Castleman and Bates, Inc.

CASTLEMAN AND BATES, INC 785 Castleman and Bates, Inc and Robert J Shillinsky, Ernest W Lagasse, Jr, and Francis I Redman Local 17, Sheet Metal Workers International Associa- tion, AFL-CIO and Robert J Shillinsky, Ernest W Lagasse, Jr, and Francis I Redman Cases 1-CA- 7879-1, 1-CA-7879-2, 1-CA-7879-3, 1-CB- 1887-1, 1-CB-1887-2, and 1-CB-1887-3 June 14, 1976 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On November 28, 1972, the National Labor Rela- tions Board Issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding l finding, inter aha, that Respondent Local 17, Sheet Metal Workers Interna- tional Association, AFL-CIO, caused Respondent Castleman and Bates, Inc, to discharge Robert J Shillinsky, Ernest W Lagasse, Jr, and Francis I Redman in violation of Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended The Board also found that by acquiescing in such action Respondent Castleman and Bates, Inc, violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended The Respondents were directed to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action to remedy such unfair labor practices, including an order directing the Re- spondents to jointly and severally make whole the Charging Parties for their losses resulting from the Respondents unfair labor practices On October 29, 1973, Respondent Employer en- tered into a stipulation of compliance in which it agreed to deposit with Region 1 of the Board 50 per- cent of the lost wages for the period May 8, 1971, through September 7, 1971 According to the stipula- tion, this payment absolved Respondent Employer of any further backpay liability for the period unless the Board was unable to collect the remainder Liability for the period after September 7, 1971, was to be determined following enforcement of the Board's Or- der By an order dated January 31, 1974, and amend- ed on February 13, 1974, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dismissed the applica- tion for enforcement upon the motion of the Board On May 7, 1974, pursuant to the stipulation of com- pliance, the court of appeals entered its consent judg- ment against Respondent Union, enforcing the back- pay provisions of the Board's Order On July 22, 1975, the Regional Director for Region 1 issued backpay specifications, alleging that the proper date for termination of backpay liability is February 15, 1972, and on August I 1 and August 20, 1975, Respondent Union and Respondent Employer respectively filed their answers Upon appropriate notice issued by the Regional Director, a hearing for the purpose of determining the amounts of backpay due the Charging Parties was held on October 6, 7, and 8, 1975, before Administrative Law Judge Sid- ney J Barban On February 6, 1976, the Administrative Law Judge issued the attached Supplemental Decision Thereafter, the Charging Parties filed exceptions and a supporting brief ,2 and the Respondent Union filed a brief in answer 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 main issue determined by the Administrative Law Judge was the proper termination date of the backpay period for the Charging Parties under the Board's Decision and Order In arriving at Septem- ber 7, 1971, as the date upon which Respondents' backpay liability terminated, the Administrative Law Judge found that he was unable to determine with absolute certainty when each of the three Charging Parties would have been terminated absent discrimi- nation He therefore held that the Respondents and agents of the Board, after reviewing all the circum- stances, agreed upon September 7, 1971, as the termi- nation point of the backpay period The Administra- tive Law Judge further held that where such agreements have been made they should not be over- turned unless it can be shown that they were, or have become, repugnant to the purposes of the Act Since neither the General Counsel nor the Charging Parties showed that the agreed-upon date was clearly wrong or inconsistent with the purposes and policies, he ac- cepted the September 7 date We believe that the standard relied on by the Administrative Law Judge is clearly improper The record evidence adduced at the hearing shows that none of the parties contended that September 7, 1971, was the proper termination date Rather than basing his decision on the objective evidence as presented at the hearing, the Administra- tive Law Judge placed principal reliance on the stipu- lation of compliance entered into by the Respondent Employer and the General Counsel This reliance so colored the Administrative Law Judge's determina- tion that he failed to evaluate other objective evi- dence in order to arrive at a proper formula for the 2 Charging Parties have requested oral argument In view of our dispose tion to remand the proceedings to the Administrative Law Judge for further consideration this request is presently denied without prejudice to its being ' The original Decision and Order is reported at 200 NLRB 477 renewed at a later date 224 NLRB No 101 786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD termination date of backpay Accordingly, we shall remand this proceeding to Administrative Law Judge Sidney J Barban to reevaluate the record evidence or take additional testimony if need be in order to de- termine the proper termination date of the backpay period for each of the Charging Parties and