Honda of Mineola

HONDA OF MINEOLA Two Wheel Corp. d/b/a Honda of Mineola and Amalgamated Local Union 355. Cases 29-CA- 3991 and 29-CA-3991-2 October 20, 1977 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND MURPHY On June 16, 1975, the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and Order in the above- entitled proceeding' finding, inter alia, that Respon- dent had violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by discriminatorily discharging employees Glenn Musa- no, Stewart Lilker, Robert Siegfried, David Kocivar, Thomas Dodge, Dario Ardito, and Albert Antonsen. The Board ordered that they be reinstated and made whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against them.2 On April 21, 1976, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its judgment 3 enforcing the Board's Order. Thereafter, on Decem- ber 30, 1976, the Regional Director for Region 29 issued and served on the parties a backpay specifica- tion and notice of hearing. Respondent filed an answer on January 25, 1977. On April 14 and 15, 1977, a hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Marvin Roth for the purpose of determining the issues and amounts of money due under the backpay specification. 4 On June 23, 1977, Administrative Law Judge Marvin Roth issued the attached Supplemental Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions 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,5 and conclusions of the Administra- tive 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 the Respondent, Two Wheel Corp. d/b/a Honda of Mineola, Mineola, New York, 233 NLRB No. 19 its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. I 218 NLRB 486(1975). 2 The Board found that Antonsen was not entitled to reinstatement as he was a temporary employee whose employment was to cease in September 1974. However, the Board ordered that he be made whole for any loss of earnings from the date of his unlawful discharge until such time as Respondent would have lawfully terminated his employment. 3 542 F.2d 1165. 4 At the hearing, Respondent withdrew its answer to the backpay specification as to Antonsen. 5 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products. Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MARVIN ROTH, Administrative Law Judge: This case was heard at Brooklyn, New York, on April 14 and 15, 1977, based on a backpay specification issued on December 30, 1976, for purposes of resolving a controversy over the amount of backpay due Glenn Musano, Stewart Lilker, Robert Siegfried, David Kocivar, Thomas Dodge, and Dario Ardito under the terms of the Board's Order issued on June 16, 1975 (218 NLRB 486, enfd. per curiam 542 F.2d 1165 (C.A. 2, 1976)).1 The Board found that Two Wheel Corp. d/b/a Honda of Mineola (herein called the Company or Respondent) had discriminatorily terminated each of the employees, thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The Board issued, in pertinent part, a conventional reinstatement and backpay order. The princi- pal issue concerns the projected gross earnings which the six employees would have made if working for the Company during the backpay period, absent the discrimi- nation against them. Additionally, an issue has been raised as to the termination date of the backpay period. The Company does not contend that the employees failed to make an adequate effort to obtain interim earnings, or that they otherwise willfully incurred loss of earnings. There- fore, no issue is presented as to the computation of interim earnings. All parties were afforded full opportunity to participate, to present relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Upon the entire record in this case 2 and from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and having considered the briefs submitted by General Counsel and the Company, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. The Backpay Period The backpay period for the employees begins on the dates of their respective terminations during the period of At the hearing the Company withdrew its answer to the specification with respect to a seventh discnminatee, Albert Antonsen, and subsequently paid the amount of backpay computed to be due Antonsen. 2 Certain errors in the transcript herein have been noted and corrected. 81 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD August 24 through September 1, 1974. General Counsel contends that the backpay period for Kocivar ends on March 10, 1975,3 the date on which he returned to work, and for the remaining employees on March 15, the day following the last date which the Company gave them to accept its offer of reinstatement. The Company contends that the backpay period for Lilker, Kocivar, and Siegfried ends on February 24 (without indicating any reason for this date), and for Dodge, Ardito, and Musano on March 3, when the Company first offered them reinstatement. On March 3, the Company sent identical telegrams to each of the seven discriminatees, offering them reinstatement and directing them to contact Company President Morris Zagarek " ONLY, within 72 hours," in order to arrange their return to work. The offer was invalid