Sanford Home For Adults

SANFORD HOME FOR ADULTS Leon Arie Edrich and Ignatius Elefant , Co-Partners d/b/a Sanford Home for Adults, Successor. and Harry Mayer, Sidney Kopet, Israel Grauman, Yehudis Bogomilsky and Alexander Sands, Co- Partners d/b/a Sanford Home for Adults and Local 144, Hotel, Hospital, Nursing Home and Allied Health Services Union, Service Employ- ees International Union, AFL-CIO Local 6, International Federation of Health Profes- sionals, International Longshoremen's Associa- tion, AFL-CIO and Local 144, Hotel, Hospital, Nursing Home and Allied Health Services Union, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO. Cases 29-CA-6759 and 29-CB- 3543 31 July 1986 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND BABSON On 24 December 1985 Administrative Law Judge Harold B. Lawrence issued the attached sup- plemental decision . The Respondent Union filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.2 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that Respondent Employer Leon Arie Edrich and Ignatius Elefant, Co-Partners d/b/a Sanford Home for Adults, Successor: and Harry Mayer, Sidney Kopet, Israel Grauman, Ye- hudis Bogomilsky, and Alexander Sands, Co-Part- ners d/b/a Sanford Home for Adults , Flushing, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, and Respondent Union Local 6, International Federation of Health Professionals , International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, New I We note that the judge inadvertently referred to Artcraft Upholstering Co., 228 NLRB 462 (1977), as "Aircraft. Upholstering Co." We also note that the citation for NLRB Y. Sanford Home for Adults and Local 6 is 669 F.2d 35 (2d Cir 1981), enfg. 253 NLRB 1132 (1981). a In adopting the judge's recommended Order apportioning primary and secondary liability for initiation fees, dues, assessments, and other moneys paid by or withheld from employees in this case, we note that this is a compliance proceeding and that the General Counsel's request for such an order is consistent with the Board 's usual practice in the compliance procedure. See Hermet Inc., 222 NLRB 29 fn. 1 (1976). 1287 York, New York, its officers, agents, and represent- atives, shall take the action set forth in the Order. Elias Feuer, Esq., for the General Counsel. Morris Tuchman, Esq. (Brenda, Pilchiek, Strashun, Esq.), of New York, New York, for the Respondent Employ- er. William Perry, of New York, New York, for Respondent Local 6. SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HAROLD B. LAWRENCE, Administrative Law Judge. In the proceeding underlying this backpay proceeding, it was determined that on 31 August 1978 the Respondent Employer, the Sanford Home of Adults,' had unlawfully recognized the Respondent Union, Local 6 of the Inter- national Federation of Health Professionals, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, as its service and maintenance employees' exclusive collective-bargain- ing representative, thereafter remitting to Local 6 moneys deducted from their wages; that Local 6 collect- ed other moneys from the employees; and that Local 6 unlawfully procured the discharge of two employees on 19 October 1978. On 8 January 1981 the National Labor Relations Board issued an order directing the Respond- ents, jointly and severally, to reimburse all present and former employees employed in the service and mainte- nance unit of the Sanford Avenue, Flushing, New York facility for all initiation fees, dues, and other moneys de- ducted pursuant to the union-security provision of the collective-bargaining agreement which Respondents had entered into, to be computed in the manner set forth in Seafarers, 138 NLRB 1142 (1962), and Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). In addition, Blanca Llanos and Elena Munteanu, the discriminatees, were ordered reinstated to their former or comparable employment, and it was ordered that Respondents jointly and several- ly make them whole for lost earnings to be calculated with interest in accordance with F. W. Wooltw►rth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), Florida Steel Corp., supra, and his Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Sanford Home for Adults, 253 NLRB 1132, 1140 (1981), enfd. 669 F.2d 35 (2d Cir. 1981). An order of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granting enforcement was entered on 7 December 1981. Differences having arisen with respect to the amounts payable under the order, the Regional Director issued a backpay specification on 20 December 1983. An amend- ed backpay specification and notice of hearing was r On 31 July 1984 the Regional Director issued an order amending the backpay specification to allege that until 1 October 1981, Harry Mayer, Sidney Kopet, Israel Grauman, Yehudis Bogomilsky, and Alexander Sands, copartners d/b/a Sanford Home for Adults, owned and operated the business; that about 1 October 1981, Leon Arie Edrsch and Ignatius Elefant, copartners d/b/a