Sentry Armored Courier Corp.

52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Sentry Armored Courier Corporation and Charles Slates. Case 2-CA-18391 9 April 1985 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER AND DENNIS On 25 September 1984 Administrative Law Judge Leonard M. Wagman issued the attached supplemental decision based on a backpay specifi- cation issued 30 March 1984. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a statement in support of the judge's decision and in opposition to the Respondent's ex- ceptions. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order.1 The underlying amended complaint in this matter alleges in part that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by suspending Charging Party Charles Slates in September 1981 because he engaged in protected concerted activities. Presiding Administrative Law Judge James F. Morton, in his decision of 28 July 1983, found that the Respond- ent violated the Act in this regard and ordered that Slates be made whole for all losses he suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct. Judge Wagman, pursuant to the backpay specification at issue here, ordered that the Respondent pay Slates the sum of $2188 as reimbursement for lost wages resulting from the unlawful suspension.2 We adopt this por- tion of Judge Wagman's recommended Order, al- though we correct the backpay figure to be $2624.82, as amended at the hearing.3 The amended complaint further alleged that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act in December 1981 by unlawfully reporting to Slates' full-time employer (the New York City Transit Authority) that Slates was accepting sick leave pay from that employer while reporting for work for the Respondent. Judge Morton found that, as a result of the Respondent's actions in con- tacting the Transit Authority, that employer inves- tigated Slates' alleged misuse of sick leave and for- mally charged him with violating certain work rules. At the time the hearing before Judge Morton closed, the Transit Authority had not yet issued its ruling. Judge Morton found the lawfulness of the Respondent's report to the Transit Authority con- tingent on that disciplinary proceeding and, conse- quently, he "ordered that further proceedings will be held in abeyance with respect to the complaint allegation that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (4) of the Act by having given notice on De- cember 8, 1981 to the New York Transit Authority . . . ." Judge Morton did not conclude that the Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(4) of the Act as alleged, nor did he order that the Respondent make Slates whole for any losses he may have suf- fered as a result of the Transit Authority's proceed- ings.4 On 20 September 1983 the Board, in the ab- sence of exceptions, adopted the recommended Order of Judge Morton.5 The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, by unpublished Order dated 14 February 1984, enforced the Board's Decision and Order.6 As a result of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Transit Authority, Slates was suspended for 30 days. The backpay specification alleges that Slates is entitled to reimbursement for lost wages resulting from that suspension and for attorney's fees incurred by Slates in defending the Transit Authority's charges.7 On the basis solely of this backpay specification, Judge Wagman construed the Transit Authority's ruling under the standards established by Judge Morton and stated: "I find that Respondent's violation of Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act, which caused Slates' 30-day suspen- sion from . . . the Transit Authority warrants issu- ance of the appropriate remedial order . . . ." Ac- cordingly, the judge ordered that the Respondent pay Slates $2860 as backpay and $4500 as reim- bursement for the legal fees mentioned above. Judge Wagman further ordered that the Respond- ent cease and desist from retaliating against em- ployees because they file unfair labor practice charges with the Board and, further, that the Re- spondent post a notice containing language indica- tive of a finding that Section 8(a)(4) of the Act had been violated. For reasons stated below, we dis- agree with this portion of Judge Wagman's deci- sion and recommended Order. 1 The Respondent has requested oral argument The request is denied as the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties 2 Slates was reinstated on 20 January 1982 to his former position with the Respondent 3 No exceptions were filed with respect to this aspect of the case The judge used the figures from the amended backpay specification in the body of his decision, but inadvertently failed to use these figures in com- puting the amounts set forth in his Order 4 Further, we note that Judge Morton's recommended Order did not require that the Respondent cease and desist from engaging in conduct violative of Sec 8(a)(4) of the Act and the attached notice did not con- tain any language reflective of a finding that Sec 8(a)(4) of the Act had been violated b The Board's Order was unpublished 6 NLRB v Sentry Armored Courier Corp, No 84-4007 ' The Transit Authority's ruling was sustained on appeal by the New York City Civil Service Commission 275 NLRB No. 14 SENTRY ARMORED COURIER CORP. As stated in our recent decision in Earle Equip- ment Co., 270 NLRB 827, 828 (1984), Section 102.52 of the Board's Rules and Regulations au- thorizes the issuance of a backpay specification only: [a]fter the entry of a Board order directing the payment of backpay or the entry of a court decree enforcing such a Board order, if it ap- pears to the regional director that a controver- sy exists