the amount due each of them in light of our determina- tion herein ORDER It is hereby ordered that this proceeding be, and it hereby is, remanded to Administrative Law Judge Sidney J Barban for the purpose of reevaluating the evidence or reopening the record for a further hear- ing, if he deems necessary, to adduce additional evi- dence concerning the proper termination date of the backpay period for Robert J Shilhnsky, Ernest La- gasse, Jr, and Francis I Redman together with the amounts due them IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proceeding be, and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Director for Region 1 for the purpose of arranging such further hearing, if deemed necessary by the Administrative Law Judge, and that the Regional Director be, and he hereby is, authorized to issue notice thereof IT IS ALSO FURTHER ORDERED that, upon the conclu- sion of such further proceedings, the Administrative Law Judge shall prepare and serve on the parties a Second Supplemental Decision containing findings of fact upon the evidence received, conclusions of law, and recommendations, and that following ser- vice of the Second Supplemental Decision on the parties, the provisions of Section 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, shall be applicable SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE SIDNEY J BARBAN, Administrative Law Judge This mat- ter was heard at Providence, Rhode Island, on October 6, 7, and 8, 1975, upon a backpay specification dated July 22, 1975, as amended at the hearing, issued pursuant to an Order of the National Labor Relations Board directing the Respondents to take certain affirmative action to effectu- ate the purposes of the Act See 200 NLRB 477 (1972) (as amended by Order dated November 19, 1972) Answers duly filed by the Respondent Company, Castleman and Bates, Inc (herein C & B) and Respondent Union, Local 17, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL- CIO (herein the Union) controvert the allegations of the specification and raise issues set forth hereinafter Upon the entire record in this case,' from observation of i On November 20 1975 after the close of the hearing counsel for the the witnesses and their demeanor , and after due consider- ation of the briefs filed by the General Counsel, C & B, the Union, and the Charging Parties,2 I make the following FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I THE ISSUES The main issue to be determined in this proceeding is the proper termination date of the backpay period for the Charging Parties under the Board's Decision and Order The backpay specification , as amended, alleges that this date is February 15, 1972 General Counsel contends that the Board in its Decision found the Charging Parties enti- tled to backpay at least until that date Respondents contend that the asserted finding of the Board relied on by General Counsel is not, in fact, a find- ing on the backpay issue , but an indefinite statement refer- ring to only two unspecified Charging Parties C & B con- tends that in order to avoid further litigation , it negotiated a settlement of its backpay obligation with representatives of the Board "which terminates its backpay liability as of September 7, 197[1]," and that, alternatively, the backpay period should properly terminate on May 12, 1971, 5 days after the Charging Parties were discharged C & B further contends that this proceeding should be dismissed because of alleged actions of Board representatives described as "manifestly deceptive, dilatory and lacking in the most ba- sic notions of decent and honest dealing " (C & B brief p 1) The crux of this latter complaint appears to be that by issuing the backpay specification in this proceeding, the Board violated "the understanding [of the parties] that the liability of the Company was terminated upon compliance with the compliance agreement entered into " (C & B brief p 6), C & B contending that it complied fully with its agreement with the Board The Union contends that the backpay period terminated on September 1, 1971, or at a minimum when the Union advised C & B that the Union had no objection to the employment of the Charging Parties Counsel for the Charging Parties asserts that the back- pay period for Robert J Shillinsky terminated January 11, 1973, for Francis I Redman on October 30, 1972, and for Ernest W Lagasse, Jr, on November 28, 1971 The Charging Parties also contend that they are entitled to payment for certain interim expenses during the back Charging Parties submitted certain material to be included in the record (For convenience of the parties I have marked this communication and enclosures as ALJ I ) By letter dated December 8 1975 (marked ALJ 2) 1 requested the position of the other parties on this motion By letter dated December 12 1975 (marked ALJ 3) Respondent C & B objected to the motion By letter dated December 15 1975 (marked ALJ 4) counsel for Charging Parties replied Having fully considered the motion and the objec Lion and the record in this matter I find that the motion must be rejected I am including these communications in the record as formal papers and not as evidence of the facts contained therein 2 Respondent C & B objected to counsel for Charging Parties participat ing in the hearing because the Board s Rules and Regulations do not pro vide for such participation