under Board law, because it did not allow them a reasonable period of time in which to decide whether they wished to accept the offer. Southern Household Products Company, Inc., 203 NLRB 881, 882-883 (1973). On March 7, the Company sent a letter to each of the employees, extending to March 14 the time in which they could notify the Company if they wished to return to work. General Counsel does not contend that this was an unreasonable period of time. Under Board law, "backpay is tolled on the date of actual reinstatement, on the date of rejection; or in the case of those who did not reply on the date of the last opportunity to accept." Southern Household Products, supra at 882. Therefore, the specification is correct as to the backpay period. B. The Company's Economic Defense The Company's principal contention is that the specifica- tion overstates the amount of gross backpay because, according to the Company, there was not sufficient work for the employees during the backpay period, which the Company further contends, was coextensive with its own off-season period. In further explication of its position, the Company contends that most of the incumbent individuals stated in the specification to be comparable employees for backpay purposes, are not comparable for various reasons, i.e., they were supervisory or managerial personnel, or senior to the discriminatees, or enrolled under a Veterans Administration training program, or because of a combina- tion of these asserted reasons. It is settled law that in backpay proceedings the burden is on the Respondent to establish such economic defenses to the backpay formula used by the General Counsel in the specification. Mastro Plastics Corporation and French-American Reeds Manufac- turing Co., Inc., 136 NLRB 1342, 1346 (1962), enfd. 354 F.2d 170, 175 (C.A. 2, 1965), cert. denied 384 U.S. 972 (1966). In support of its position, the Company presented the testimony of only one witness, Company President Morris Zagarek, and some documentary evidence. No corrobora- tive witnesses were presented, although on various points which were significant to the Company's position such corroboration would seem to have been called for. For example, Zagarek was demonstrably unfamiliar with the 3 All dates herein refer to the period from August 1974 through March 1975, unless otherwise indicated. Company's gross payroll records (or alleged records), but the person who prepared or maintained such records was not called as a witness. (Zagarek testified that one "Angelo" in the accounting department had compiled the figures contained in the summary sheets which the Company presented in evidence.) Zagarek testified that his wife Esther handled the paperwork and discussions concerning the Company's VA training program, but she was not called to testify about that matter. Zagarek also made sweeping generalizations about the alleged superviso- ry or managerial status of certain comparable individuals named in the specification, which he was unable to support by specific facts. However, supervisors who would be as familiar or more familiar than Zagarek with the duties of such individuals, e.g., his son Phillip, or Harry Wachter, were not presented as witnesses. The absence of such corroboration looms large when Morris Zagarek's credibili- ty, or lack of credibility is considered. In the unfair labor practice case, the Administrative Law Judge found that Zagarek was not a reliable witness, and declined to credit his testimony where it conflicted with that of other witnesses. I have arrived at a similar appraisal. Zagarek repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to testify to anything, no matter how incredible or even absurd, if he thought it might mitigate backpay. His testimony on various material matters was repeatedly contradicted by himself, his records, the evidence and findings in the unfair labor practice case, or the inherent implausibility of his testimony. For example, Zagarek categorically testified that no employee had received an hourly increase of more than 25 cents during the entire period of September 30, 1973, to March 31, 1975. After being confronted with company records which showed that some 15 employees had received raises ranging from 50 cents to $ per hour in 1974, many of which were in the late summer and early fall of 1974, following the termination of the discriminatees, Zagarek retracted his previous testimony. Zagarek also categorically testified that his work force, which allegedly reached a peak of 40 during the busy season, which he described as being from March to August, was reduced to less than 50 percent of its size during the backpay period, and that this same proportionate reduction took place in each of the departments in which the discriminatees had worked (sales, service, and parts). Zagarek added that only the less senior employees were laid off. He further testified that this reduction of 50 percent or more invariably took place every year, beginning in September. However, in the unfair labor practice case the Board found, on the basis of the Company's own contentions, that the Company normally reduced its work force by one-third to 40 percent, and not 50 percent as found by the Administrative Law Judge. The Judge found (and the Board affirmed these findings), that when, on August 28 (i.e., during the peak season), the Union 4 and the Company discussed the Union's demand for recognition based on signed authori- zation cards, and specifically discussed the composition of a bargaining unit, the Company presented a list of 23 personnel, including the three Zagareks and Supervisors Harry Wachter and Ted Port. As the Union was attempt- ' Amalgamated Local Union 355, the Charging Party herein. 