between the Board and a respondent concerning the amount of backpay due which cannot be resolved without a formal proceed- ing . . . . [Emphasis added.] Accord: Section 101.16 of the Board's Statements of Procedure. Judge Morton specifically held in abeyance any ruling on the complaint allegation that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act and, consequently, the Board at no time has ruled on that allegation. Thus, there has been no prior Board order or enforcing court decree requiring backpay (or legal fees) as reim- bursement for losses suffered by Slates as a result of his 30-day suspension from the Transit Author- ity. Accordingly, we find that the issuance of a backpay specification with respect to this aspect of the case was premature and that Judge Wagman's legal conclusions were inappropriate. We shall remand the case to Judge Morton and order that he conduct further proceedings as appropriate and prepare a second supplemental decision containing findings of fact, conclusions of law, credibility res- olutions where required, and recommendations, in- cluding a recommended Order, regarding the com- plaint allegation that the Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act as described above.8 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Sentry Armored Courier Corpora- tion, New York, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make whole Charles Slates by paying to him the sum of $2624.82 plus interest to be computed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977),9 until payment of all backpay is made, less the tax with- holdings required by Federal and state laws. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-cap- tioned proceeding be remanded to Administrative Law Judge James F. Morton for the limited pur- pose of making credibility determinations and making findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations concerning the conduct alleged 8 In light of our decision , we find it unnecessary to address any sub- stantive legal issues raised by the Transit Authority' s ruling 8 See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) 53 to have been engaged in by the Respondent in vio- lation of Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the judge shall pre- pare and serve on the parties a second supplemen- tal decision setting forth the resolution of such credibility issues, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations, including a recom- mended Order with respect thereto. Copies of such supplemental decision shall be served on all the parties, after which the provisions of Section 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations shall be applicable. SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION LEONARD M. WAGMAN, Administrative Law Judge. This supplemental proceeding is to determine if the Gen- eral Counsel is entitled to a remedial order providing backpay, legal fees, and other appropriate provisions covering the Respondent 's retaliation against Charles Slates for filing and pressing the original unfair labor practice charge in this case and also to determine the amount of backpay due Charles Slates because of the Re- spondent's unfair labor practices against him . I heard this case on June 18, 1984, at New York, New York, upon a backpay specification issued March 30, 1984, which was amended at the hearing, and the Respondent's answer re- ceived on April 30, 1984. All parties were afforded full opportunity to introduce evidence and to argue the issues on the record. Following the hearing, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs. On the record before me, my observation of the de- meanor of the witness, and after consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT A. Background On September 30, 1983 , the National Labor Relations Board adopted the Decision and Order of Administrative Law Judge James F. Morton in the original proceedings in this case, in which Judge Morton found that Respond- ent Sentry Armored Courier Corporation violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by suspending Charging Party Charles Slates be- cause he protested unsafe working conditions. By its De- cision and Order, the Board directed the Respondent to make Slates whole for all losses he suffered as a result of his unlawful suspension from September 30, 1981, until January 20, 1982. The Board ordered further proceedings with respect to the allegations that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (4) of the Act by notifying Slates' full-time employer, the New York City Transit Authority (the Transit Authority), that Slates had abused his sick leave by working for the Respondent on days when he had taken sick leave from his Transit Authority employment. This determination was held in abeyance pending a de- partmental disciplinary hearing before a Transit Author- 54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ity hearing officer on this matter. The Administrative Law Judge concluded that: ing out of the Transit Authority's proceedings against him. ... if Slates were involved, as Respondent asserts, in criminal activity vis-a-vis his use of sick leave with the Transit Authority, the Board should not lend its processes to immunize Slates from the con- sequences of such activity. On the other hand and as General Counsel urges, if Slates is held liable, at most, for violating Transit Authority work rules based on acts which do not constitute fraud, the Board should take appropriate remedial action against Respondent for having initiated that pro- ceeding for discriminatory reasons. I thus recom- mend that the Board defer its determination as to this last issue until the merits