL NET BACKPAY $409.60 B. CALENDAR QUARTER INTERIM EMPLOYER GROSS EARNINGS TRAVEL AND EXPENSES NET INTERIM EARNINGS NO INTERIM EMPLOYMENT