82 HONDA OF MINEOLA ing to demonstrate majority support on the basis of nine cards, and the Company was decidedly opposed to unionization, it may fairly be inferred that if the Company had any basis for showing a larger unit, it would have done so.5 Musano had been discriminatorily discharged on August 23. During the period from August 29 to September 1, the Company terminated seven employees, including the six remaining discriminatees. 6 Only four of the discrimina- tees were told that they were being laid off for lack of work, and one, Siegfried, who worked in the service department, was ostensibly terminated for refusing to work overtime. In fact, as found by the Board, all seven employees were actually terminated because of their union sympathies and activities. Thereafter, as found by the Administrative Law Judge, the Company hired new full-time and part-time employees, including one full-time employee in the parts department, in October, two full-time employees in the service department, on September 21 and October 12, respectively, and one full-time employee in the sales department, on September 14.7 In fact, no employee was laid off for lack of work during the backpay period. Employees who left were replaced. Indeed, in December, almost at the nadir of the off-season, Zagarek terminated parts department employee Kenneth Ruppel, who was working full time and in excess of 40 hours per week, because he was unwilling to work even longer hours. As for Zagarek's definition of the busy and off-seasons, the Company in its brief impliedly conceded this to be an exaggeration, stating that the Company's business declined "in the late fall and winter months." In fact, as credibly testified by Ruppel, the Company's busy season depended mainly on the weather, and continued through September and October if the weather was warm.8 As to seniority as a basis for alleged but nonexistent layoffs, Zagarek testified otherwise in the unfair labor practice hearing. Zagarek admitted that on July 23, 1974, he informed the Company's employees that "continuing employment will be based on seniority, productivity, aptitude and general attitude." Moreover, as found by the Administrative Law Judge in the unfair labor practice case, the Company informed its employees that it had a policy which was designed to minimize or eliminate any need for economic layoffs. Specifically, the employees were in- formed that the Company operated under a 3 to 2 formula, whereby for each 3 hours of work during the busy season, the employees were guaranteed 2 hours of work during the slow season.9 In contrast to the testimony of Zagarek, I have no reason to question the credibility of the witnesses 5 The Administrative Law Judge found, on the basis of the nine cards and a 10th which it subsequently obtained, that the Union enjoyed a majority status (10 cards in a unit of 18 employees). as of September 3, and he issued a Gissel bargaining order. 6 The seventh, Steven Dyroff, also alleged as a discriminatee, was deleted from the complaint on motion of General Counsel because of his failure to appear or cooperate. 7 As indicated by the Company's payroll records, the new hires referred to above were David Lew (parts), Jay Wilkner and Robert Janelli (service), and Marc Frantham (sales). John Ryan and Barry Riffle were hired as part- time employees in sales on August 26 and September I I, respectively. 8 General Counsel attached to its brief, temperature statistics maintained by the National Weather Service at Kennedy Airport, which indicated, in sum, that cold weather conditions set in about November 15. The Company has not disputed, and I have no reason to question the accuracy of these statistics. Therefore, I am takingjudicial notice thereof. presented by General Counsel. In view of the foregoing evidence, including Zagarek's demonstrated lack of veraci- ty, and the conspicuous absence of testimonial corrobora- tion of the Company's case, I have not, unless otherwise indicated, credited Zagarek's testimony as to any disputed matter, or the contents of the self-serving alleged records which the Company presented in evidence, except to the extent that such testimony and documents contain admis- sions against interest or are corroborated by other, more probative evidence. C. The Discriminatee Claimants I. Glenn Musano Musano worked in the parts department. General Counsel's projection of gross backpay is based on the average weekly adjusted hours of incumbent parts depart- ment employees Mark Schmidt and Kenneth Ruppel until Ruppel's termination on or about