of the Transit Author- ity hearing is resolved by that forum. If the deter- mination there is made that Slates' conduct was in essence criminally motivated, the Board's holding in [Professional Ambulance Service, 232 NLRB 1141, 1150 (1977)] should be followed and the complaint allegation dismissed. Otherwise the principle set out in [Sure-Tan, Inc., 234 NLRB 1187 (1978), enf. as mod. 692 F.2d 592 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. granted U.S. Sup. Ct. (1983)] should control and an appro- priate remedial order issue thereon. That approach is also consistent with Board precedent where a re- medial order issued after an outside agency found no merit to a report given by it against an employee by her employer to discourage her union activities. In that event, the remedy should encompass reim- bursement of all legal expenses incurred by Slates in the defense of the Transit Authority charges. [Foot- notes omitted.] The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Cir- cuit, by Order dated February 14, 1984, enforced the Board's Decision and Order.' Thereafter, as stated above, the Regional Director for Region 2 issued a backpay specification and notice of hearing on March 30, 1984. The specification alleged that Slates' backpay arising from his unlawful indefinite suspension from September 30, 1981, to January 20, 1982, was $2188. It further alleged that lost wages resulting from his 30-day suspension from the Transit Authority totaled $4247. This amount included straight time amounting to $3146 and overtime amounting to $1101. Finally, the specification alleged that Slates was entitled to reimbursement of $4500 in attorney's fees which he in- curred in defending himself in the Transit Authority dis- ciplinary proceedings-' By its answer, the Respondent admitted the backpay period but challenged the Board's computation of gross backpay. The Respondent also denied that Slates' suspen- sion from the Transit Authority was attributable to the Respondent's unlawful conduct and therefore denied li- ability for Slates' loss of wages and attorney's fees grow- 1 The US Supreme Court affirmed the Board's policy in Sure-Tan, Inc v. NLRB, 104 S Ct 2803 (1984) 2 The backpay specification appendices setting forth the alleged amounts due Slates are attached as Appendixes A-1, A-2, A-3 B. Slates' Employment by the Respondent The Respondent hired Slates on December 16, 1980, as an armored car driver. He worked 3 days per week from that time until his indefinite suspension on September 30, 1981. The Respondent rehired Slates on January 20, 1982. The Board found Slates' suspension violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and directed the Respondent to make Slates whole for wages he lost because of this suspension. The Respondent's payroll records from December 28, 1980, to September 27, 1981, showed that Slates worked an average of 25.1 hours per week at a rate of $5.60 per hour.3 However, effective November 9, 1981, Respond- 3 Slates' payroll receipts prior to his suspension from pay period ending December 28, 1980, until September 27, 1981, reflect the follow- ing hours worked Pay Period Ending Hrs Worked Dec 28, 1980 33 50 Jan 4, 1981 23 25 Jan 11, 1981 2700 Jan 18, 1981 30 50 Jan 25, 1981 21 50 Feb 1, 1981 21 50 Feb 8, 1981 14 75 Feb 15, 1981 2200 Feb 22, 1981 3200 Mar 1, 1981 17 50 Mar 8, 1981 28 50 Mar. 15, 1981 1500 Mar. 22, 1981 4000 Mar 29, 1981 1900 Apr 5, 1981 2900 Apr 12, 1981 26 75 Apr 19, 1981 24 25 Apr 26, 1981 2300 May 3, 1981 22 50 May 17, 1981 23 25 May 24, 1981 2300 May 31, 1981 31 75 June 7, 1981 32 25 June 14, 1981 32 25 June 21, 1981 2500 June 28, 1981 24 75 July 5, 1981 25 25 July 12, 1981 16 25 Aug 2, 1981 16 75 Aug 30, 1981 30 25 Sept 6, 1981 28 25 Sept 13, 1981 28 25 Sept 20, 1981 24 25 Sept 27, 1981 2400 SENTRY ARMORED COURIER CORP 55 ent's armored car drivers began receiving a $7 hourly rate, which Slates would have received but for his un- lawful suspension. C. Slates' Employment by the New York City Transit Authority The Board adopted the following findings of Judge Morton: The New York City Transit Authority em- ployed Slates since 1964. He worked as a trackman spe- cialist at all times material, and continued to work at the Transit Authority throughout his suspension from the Respondent's employ. Transit Authority Administrative Manager Aubrey E. Abraham received a telephone call on December 8, 1981, from a man who gave him Slates' name and social security number and told him that Slates had worked for the Respondent while on sick leave from the Transit Authority. The Board also adopted Judge Morton's conclusions, drawn from the circumstances sur- rounding the telephone call, that the Respondent made the call in retaliation for Slates' filing and maintaining the original unfair labor practice charge in this case. The Board adopted Judge Morton's further findings of fact regarding the Transit Authority's response to the Respondent's telephone call Thus, he found that, follow- ing the call, the Transit Authority investigated Slates' al- leged misuse of sick leave, charged him with violating work rules and, after a disciplinary hearing, suspended him for 30 days because of his misconduct. As of the close of the hearing before Judge Morton, Slates' alleged violations of Transit Authority work rules had been heard, but the Transit Authority had not issued any deci- sion. The Board adopted Judge Morton's recommenda- tions that it defer the determination of whether Slates should be made whole for his loss of pay from the Tran- sit Authority and his costs in defending the Transit Au- thority disciplinary proceedings until issuance of the Transit Authority Trial Board decision. The