Sanford Home for Adults, purchased the bus am and its assets and continued the same business as a successor employ- er, and that the predecessor employer and the successor employer, col- lectively called Respondent Employer, are each jointly and severally liable for all backpay and other moneys due to the disc iminatees and former and present employees 280 NLRB No. 140 1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD issued on 28 December 1983 and on 31 July 1984 an order was issued further amending it. I allowed further amendments on written motion made on 2 January 1985 and on oral applications made during the course of this backpay hearing on 15, 16, and 18 April 1985. Respondent Employer settled the backpay claim of the two discharged employees by stipulation with the Gener- al Counsel which was approved by me on 15 April 1985. Local 6 did not join in the stipulation. Local 6 twice interposed answers which failed to comply with the requirements of Section 102.54(b) of the Board's Rules and Regulations. The hearing was contin- ued, however, in order to enable Local 6 to obtain legal counsel and in order to enable the General Counsel to obtain from the Respondent Employer and incorporate in the record the specific information, respecting moneys turned over by it to Local 6, needed to frame appropri- ate relief. Hearings were held before me at Brooklyn, New York, and New York, New York, on 2 January, 13 Feb- ruary, 15, 16, and 18 April, and 13 and 27 June 1985. The parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to call, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce relevant evidence. Opportunity to file posth- earing briefs was afforded , but no briefs were filed. On the entire record and based on my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses and the manner in which they gave their testimony, I make the following FmmINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION I ruled at the hearing on 15 April 1985 that jurisdic- tion existed over Local 6 in this backpay proceeding, though Local 6 has repeatedly asserted , orally and in an answer filed by it on 28 February 1985, that "No juris- diction has been acquired over Local 6 since it has nei- ther been properly nor timely served." The General Counsel proved unable to furnish satisfactory evidence of claimed service by certified mail of the original back- pay specification on Local 6. Nevertheless, the backpay specification had somehow found its way to the office of an attorney named Saul Jakubowitz , which was not at the same address at the office of Local 6 . He filed an answer which raised no jurisdictional or other affirma- tive defense. Nothing about the answer suggests any ir- regularity. It was received by the General Counsel on 22 February 1984, is captioned with the caption and file numbers of these proceedings as they appear on the backpay specification, indicates concurrent service of copies on the Charging Party and the attorney for the Respondent Employer, and makes direct reference to paragraphs I(a) and (b), 11(a), and (c), IV, V, and VI of what it refers to as the complaint (the same terminology employed in the answer which Local 6 filed on 28 Feb- ruary 1985). Local 6 was represented at the hearing by its presi- dent, William Perry. He asserted that the answer had been filed by Jakubowitz without authorization from Local 6 and that Jakubowitz did not represent Local 6 in these proceedings. No explanation whatsoever was of- fered for his action and Local 6 did not produce Ja- kubowitz to explain it, although I invited it to do so at an adjourned date. Because the General Counsel had, on 2 January 1985, made a written motion to amend the backpay specifica- tion, the proceedings were adjourned to 13 February. The General Counsel utilized the time to effect service of the backpay specification on Local 6 by certified mail, on 3 January 1985 and personally (on Perry) on 4 Janu- ary 1985. Local 6 did not file an answer in response to the back- pay specification. On 8 February 1985 the General Coun- sel made a motion to deem the allegations of the backpay specification admitted and to preclude Local 6 from of- fering any proof, by reason of its failure to answer and by reason of its failure to answer with specificity as re- quired by Section 102.54 of the Board 's Rules and Regu- lations. On the reconvening of the hearing on 13 February 1985, the lack of specificity was discussed, as described below. The proceedings were again adjourned, this time to 20 March 1985, and Local 6 was granted until 28 Feb- ruary to interpose an answer. The answer which it served, dated that date, preserved the jurisdictional ob- jection, which it set forth in the language quoted above. Local 6 in effect argued that the original claimed defect in service was not cured by subsequent service of the amended backpay specification or by the service of the motion in January 1985, which was accomplished both by mail and personally. Local 6 