This objection was overruled and Charging Par ties were permitted to intervene and participate Charging Parties objected to Respondents answers being received into the record because they were not served on the Charging Parties This was denied because the Board s Rules and Regulations do not provide for such service CASTLEMAN AND BATES INC 787 pay periods and that provision should have been made for certain insurance and pension payments which C & B was obligated to make in their behalf II THE BACKPAY PERIOD A The Board's Decision As set forth in the Board's decision, C & B, which had a bargaining agreement with the Union, discharged the Charging Parties, who were not union members, on May 7, 1971 C & B had hired three union members, Francis Riley, Paul Horner, and Chester Aldrich, dust prior to that date and 5 days thereafter hired two more union members, Hugh Moore and Paul Hassell General Counsel contend- ed that the Union had permitted C & B to employ the Charging Parties only so long as union members were not available, and that C & B had discharged them in response to pressure from the Union when members became avail- able for employment The Respondents denied this conten tion As stated by Administrative Law Judge Klein,' (200 NLRB at 479) "Respondents deny that the Union had any role in causing the discharges According to Respondents, the Charging Parties were terminated solely because they were not `qualified' or competent to perform the work available after April 28 " In support of this contention, as set forth by the Administrative Law Judge, "Dumas [C & B's superintendent] testified that by May 4 he had defi- nitely decided to discharge the Charging Parties for their lack of qualification for the work then available (200 NLRB at 480, 481 ) The Administrative Law Judge further stated, `Respondents attempted to show that [the Charging Parties] were not fully `qualified journeymen' and were knowledgeable only in limited and relatively easy phases of the work " (200 NLRB at 481) The Administrative Law Judge finally held, discrediting Dumas, that C & B's con- tention that the Charging Parties were discharged "because they were not qualified for the work available is unsupport- ed by any credible evidence ' In addition, the Administra- tive Law Judge credited the Charging Parties' testimony that Dumas told them that they were being let go because of pressure from the Union (and apparently discredited Dumas' testimony that this was "essentially a white lie"), and also that Dumas told them that "the discharges were not because of any deficiency in their work and that he was very sorry to see them leave ' The Administrative Law Judge further found, "In effect the three nonunion Charg- ing Parties were replaced by four union members [appar- ently Aldrich, Horner, Hassell, and Moore] who had dust become unemployed " 4 As remedy for the discrimination against the Charging Parties, the Administrative Law Judge recommended, and 3 All page references to the prior decision unless otherwise noted are to the ALJ opinion adopted by the Board with minor comment and modifica Lion at 200 NLRB 477 (1972) 4 Notwithstanding the above C & B in this hearing sought again to show through Dumas that the Charging Parties were not fully qualified and were knowledgeable only in limited and relatively easy phases of the work and absent their discriminatory termination by the Company would have been replaced 5 days after their actual discharge by Hassell and Moore who were hired on May 12 This issue will be considered hereinafter the Board agreed, that "the Company and the Union be held jointly and severally responsible for loss of wages suf- fered by the Charging Parties between May 8 and such time, if any, as their employment with C & B would have been terminated absent the discrimination herein found " (200 NLRB at 484 )5 The Administrative Law Judge also stated, as part of the remedial provisions of the Decision accepted by the Board C & B generally hires sheetmetal workers on a per- manent basis In hiring the Charging Parties, Dumas gave no indication that they were to be employed only temporarily As of the time of the hearing [February 10, 11, and 14, 1972], there were in C & B's employ two employees [Hassell and Moore] who had been hired after the Charging Parties Thus, it is reasonable to assume that, absent the discriminatory discharges, at least two of the Charging Parties would have con- tinued in C & B's employ Accordingly, C & B will be ordered to offer the Charging Parties reinstatement to the extent that there would have been jobs available absent the discrimination (200 NLRB at 484 )6 B The Negotiations for Compliance The evidence in this case indicates fairly active negotia- tions between C & B and agents of the Board with respect to two matters court enforcement of the Board s Order in this case, and C & B's compliance with the Board's Order It would appear from the papers received in evidence that C & B was informed in early 1973 that if it did not contest enforcement proceedings, no further action would be nec- essary on its part other than "actual compliance with the Board's Order " (Exhs 3 and 4 attached to C & B's answer to the specification) Eventually, in January 1974, the Board withdrew its application for an enforcement order against C & B, stating to the Court "the Board and the Company have