December 20, and thereafter on Schmidt's adjusted weekly hours.'0 In its answer, the Company contended that Schmidt and Ruppel were not comparable employees because Schmidt was allegedly managerial or supervisory, and because both were allegedly senior to Musano. The Company contends that Greg Wolf, who was hired shortly after Ruppel's termination, and who worked for the Company for about 3 weeks, is a comparable employee. The Company failed to present any evidence to show that Schmidt was managerial or supervisory. Zagarek admitted that Harry Wachter managed the parts department, which consisted of two to five employees." In fact, the Company's supervisory and managerial personnel during the backpay period consisted of Morris Zagarek, who personally managed the sales department, his son, Phillip, who managed the service department, his wife, Esther, who managed the office, Wachter, and Ted Port, manager of the mail room. In view of the small size of the Company's work force, it is unlikely that the Company would have maintained a larger managerial or supervisory complement. Additional evi- dence in this regard will be discussed in connection with the service and sales department employees. As for Ruppel, he was junior to Musano. Ruppel worked for the Company from September to December 1973, when he quit to take another job. Ruppel returned to the Company in June 1974 as a new employee. Musano began with the Company on 9 In view of my findings, infra with respect to the individual discrimina- tees. I have not found it necessary to determine whether and to what extent the Company actually carried out this 3 to 2 formula. Indeed, the terminations in August would have made it unnecessary for the Company to resort to such a formula. However, the Administrative Law Judge's findings concerning the formula, together with other evidence, including the absence of economic layoffs during the backpay period, demonstrates that, absent the discrimination against them, it is unlikely that the discriminatees would have been laid offduring the backpay period. so That is. "adjusted" to credit 1-1/2 hours for each hour worked above 40 hours per week. I I The Administrative Law Judge noted, in the unfair labor practice case, that in their meeting on August 28 the Union opined that Schmidt was a supervisor, but the Company disagreed. The Administrative Law Judge tentatively included Schmidt in the unit. 83 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD May 30, 1974, and worked continuously until his termina- tion.'2 Moreover, as indicated, the Company did not follow seniority in layoffs, and also attempted to spread the work among its employees during the off-season. Therefore, I find that Schmidt and Ruppel are appropriate comparable employees. The remaining question is whether backpay should be reduced on the theory that the injection of Musano into the work force would have proportionately reduced the working hours of each of the parts department employees. I find this approach to be without merit in the circumstances of this case. As indicated, the Company's busy season probably extended to about mid-November. The Company found it necessary to hire David Lew, who worked full time in the department in late October and early November. Any diminution of backpay following the termination of Ruppel would plainly not be warranted, for as indicated, Ruppel was not terminated for lack of work, but rather because he was not willing to put in enough overtime to satisfy the Company. That leaves in question a period of about 5 weeks from mid-November to mid-December. However, throughout the backpay period, Manager Wachter was consistently working well in excess of 50 hours per week. Additionally, according to Zagarek, he and his son were each regularly devoting 90 hours per week to various facets of the business. It may fairly be inferred that these managerial personnel performed some of the work which had previously been performed by Musano. I find the specification to be correct as to Musano. 2. Stewart Lilker and Robert Siegfried Lilker and Siegfried worked in the service department. General Counsel's projection of gross backpay is based on the average weekly adjusted hours of incumbent service department personnel Robert Maroglio, David Baldasara, Jeff O'Donnell, and Jay Wilkner, when they were fully employed. The Company contends that the first three were not comparable employees because allegedly, Maroglio was managerial or supervisory, and Baldasara and O'Donnell were employed in an apprenticeship program which precluded their layoff or reduction below a 40-hour workweek. The Company contends that Wilkner and Robert Janelli, who were hired on September 21 and October 12, respectively, were comparable employees. From April 14 to August 16, 1974, the service depart- ment, in addition to Phil Zagarek, contained three employees (Lilker, Siegfried, and Maroglio). Baldasara, who was hired on August 16, became the fourth depart- ment employee. Within a month of the unlawful termina- tions of Lilker and Siegfried, the department returned to a complement of four employees with the addition of Wilkner and