Transit Authority Trial Board found Slates guilty of "Misconduct and/or Incompetence" in that he worked for the Respondent after requesting and being granted sick leave on February 20, March 13, May 13, July 29, and September 23, 1981, and did not notify the Transit Authority of his dual employment. The Transit Authority suspended Slates without pay for 30 days. Slates appealed the Transit Authority deter- mination to the New York Civil Service Commission which found no reversible error and affirmed the 30-day suspension. The record showed that Slates' 30-day suspension by the New York City Transit Authority resulted in his loss of 240 hours of straight time work at the hourly rate of 11.9175. The General Counsel failed to introduce any evidence supporting his claim for overtime wages. Therefore, I have subtracted that amount from the back- pay specification. Analysis and Conclusions A. The Backpay Resulting from Slates' Suspension by Respondent The Respondent's contentions are as follows: 1. The base period used by the Board to compute backpay was not appropriate because it did not provide for possible seasonal fluctuation which may have re- duced Slates' backpay. 2. After Slates' reinstatement, he worked only an aver- age of 15.14 hours per week. Therefore, it can reason- ably be assumed that Slates would probably have worked less than 25.1 hours per week during his suspen- sion by the Respondent. 3. The Board's computation should not include those hours which Slates worked for the Respondent while on sick leave from the Transit Authority. For the following reasons, I find no merit in the Re- spondent's contentions. Section 102.54(b) of the Board's Rules and Regulations requires that: As to all matters within the knowledge of the re- spondent, including but not limited to the various factors entering into the computation of 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 posi- tion as to the applicable premises and furnishing the appropriate supporting figures. Further, once the gross pay due was set out in the back- pay specification, the Respondent had the burden of es- tablishing affirmative defenses which would mitigate its liability. E.g., Southern Household Products Co., 203 NLRB 881 fn. 2 (1973). Here, the Respondent did not raise its first contention in its answer. Instead, it waited to raise this affirmative defense in its postheanng brief. Under the Board's poli- cies recited above, the Respondent's answer was insuffi- cient to raise its seasonal fluctuation contention. In any event, even if the Respondent's answer were deemed suf- ficient to raise this issue, the record contains no evidence to support this contention. Thus, Respondent failed to sustain its burden of proof. I find that the base period used by the Board was appropriate. ' The Respondent's second contention fails for the same reasons. Again, it was encumbent upon the Respondent to raise this defense in its answer and to sustain its burden of proof. The Respondent did not satisfy either of these requirements. Its answer contained no reference to a diminished workweek during the backpay period and there was no record' evidence showing that Slates would have worked less than 25.1 hours' per week during that time. Accordingly, I find that the 25.1 hourly average set out in the backpay specification is entitled to acceptance. The Respondent's answer to backpay specification did not raise Slates' misuse of 4 days of sick leave during the 34-week presuspension period as ground for diminishing his backpay by 4 days' pay. For nowhere in its answer did Respondent set out that defense, as required by 'Sec- tion 102.54(b) of the Board's Rules and Regulations. However, even if the Respondent's answer were deemed sufficient to raise this issue, I find no merit in,this con- tention. 56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In essence, the Respondent is urging that had he not used 4 days' sick leave from his employment at the New York City Transit Authority, Slates would not have been available to work for the Respondent on those occa- sions.4 The Respondent would have me subtract 31.25 hours from the 34-week period preceding Slates' unlaw- ful suspension by the Respondent. This would result in a similar reduction of hours in determining Slates' backpay for the period of his suspension. However, the Respondent's contention suffers from uncertainty. For it cannot be presumed that Slates would have continued to misuse sick leave. Slates was guilty of such conduct on only five,occasions scattered over a 34- week period. Further, there was no evidence showing how much sick leave Slates had accumulated at the Transit Authority. Nor was there any showing of why Slates resorted to the use of sick leave during his presu- spension employment by the Respondent. These gaps in the evidence cast doubt upon the Respondent's assump- tion that Slates would have misused his sick leave at the Transit Authority to obtain more work from the Re- spondent during the backpay period. However, under Board policy, I must resolve such doubt in Slates' favor, and find that he would have been available for work with the Respondent during the backpay period for the same amount of time as he was during the 34-week pre- discrimination period as reflected in the specification. United Aircraft Corp., 204 NLRB 1068 (1973). B. The Remedial Order and Backpay Resulting from Slates' Suspension by the New York City Transit Authority As found above, the New York City Transit Authority and the New York City Civil Service Commission deter- mined that Slates' misuse of sick leave constitued "Mis- conduct and/or incompetence." Absent from their find- ings was any determination that Slates' conduct