reached an amicable settlement of the mat- ter and Respondent Castleman and Bates is complying with the Board's Order in a manner satisfactory to the Board, thus dispensing with the necessity of further litiga tion against the Company at this time 7 During this period C & B and agents of the Board en gaged in discussion of terms of compliance that would ob- viate the necessity of further hearing About March 20 1973, Board agents submitted a written Stipulation of Compliance to C & B which provided, in essence, that C & B agreed to deposit 50 percent of the amount of backpay 'to be determined by the Region in the manner described in the Board's Order,' and to pay the entire amount if the Union failed to pay its share under the Board Order, unless the order was denied enforcement by the Court C & B contends that it agreed to this, but it seems clear that a signed copy of this March 20 Stipulation was not returned to the Board A later Stipulation of Compliance, dated Oc- t C & B and the Union were also held responsible for pay lost by the Charging Parties on April 26 and 27 but that is not a matter at issue here ' It is on the basis of this statement that General Counsel contends that all three Charging Parties were entitled to backpay until February 15 1972 when the hearing before Administrative Law Judge Klein had concluded 7 It appears that the Board secured a consent Judgment enforcing its Or der against the Union 788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tober 29, 1973, referred to hereinafter, was executed and returned to the Board On May 12, 1973, attorneys for C & B met with Board agents in an effort to determine C & B's obligation for backpay under the Board's Order It seems that the main problem then, as in the present proceeding, was the deter- mination of the proper cutoff date for the backpay period Respondent's counsel, Dupre, testified that the Board agents and C & B finally thereafter agreed upon September 1, 1971 (later advanced to September 7, 1971), as an ac ceptable compromise of their varying contentions Thus, on June 18, 1973, the Board's Regional Office submitted to C & B the amounts which the Regional Office asserted were due each of the Charging Parties computed to Sep- tember 1, 1971, and requested that C & B remit the amounts stated Thereafter, C & B and the Region had continuing discussions as to the accuracy of the computa- tions On August 23, 1973, the Regional Office acknowl- edged the validity of some of C & B's objections to the original computations and submitted recomputations of the amounts due to each of the Charging Parties computed to September 7, 1971 In the Stipulation of Compliance dated October 29, 1973, and executed by C & B and the Board, the agents of the Board appear a little ambivalent about the September 7 cutoff date, but in a later letter to counsel for Charging Parties, the Region is firm as to that termination date The October 29 Stipulation of Compliance provides, in perti- nent part 3 In order to terminate its liability under the Board's Order for the period up to and including Sep- tember 7, 1971, the Company hereby agrees to deposit with Region One fifty percent (50%) of the lost wages and interest for that period [as determined by the Re- gion] Payment of such sum will absolve the Company of liability for any further backpay for that period, unless the Board is unable to collect the remainder due from the Union for that period As for any lost wages and interest due and owing for the pert od after September 7, 1971, the Region shall de termme the Company's liability following enforce- ment of the Board's Order if the Board's Order is denied enforcement the Company is not entitled to reimbursement of any monies deposited with the Region pursuant to this stipulation, but would be ab- solved of liability for payment of the remainder of backpay This stipulation does not preclude the Company from contending in any subsequent back- pay proceeding, in an effort to offset any Company liability for the period after September 7, 1971, that for the period between May 8, 1971, and Septem- ber 7, 1971, the Company should be held liable for only two of the three charging parties However, on December 16, 1974, in answer to objections by counsel for the Charging Parties as to the September 7 cutoff date, the Region responded in pertinent part as fol- lows We understand that it is your position that the back- pay period for the charging parties should operate from May 8 , 1971 to February 7, 1972, where- as both Respondents agreed to the backpay computa- tions for them based upon the backpay period from May 8 1971 to September 3, 1971 (sic) but not be- yond that date These computations were contained in my letter dated August 23, 1973, a copy of which was designated for you Our investigation established the correctness of our back pay dates as contained in the last mentioned letter and, accordingly, a Settlement Agreement was proposed for both Respondents to sign and we concluded that it could be taken over the objections of the charging par ties who would then have the right to appeal such an agreement [Emphasis supplied ] It appears that we are faced with two alternatives in these cases either to effectuate a Settlement Agree- ment which you could appeal or proceed to a backpay hearing regarding the duration of the backpay period as delineated above