O'Donnell. O'Donnell had originally been hired by the Company on April 1, 1974, before Lilker but after Siegfried. Baldasara was replaced by Janelli, who worked until the end of November. Thereafter, there were three employees in the department until January 25, when a fourth, one Doyno, was hired, and all four (Maroglio, O'Donnell, Wilkner, and Doyno) continued to work 12 Similarly, the fact that employee David Lew had worked for the Company in 1973 did not make him senior to Musano. Lew worked in the parts department for about 3 weeks in October and November. through the balance of the backpay period. All of the employees during the backpay period worked full time; i.e., usually at least a 40-hour week. In short, except for the brief period of time it took to replace Lilker and Siegfried, the department never dropped below its peak season complement of three employees, and during most of the backpay period there were four employees. Morris Zagarek testified that he appointed Maroglio as shop foreman, effective September I, and subsequently promoted him to "plant manager" in January, when Doyno allegedly became manager of the service depart- ment. Zagarek explained away his son Phillip by testifying that he had only been the "acting" service manager. Zagarek never did explain what Maroglio did after September 1 that he had not done before, or why it was necessary to create a new supervisory position for a department with one remaining employee, or to create yet another supervisory position, in January, both positions having been created during what Zagarek characterized as the slow season. Zagarek's facile production of a self- serving memorandum concerning Maroglio's alleged ap- pointment in August, was similar to his production of another questionable memo in the unfair labor practice case, with reference to the unlawful terminations. As indicated, I find that Phillip Zagarek supervised the service department, and that there were no other supervisory or managerial personnel in the department. As for Baldasara, he was never enrolled under the VA apprenticeship training program. Baldasara testified in the unfair labor practice case, on November 13, that he had been hired by Zagarek to work under the program but that "it didn't go" and that he never started under the program. At that same hearing, Zagarek testified that Baldasara was the only employee working under the program. In the present hearing Zagarek produced a form of agreement which purported to cover O'Donnell under the program. However, the document indicated that O'Donnell began working on October 5, 1974, but that his program was not registered with and approved by the New York State Department of Labor, which administers such programs, until April 10, 1975, well after the backpay period. Moreover, I find the Company's arguments to be without merit for several additional reasons. First, as O'Donnell came into the department after Lilker and Siegfried were terminated, and, indeed, replaced one of them, the Company cannot utilize this or any similar program as a shield to immunize itself against backpay liability. Second, the number of employees in the department during the backpay period, and their hours' of work, discussed above, indicate that O'Donnell probably would have been work- ing full time, whether or not he was enrolled under a training program. Third, as testified by Henry Witte, area supervisor of the program, apprentices are expected to work 40 hours per week if work is available, but the employer cannot be compelled to give them work which he does not have. Indeed, the form agreement covering each apprentice expressly states on its face that "Layoff for lack of work does not require an advance notice." ' 3 t3 Consequently. I do not credit the uncorroborated testimony of Zagarek that Department of Labor auditors (conveniently unidentified by name) told him and his wife that the program required a minimum of 40 84 HONDA OF MINEOLA In sum, I find that Maroglio, Baldasara, O'Donnell, and Wilkner, when fully employed, were appropriate compara- ble employees. I further find, upon consideration of the foregoing evidence, including the size of the service department and the working hours of incumbent personnel during the backpay period, that the average weekly adjusted hours of the comparable employees constitute an appropriate standard for computing the gross backpay of Lilker and Siegfried. 