is in error in this regard. This is not a civil action in a court of record wherein failure to serve a summons cannot be cured by subsequent service of pleadings or amended pleadings and in which service of a new summons begins an altogether new and distinct civil action. This is an administrative proceeding and, being a backpay proceeding, is one for which no statute of limitations is prescribed. Assuming that the first serv- ice of the backpay specification on Local 6 occurred be- latedly, even as late as January 1985, jurisdiction over it in these proceedings was nonetheless acquired . Further- more, a backpay proceeding is an outgrowth of the un- derlying proceeding which gives rise to the remedy. The jurisdiction over Local 6 was thus already established. See Jacobo Marti & Sons, 264 NLRB 30 (1982); World Evangelism, 261 NLRB 609 (1982); Wayne County Legal Services, 249 NLRB 1260 (1980). In any event, I find that Local 6 did receive service of the original backpay specification dated 28 December 1983 when it was originally issued. In the absence of some sensible explanation of how the service of an answer by an attorney came about, that circumstance is conclusive. I find that Local 6 was served and appeared voluntarily, having been effectively joined in these pro- ceedings. Proper service would have to be found, along with jurisdiction, as a result of the later service also. U. OTHER ASSERTED DEFENSES Respondent Local 6 contended that the General Coun- sel was guilty of laches, that proof was lacking that it had received the moneys it was being asked to refund to the employees, and that the order issued by the circuit SANFORD HOME FOR ADULTS court of appeals, granting enforcement of the Board's order, did not direct repayment by Local 6. None of these contentions have merit. It is well settled that the limitation contained in Sec- tion 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act is inappli- IE cable to backpay proceedings. Aircraft Upholstering Co., 228 NLRB 462 (1977). The defense of laches is not avail- able in proceedings brought by agencies of the United States Government. Nabors v. NLRB, 323 F.2d 686 (5th Cir. 1963), modifying 134 NLRB 1078 (1961), cert. denied 376 U.S. 911 (1964). There is abundant evidence that, except for $86.40, Local 6 received the moneys deducted from the employ- ees' wages. The evidence includes testimony by Re- spondent Employer's president, testimony by its account- ant, and canceled checks made payable to Local 6 which the testimony connected with entries in Respondent Em- ployer's records. No one from the Respondent Union took the stand to rebut it. The final contention is based on a patent misreading of the order of the court of appeals, which specifically iden- tified Respondent Employer and Respondent Local 6 as the Respondents in the proceeding before it. The court of appeals summarized the Board's findings, noted that the proceeding had come on to be heard "on the applica- tion of the National Labor Relations Board for enforce- ment of its Decision and Order, issued January 8, 1981" and granted enforcement. The Board's Order specifically called for reimbursement by the Respondent Employer and the Respondent Local 6 jointly and severally. M. THE DENIALS CONTAINED IN LOCAL 6'S ANSWER The Jakubowitz answer, filed in response to the back- pay specification dated 28 December 1983, admitted that the appropriate measure of gross backpay was the hourly rate multiplied by 40 and admitted the definition of net interim earnings. It denied that the backpay period for Llanos and Munteanu ran from 19 October 1978 to 22 June 1979 and that reimbursement was owned jointly and severally to employees (then unidentified) for amounts withheld for initiation fees, dues, assessments, and other reasons connected with the agreement with Local 6. Local 6 denied knowledge and information suf- ficient to form a belief with respect to the allegations re- specting the duration of backpay periods of Llanos and Munteanu (which had already been expressly denied), the computation of gross backpay, as set forth in the ap- pendices to the specification, although no answer at all was made to the allegations respecting the hourly rate of pay and the weekly pay per 40-hour week, to, and the computation of net backpay as set forth in the appendi- ces. On the basis of Perry's disavowal of Jakubowitz' au- thority to file an answer on behalf of Local 6 and his own default in answering, the General Counsel made a written motion on 8 February to have the allegations of the backpay specification deemed admitted. On 13 Feb- ruary 1985 I denied the motion and adjourned the pro- ceedings in order to allow time for Local 6 to retain counsel and interpose an answer. The deadline for filing an answer was extended to 28 February 1985. 