There is case law reflecting that a charging party can introduce evidence to amend the General Counsel's backpay specifications [citation] The difficulty encountered in these particular cases is that the Board's Rules and Regulations are silent as to the rights of the charging parties who have a dis- pute concerning backpay computations and therefore wish to proceed to a backpay hearing , although Sec- tion 102 52 of the Board's Rules and Regulations clearly indicate that a Respondent can obtain a formal hearing Consequently, in an effort to resolve these matters, the Regional Director has referred these cases to the Board's Division of Advice in Washington, D C As soon as we are informed as to their decision in these matters, we shall notify you While the General Counsel did not in this proceeding present the basis on which the Region "established the cor- rectness" of the September 7 cutoff date in the August 23 letter, an abstract of C & B's payrolls shows that after the first week in September 1971, the Company's work force was reduced Thus, prior to the hire of the Charging Par- ties, on April 28, the Company's employee complement in 1971 ranged from a total of 9 to a total of 13 After the Charging Parties were hired, the employee complement ranged from a high of 18 in 1 week to a low of 15 in the last week in August (the employee total was 16 for 13 out of 19 weeks in this period) From this point on, into 1972, the employee complement was 13 or less , except for 6 weeks in late September and in October when the total employees ranged from 14 to 15 8 The Union apparently executed a Stipulation of Compli- ance similar to that agreed to by C & B General Counsel agrees that both C & B and the Union deposited the sums agreed with the Region and the Region has distributed them to the Charging Parties 8 These totals lump together C & B employees working in the company shop with those working on projects in the field Many if not most of these however worked in both areas and in any event the totals tend to indicate the Company s business activity during these periods CASTLEMAN AND BATES, INC 789 Based upon the above and the entire record, I am con- vinced that Respondents did arrive at an agreement with agents of the Board that September 7, 1971, should be the date upon which their backpay liability terminated, and that the Respondents have complied with that agreement It is further quite clear to me that the Regional Office nev- ertheless felt compelled to issue the Backpay Specification in this proceeding because of concern that the Charging Parties, who were raising objections to the agreed cutoff date, were entitled to a hearing on those objections In order to accomplish this the Region seems to have felt it was required to seek a greater remedy than that agreed upon with Respondents This may have been caused by the fact that the Board's Rules and Regulations do not provide a method by which a charging party may get a hearing in these circumstances, but, as this case illustrates, it is not a satisfactory procedure 9 C Other Alleged Cutoff Dates C & B asserts that during its discussions with Board agents concerning compliance with the Board's Order, it argued that the Charging Parties had only a limited work competence, that they were hired because of a temporary increased need for workers in the shop, that it was intend- ed that they would be released when more competent workers were available, and that they would have been let go on May 12, when Hassell and Moore, allegedly more competent, were hired C & B also argued that, based on the findings of Administrative Law Judge Klein (set forth above), only two of the Charging Parties should receive backpay to September 7 These positions were largely abandoned in the Stipulation of Compliance, as set forth hereinabove They are reasserted here as alternatives to the Company's basic contention that it negotiated a settlement of its liability under the Board's Order on the basis of a September 7 cutoff date, and that the Board was not justi feed in reneging on that agreement The Union contends that at a minimum, if the cutoff dates contended for by C & B are rejected, its liability should not extend beyond October 29, 1971, or June 14, 1972, when the Union advised C & B that it had no objec- tion to the employment of the Charging Parties Counsel for the Charging Parties contends that the back- pay period for Robert Shillinsky runs from May 8 to Janu- ary 11, 1973, the latter date being the occasion when C & B offered Shillinsky reemployment, that the backpay period for Francis Redman runs from May 8, 1971, to October 30, 1972, "because it is more than likely that Hassell would have continued beyond February 15, 1972, if he had not left of his own volition",10 and that the backpay period for Ernest Lagasse runs from August 1971 to November 28, 1971, the latter date being "selected because records 9 I believe it is also quite evident that the references to the possibility of a hearing in the October 29 Stipulation of Compliance to determine post September 7 liability were inserted due to the objections of the Charging Parties to the agreement not because there was any doubt as to the agree ment on September 7 as the cutoff date 10 Hassell one of the employees who replaced the Charging Parties quit C & B on January 21 1972 and was rehired in January 1973 