3. David Kocivar, Thomas Dodge, and Dario Ardito From June 8 until the unlawful terminations, the sales department consisted of Kocivar, Dodge, Ardito, and William Dowling. Dowling was a part-time employee, but worked full time in the summer during July, August, and early September. Thereafter he worked on a part-time basis (ranging from 6 to 26 hours per week) through the backpay period. The three discriminatees were full-time employees. On September 14, the Company hired Marc Frantham as a full-time sales employee. Richard Saunders began working as a full-time sales employee on or about October 21, and Frantham was terminated at the end of the same week because Zagarek was dissatisfied with his work. Saunders continued until about January 11, and about 2 weeks later he was replaced by Bruce Lederer, who worked as a full- time employee through the balance of the backpay period. John Ryan and Barry Riffle were hired on August 26 and September 11, respectively, and continued to work on a part-time basis throughout the backpay period. Their combined weekly hours ranged from a low of 18 hours to a high of 51 hours, and totaled more than 40 hours during 10 of the 27 weeks of the backpay period commencing with the week ending September 14. One Schultz worked 54 hours in sales during the week ending August 31, and thereafter worked part time for 7 of the next 8 weeks. One Signoli(?) worked 25 hours during the week ending August 31. Together the working hours of these part-time employ- ees (excluding Dowling) were approximately equal to two- thirds of the hours put in by each of the full-time employees discussed above, the ratio being greater in October and March, but less during most of the winter weeks. In addition, the Company employed other full-time sales help at various times during the backpay period. One Schrock worked 6 weeks and part of a seventh week, one Lowe a total of about 3 weeks, one Gorry for 6 weeks and most of a seventh week, Jeff Gordon for 2 weeks and most of a third week, and John Malloy for 2 weeks. In sum, the hours put in by these five employees were roughly equivalent to that of one full-time employee during three- fourths of the backpay period. Overall, in terms of working hours, the three discriminatees were replaced in a ratio of slightly under 3 to 2-1/2 employees. hours' work per week. Indeed. Zagarek contradicted himself by subsequent. ly testifying that he never discussed the matter of less than 40 hours' work. Rather. I credit the testimony of Witte that his department normally informs employers that they may lay off apprentices for lack of work. The deregistration decision involving Teamsters Local 363, cited by the Company. did not involve any charges or findings concerning inadequate hours of work. General Counsel's projection of gross backpay is based on the average adjusted weekly hours of Frantham, Saunders, and Lederer, when they were fully employed, and for the first 2 weeks of the backpay period, on the average weekly hours worked by the discriminatees in the prediscrimination period from April through August 1974. General Counsel contends that Dowling is not a compara- ble employee because of his part-time status. I agree. In its answer, the Company asserted that Saunders and Lederer were not comparable because they were managerial or supervisory. Thereafter, apparently recognizing some in- herent inconsistency in this position, Zagarek in his testimony broadened this assertion to encompass Frant- ham. Zagarek made sweeping assertions concerning the alleged supervisory or managerial responsibilities of these short-term employees, which he was unable to support by specific evidence. His recitation of their actual duties indicated that those duties were of a routine nature and no different than those performed by other sales department personnel. Frantham was paid less than Kocivar, and Saunders the same as Kocivar. In the unfair labor practice case, the Company had unsuccessfully attempted to prove that Kocivar was a supervisor or management trainee; i.e., a contention similar to that made in the present case with respect to the replacements. I find incredible Zagarek's testimony that these new hires, including one who was ostensibly not qualified, had to direct Dowling, who had been working for the Company for over a year, in the specifics of his work. I find it equally incredible that Frantham would have recommended that Dowling be replaced, or that Zagarek would have taken such a suggestion seriously had it been made. In sum, I find that Frantham, Saunders, and Lederer are comparable employ- ees for backpay purposes. I further find no basis for diminution of gross backpay. Although, as indicated, the discriminatees were replaced in a ratio of approximately 3 to 2-1/2 employees when viewed in terms of hours worked, the inference is warranted, and I so find, that Morris and Phillip Zagarek performed some of the work which had been previously performed by the discriminatees. There- fore, I find the backpay specification to be correct in the computation of gross backpay. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 14 Respondent, Two Wheel Corp. d/b/a Honda of Mineo- la, Mineola, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make whole Glenn Musano, Stewart Lilker, Robert Siegfried, David Kocivar, Thomas Dodge, and Dario Ardito, by paying them the amount set forth below opposite their name, plus interest thereon accrued to the date of payment at the rate of 6 percent per annum 14 In the event no exceptions 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. 85 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Robert Siegfried Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), less tax withholdings David Kocivar required by Federal and state Law: Stewart Lilker Thomas Dodge Glenn Musano $4,075.00 Dario Ardito 86 3,275.17 5,362.50 2,754.75 4,509.25 1,731.00