was criminally motivated. Accordingly, under the law of this case, I must reject the Respondent's attempt to escape li- ability. Instead I find that the Respondent's violation of Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act, which caused Slates' 30-day suspension from his employment at the New York City Transit Authority, warrants issuance of the appropriate remedial order set forth below in the "Ap- pendix." That order shall include a make-whole remedy and provide reimbursement of the $4500 in legal ex- penses incurred by Slates in the defense of the Transit Authority charges provoked by the Respondent's unlaw- ful conduct. I also find that the General Counsel has shown that the Respondent is liable for Slates' loss of wages resulting from his 30-day suspension by the New York City Transit Authority, which the General Counsel showed to be $2860.20. On the basis of these findings of fact, my conclusion of law that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act, and the entire record in this case, I issue the following recommended' 4 The Respondent did not include July 27, 1981, which it asserted was not included in the computation of Slates' presuspension working hours 5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended ORDER The Respondent, Sentry Armored Courier Corpora- tion, New York, New York, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from retaliating against employees because they file unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board, by notifying the New York City Transit Authority or any other employer that they have abused sick leave privileges or engaged in other noncriminal misconduct. 2. Make employee Charles Slates whole for any loss of earnings which he incurred as a result of the 30-day sus- pension caused by the Respondent when it notified the New York City Transit Authority that he had abused his Transit Authority sick leave privilege. Backpay is to be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as prescribed in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). (See generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).) 3. Reimburse Charles Slates for his legal expenses in- curred in the defense of the New York City Transit Authority's charges against him, which resulted from the Respondent's report to that agency that Slates had abused his Transit Authority sick leave privilege. 4. Post at its plant in New York City, New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, after being signed by the Re- spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places in- cluding all places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. 5. Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Respondent, its offi- cers, agents, and assigns, shall pay to Charles Slates the sum of $2188 as backpay for his unlawful suspension, the sum of $2860.20 as reimbursement for the loss of wages Slates suffered because of his 30-day suspension by the New York City Transit Authority, and the sum of $4500 as reimbursement for legal fees incurred by Slates in the Transit Authority's proceedings against him, plus ac- crued interest as prescribed in Florida Steel Corp., supra, less tax withholdings required by Federal and state laws. Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses 6 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board " SENTRY ARMORED COURIER CORP. 57 APPENDIX AMENDED APPENDIX A-I NOTICE To EMPLOYEES Computation of Gross Backpay For Charles Slates POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Based On His Projected Earnings An Agency of the United States Government Backpay Period Gross Backpay 1981 The National Labor Relations Board has found that we 3d Qtr (.2 wks x 141.12) $ 28.22 violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- 9/30 dered us to post and abide by this notice. 4th Qtr. (5.4 wks. x 141.12) 762.04 (7 8 wks. x 176.490)1 1375.92 Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. 1982.- I st Qtr (2 6 wks x 176.40) 458 64 To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or protec- tion To choose not to engage in any of these protect- ed concerted activities In recognition of these rights, we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT retaliate against employees because they file unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board, by notifying the New York City Transit Authority or any other employer that they have abused sick leave privileges or engaged in other noncri- minal misconduct. WE WILL make employee Charles Slates whole for any loss of earnings which he incurred as a result of the 30-day suspension which he suffered because we notified the New York City Transit Authority that he had abused his Transit Authority sick leave privilege, plus interest. WE WILL reimburse Charles Slates for the legal ex- penses he incurred in defense of the New York City Transit Authority charges against him which resulted from our report to that agency that he had abused his Transit Authority sick leave privilege, plus interest. I Wage increase from $5.60 to $7 per hour effective Novem- ber 9, 1981 APPENDIX A-2 Interim Earnings of Charles Slates Period Interim Employer Earnings 1981: 3d Qtr. None 0 4th Qtr. None 0 1982: 1st Qtr. None 0 APPENDIX A-3 Computations of New Backpay for Charles Slates Period Gross Backpay Interim Earnings Net Backpay 1981: 3d Qtr $ 28.22 0 $ 28.22 4th Qtr. 2137.96 0 $2137.96 1982: 1st Qtr 458 64 0 $ 458 64 Subtotal $2624.82 SENTRY TION ARMORED COURIER CORPORA- Plus Reimbursement for Attorney fees Transit Authority Suspension) 4,500 Plus: Reimbursement for Lost Wages from 30 Day Suspension by Transit Authority 4,247 Total 11,371.82° Plus interest