1289 On that date, Local 6 served an answer, subscribed by Perry as president, which contained the same admissions, denials, and denials of knowledge and information suffi- cient to form a belief as the Jakubowitz answer, except that this time the duration of the backpay period for Elena Munteanu was expressly denied. In addition, the new answer asserted the above-mentioned affirmative de- fenses of lack of jurisdiction and laches.2 Neither of the answers interposed on behalf of Local 6 stated the basis for disagreement with the allegations which had been denied. No detailed statement of Re- spondent Local 6's position was set forth with respect to any matter denied, nor was any set of contrary figures provided. The hourly rates of pay for Llanos and Mun- teanu were admitted by reason for the failure to deny them; the same is true for their weekly earnings (par. 11(b), alleging hourly and weekly rate of pay at time of discharge). The denial of the allegation relating to the moneys for which reimbursement was sought was patent- ly sham, as the remittances to Local 6 were matters within its own knowledge. The failure to respond to the allegations respecting unlawful deductions and remit- tances to Local 6 admitted the essence of the allegations, but the failure to supply the data available to it from its own books and the refusal to honor a subpoena issued to Local 6 by the General Counsel compelled the General Counsel to conduct a protracted examination of the Re- spondent Employer to obtain the same data. The failure of Respondent Local 6 to furnish different figures, both in its answer and in the course of the hearing, left uncon- troverted the data supplied by the Respondent Employer and relied on by the General Counsel. IV. THE OBLIGATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY ADMISSION AND BY PROOF The Discriminatees The amended backpay specification and notice of hear- ing issued on 28 December 1983 alleged backpay owing to Blanca Llanos by reason of the discrimination against her in the amount of $3433, and to Elena Munteanu, dis- criminatee, in the amount of $2573. On 15 April 1985 I approved a written stipulation en- tered into between the General Counsel, Respondent Employer, and Local 144, the Charging Party. By its terms, the stipulation pertains solely to settlement of the backpay claims of the discriminatees, Llanos and Mun- teanu. Moneys are payable thereunder by Respondent Employer and are accepted by the Regional Director in satisfaction of the Respondent Employer's liability to make the discriminatees whole for the losses resulting from their discharges. The stipulation is stated to contain the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the re- instatement and backpay provisions of the Board's Order. It deals solely with that obligation. The Respondent Em- 2 The answer filed by Perry appears to take no cognizance of the re- numbering of the paragraphs of the backpay specification provided for in the order amending backpay specification dated 31 July 1984 and served on Local 6 by registered mail on 10 August 1984. I have treated the answer as responsive to the allegations of the backpay specification as originally numbered. 1290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployer consequently remains liable with Respondent Local 6, jointly and severally, on the remaining claims. The stipulation fixed the amount owing to Llanos at $3078, with interest to 31 January 1985 in the sum of of $1590.60, making a total of $4668.60, and fixed the amount owing to Munteanu at $2300, with interest to 31 January 1985 in the sum of $1181 .40, making a total of $3481.40. The Respondent Employer also obligated itself to deduct requisite social security and Federal, state, and local withholding taxes from the wage portions of the backpay and transmit them to the various governmental authorities, and to make payment of the Respondent Em- ployer's share of the social security taxes. The admission of this stipulation into evidence rein- forced and completed the General Counsel's prima facie case respecting these backpay provisions and placed the burden of mitigating or avoiding the liability squarely on Local 6. Because the administrative law judge in the underlying proceeding found the Respondent guilty of unlawfully procuring the discharges of Llanos and Munteanu on 19 October 1978, Respondent Local 6 is chargeable with knowledge of the commencement date of their backpay periods. A similar situation prevails with respect to the termination date of the backpay period. The General Counsel alleged backpay periods for both the discrimina- tees from 19 October 1978 to 22 June 1979, "the effec- tive date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement." The date on which the judge issued his decision with a rec- ommended Order directing reinstatement was 23 January 1980. The Board adopted the recommended Order on 8 January 1981. The General Counsel thus alleged a termi- nation date well before either decision. The stipulation completes the picture, for the terminal dates are implicit in the computation of the net backpay sums for which the Respondent Employer