Counsels reference to October 30 as Redman s cutoff date is unclear indicate that the third employee who replaced him was laid off on November 28, 1971 " 11 D Conclusions as to the Backpay Period Based upon the entire record in this case, and after full consideration of the contentions of all the parties, I con- clude that the most appropriate cutoff date for the backpay period is September 7, 1971 It is impossible to determine with absolute certainty when each of the three Charging Parties "would have been terminated absent the discrimi- nation " However, the Respondents and agents of the Board, after reviewing all of the circumstances, agreed upon September 7, 1971, as the termination point of the backpay period In order for the Board to effectively do its work, particularly in the area of compliance with Board orders, it must be able to negotiate with and secure agree- ment from the parties on a variety of issues Where such agreements have been made they should not be overturned unless it can be shown that they were clearly wrong, or the circumstances of the case indicate that the agreements reached were, or have become, repugnant to the purposes of the Act In this proceeding the indications are that the agreement reached accepting September 7 as the termination date for backpay was rationally based, in view of all of the circum- stances It has been noted that there were objective grounds for concluding that C & B cut down its work force about that time It was not unreasonable to determine that, at that time, the Charging Parties would have been released while Hassell, Moore, and Aldrich were retained Thus Horner, one of the employees who replaced the Charging Parties, was let go on September 1, 1971 In coming to this conclusion, I do not rely on Dumas' testimony as to the relative qualifications of the various employees I was no more impressed with his credibility than was Administrative Law Judge Klein I do not accept his testimony that the Charging Parties would have been released on May 12, 1971, when Hassell and Moore were hired Respondents abandoned this claim when they made their agreement accepting the September 7 date The pay- roll figures support that cutoff date rather than May 12 And I am convinced that the findings required to support the earlier date would be inconsistent with the Board's findings and conclusions in the prior case However, I do accept the basic thrust of C & B's contention that in a normal cutback of forces-which I find occurred about September 7-and absent discriminatory pressure, Hassell and Moore would be preferred over the Charging Parties In accepting the September 7 cutoff date I have also fully considered Administrative Law Judge Klein's finding, relied upon by General Counsel, that absent the discrimi- natory discharges it would be reasonable to assume that at least two of the Charging Parties would have continued in C & B employ until February 1974 I note, however, that this finding was not made in connection with setting a cut- " Chester Aldrich who was hired on May 4 1971 was terminated on November 28 Francis Riley hired on April 29 1971 was terminated the same day However Paul Horner one of the union members who Adminis trative Law Judge Klein found had replaced the Charging Parties was let go on September 1 1971 790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD off for the backpay order-that had previously been done on another basis-but as establishing a basis for the rein- statement order As such the Board may well have consid- ered that it was not critical, and therefore did not disturb it, even if, in fact, an exception was actually filed attacking this finding (In argument before me it was indicated that no exception was filed because the finding was not consid- ered significant) In any event, for the purposes of back- pay, which is the only issue before me, I believe that the finding cannot withstand the subsequent agreement of the Board agents with Respondent that the Charging Parties would have been let go-absent discrimination-about September 7, 1971 I find that neither General Counsel nor the Charging Parties have shown that the September 7 date agreed upon was clearly wrong or inconsistent with the purposes and policies of the Act However I do not find, as Respondent C & B argues, that the Regional Office engaged in any improper conduct in the negotiations with Respondents for compliance with the Board's Order, or in the agreements with Respondents for compliance with the Board s Order, or for enforcement of that Order, or in issuing a backpay specification, which gave the Charging Parties an opportu- nity for a hearing on their objections to the settlement of the issues See, e g, Journeymen Plasterers Protective and Benevolent Society of Chicago, Local No 5 (John P Phillips Plastering Co, Inc), 145 NLRB 1608 (1964) I am not so sure that General Counsel should have proceeded by a backpay specification inconsistent with the prior agree- ments with the Respondents, but the Board's Rules and Regulations may have given General Counsel no alterna- tive The Board, as a result of this case, may want to pro vide a procedure for participation of Charging Parties in compliance proceedings In any event, I find C & B's charges against the Board agents not supported by the rec- ord, and must be rejected III TRAVEL EXPENSES , HEALTH AND WELFARE AND PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS 1 Travel Expenses The record shows that during the backpay period up to September 7, 1971, the Charging Par- ties were compelled to drive longer distances to their inter- im employment than was necessary to work at C & B During this period the excess mileage was as follows Shil- linsky-64 miles per day for 77 days, Redman-66 8 miles per day for 77 days, Lagasse-69 miles per day for 77 days The computations upon which the Stipulation of Compli ance was based do not reflect that the Charging Parties were given credit for these additional expenses as they should At the rate of 10 cents per mile, the Charging Par- ties are entitled to be recompensed as follows Shilhn- sky-$492 80, Redman-$514 36, Lagasse-$531 30 2 Pension and Insurance Contributions During the pe riods material to this proceeding, C & B was a party to a collective bargaining agreement covering the work for which the Charging Parties were employed, which con- tained the following provisions (as read into the record) [a] The parties of the first part [Including C & B] shall pay to the Sheet Metal Workers' (Local Union 17) Insurance Fund of Rhode Island for all hours used in travel or hours worked between 8 00 a in to 4 30 p in (with one-half hour for lunch) by members of the par- ty of the second part [the Union], and shall pay to said fund for all hours actually worked between the hours of [8 a in and 4 30 p in ] the amounts as follows 15 cents per hour, effective October 1969, 20 cents per hour, effective April 1, 1970, 25 cents per hour, effec tive April 1, 1970, 25 cents per hour, effective April 1, 1971, 36 cents per hour, effective February 1, 1972 (b) The parties of the first part shall pay to the Sheet Metal Workers' (Local Union 17) Pension Fund of Rhode Island for all hours used in travel and for all hours actually worked the amounts as follows 15 cents per hour, effective October 1, 1969, 20 cents per hour, effective October 1, 1970, 25 cents per hour, ef- fective September 1, 1971, 35 cents per hour, effective February 1, 1972 It is, of course, well established that fringe benefits of the sort we are here considering are part of the compensation of employees and for the purposes of backpay under Board orders are considered wages See, e g , Artim Transportation System, Inc, 193 NLRB 179 (1971), Local Union 29, Brick layers' Masons' and Plasterers' International Union AFL- CIO (M L Masonry Co, Inc), 203 NLRB 506 (1973) The record contains no explanation as to why the contributions under C & B's bargaining agreement were not included in the Regional Office's backpay computations for the Charg- ing Parties On the other hand, there is no indication that the Charging Parties ever brought this to the attention of the Regional Office as part of its objections to the settle- ment with Respondents There may be many reasons tor the Regional Office's failure to include this item It may be that under the rules of the trust funds, these employees were not eligible Cf Service Roofing Company, 200 NLRB 1015 (1973) The difficulty here is that the Charging Par- ties, who raised this particular objection, did not present it in a fashion that would make it possible to find what Re- spondent C & B's obligation is as to this matter For exam- ple, under the bargaining agreement, C & B's obligation is to make certain contributions for each hour worked or traveled Charging Parties not only failed to produce any evidence as to hours worked or traveled, but did not even suggest a formula by which this factor could be obtained At no time did Charging Parties make any computation as to this or any other item of objection 12 In order to present objections to a backpay specification, a charging party should, at least, be required to be as defi- nite, precise, and complete as a respondent is compelled to be in responding to such specification Charging party 12 None of the computations supplied by any party so far as I can de termine is based on hours worked by the Charging Parties The Charging Parties did work 77 days during the backpay period but there is no mdica Lion of how many hours CASTLEMAN AND BATES, INC should also be required, in these circumstances, to serve the other parties with a written statement of its objections in advance of the hearing But, under the present state of the Board's Rules and Regulations, I cannot fault Charg- ing Parties for this last omission Nevertheless, the Charg- ing Parties have clearly failed to fully support their objec- tion on this item with sufficient proof to permit a finding, and I shall recommend that this objection be rejected On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu- sions, and the entire record in this proceeding, and pur suant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the follow- ing recommended ORDER 791 Respondent Castleman and Bates and Respondent Lo- cal 17, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO, and their officers, agents, representatives, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall jointly and severally pay to each of the individuals named below the amounts set opposite their names, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum computed in accordance with Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) Robert J Shillinsky $492 80 Francis I Redman $51436 Ernest W Lagasse, Jr $531 30