stipulated to settle the claims with the General Counsel. The concession of liability is a judicial admission. Re- spondent Local 6 argued, correctly, that it was not bound by the stipulation. It is true that admissions there- in contained did not constitute admissions by Respondent Local 6, and the liability assumed by Respondent Em- ployer was not thereby also assumed by Local 6. But the issue is not whether Local 6 was "bound," but whether the stipulation may be considered as part of the evidence supporting the General Counsel's prima facie case. I be- lieve its admission had precisely that effect. The General Counsel was not obligated to do more than show the gross amount of backpay due to each discriminatee; the stipulation showed the net amount due. A prima facie case for backpay was made out on proof of discrimina- tion and application for reinstatement; the backpay speci- fication and the stipulation showed the amount claimed to be owing. The burden of either negating or mitigating that financial liability thereon rested squarely with Re- spondent Local 6. The General Counsel was under no obligation to establish the truth of all the information supplied in the specification simply because it was there. NLRB v. Brown & Root, 311 F.2d 447, 454 (8th Cir. 1963). In the face of the stipulation, Respondent Local 6 had the burden of introducing contrary or explanatory evidence. See Borg-Warner Corp., 113 NLRB 152, 154 (1955), affd. 231 F.2d 237 (7th Cir. 1956) (compelling the observation that if such a burden rested on a charging party who was allied with a General Counsel, then it certainly rests on Respondent Local 6 in this case). In al- leging a backpay period considerably shorter in duration than is apparent from either decision cited, the General Counsel did not assume the burden of mitigating the period for which Local 6 is liable. The burden remains with Local 6. The failure of Local 6 to meet that burden is apparent. Arie Edrich, one of Respondent Employer's principals, was present throughout the hearing. The accountant for the Respondent Employer attended and testified . Never- theless, Respondent Local 6 did not avail itself of these or any of the other opportunities afforded it to contest the General Counsel's allegations. Respondent Local 6, represented by its president, participated fully in the pro- ceedings, examined all proffered exhibits and objected to some, cross-examined the witnesses produced by the General Counsel, including Edrich and the accountant for the Respondent Employer, and presented a defense case in which it recalled Edrich to the witness stand. However, not a single question was put to Edrich or to the accountant about the backpay period or about any aspect of the backpay computation . No evidence was in- troduced by Local 6. The net result was that the Respondent Local 6 utterly failed to raise any serious question respecting the amount of its liability for backpay to the two discriminatees. It utterly failed to meet the burden imposed on it of intro- ducing contrary evidence to rebut the General Counsel's case or other evidence to clarify the material facts. At the same time, however, I must take cognizance of the fact that the General Counsel offered no evidence which established any greater liability than that set forth in the stipulation. Accordingly, I find the Respondent Local 6 liable for only the amount set forth in the stipulation. I conclude, therefore, that Llanos is entitled to net backpay in the amount of $3078, with interest and that Munteanu is entitled to net backpay in the amount of $2300. As noted, the stipulation deals only with the backpay obligation. It does not incorporate another agreement be- tween the General Counsel and the Respondent Employ- er which was reported to me at the hearing on 2 January 1985. At that time, I was informed by the General Coun- sel that the Respondent Employer had agreed to pay, in addition to the total backpay to the discriminatees, the General Counsel's court costs. The amount allocable to the costs, which were incurred in the proceedings in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, amount to $350 and are reflected in the stipulation by the total amount payable, which is $8500 (the amount due to the discri- minatees under the stipulation, including interest to 31 January 1985, was $8150). The signed stipulation is thus consistent with the overall settlement agreement as re- ported on the record. Accordingly, in the recommended Order set forth, I have directed payment by the Re- spondent Employer of court costs in the amount of $350. SANFORD HOME FOR ADULTS Deductions from Wages for Transmittal to Local 6 In the amended backpay specification and notice of hearing issued on 28 December 1983, the Regional Di- rector alleged that the amount of initiation fees, dues, as- sessments, and other moneys, if any, paid by or withheld from employees for Local 6, and the names of the present and former employees who must be reimbursed, were unknown and claims would be asserted when the amounts unlawfully deducted were known , and would be set forth in an appendix to the backpay specification. On 2 January 1985 the General Counsel made a writ- ten motion to amend the backpay specification to allege specific amounts owing to named employees for specified periods as set forth in an appendix to the motion. The motion was granted. The motion, in a footnote numbered "1," asserted that the Respondent Union, having unlaw- fully received such moneys, "has the primary obligation to disgorge those moneys , together with interest." The backpay specification was subsequently amended at the hearing to include an express allegation to that effect. Respondent Employer interposed an answer on 22 Janu- ary 1985 denying the correctness of the amounts alleged but conceding the correctness of the footnote ; on 2 May 1985 the denial was withdrawn. Upon applications by the General Counsel made at the hearing, motions were granted amending the schedule appended to the original motion. Amendments were ap- proved in this fashion on 15, 16, and 18 April 1985 for the purpose of conforming the schedule to the General Counsel's recalculation of the amounts owing, correcting clerical errors, and including additional data supplied by the Respondent Employer. Accordingly, my findings herein reflect the adjustment of the fourth quarter deduc- tion in 1979 for Teresa Krolik from $28.80 to $19.20; the correction of the total of the deductions for Rosa Itur- alde to $98.40; and the correction of the total of the de- ductions for Sophie Wargacki in 1980 and through the third quarter of 1981 to $154. I have not, however, made findings which sustain all the allegations as so amended. Thus, on the basis of the checks which Respondent Employer drew to the order of Local 6 of 14 December and 21 December 1981, in the aggregate amount of $287.60, the General Counsel moved to amend the specification to allege that that amount, instead of the $288 originally alleged , as deduct- ed from employees' earnings in the fourth quarter of 1981. The amendment is reasonable, but the allegation as amended conflicts with the Respondent Employer's records of the deductions which it made and evidence is lacking about whose reimbursement should be reduced by this amount, which is immaterial in any event. Another instant in which I have adhered to the origi- nal allegation is the General Counsel 's amendment relat- ing to the sums deducted during the first and second quarters of 1982. The allegation, as it stands admitted and uncontroverted for reasons already discussed, was that the deductions had amounted to $249.60; deductions had been made from the wages of 10 employees in the first quarter of 1982 , amounting to $172.80 and from the wages of 8 employees in April, the last month in which such deductions were made for Local 6, in the amount of $76.80. This is reflected in Respondent Employer's 1291 records. I have no difficulty in finding, on the basis of these figures, that because Respondent Employer remit- ted only $163.20 to Local 6 for all of 1982, it is primarily liable for reimbursement to the extent of $86.40. Howev- er, I cannot agree with the General Counsel that the fig- ures support an amendment to the effect that deductions totaling $76.80 were made in February 1982, a month for which records were not available. The General Counsel's speculation to this effect would require a calculation of total 1982 reimbursable deductions in the amount of $326.40 ($96 in January and $76.80 in each of the months of February, March, and April) as compared with the original allegation of $249.60 based on the known deduc- tions for January, March, and April 1982. The General Counsel's amended figure conflicts with the other evi- dence, while the original allegation is consistent with it. The Respondent Employer issued checks as follows: #1142 12/14/81 for Dec ........................................ $105.60 #1158 12/21/81 for Oct. and Nov........................ 182.00 #1242 4/22/82 ................................................... 163.20 Total ............................................ $450.80 The General Counsel had deduced a primary obliga- tion of $86.40 on the part of Respondent Employer from the fact that only $163.20 had been remitted to Local 6 from the total of $249.60 deducted in 1982. If that amount is added to the total of the checks, an overall ob- ligation of $537.20 results for that period. The original allegation of $288 for the fourth quarter of 1981 and $249.60 for 1982 totals $537.60. (The discrepancy of 40 cents results from my adherence to the $288 figure in- stead of the figure of $287.60 as requested by the Gener- al Counsel.)s Accordingly, I find that the sum which must be reim- bursed amounts to $4576.40, payable to the employees named in the amounts set forth opposite their names in the recommended Order, based on the calculations con- tained in the appendix annexed to this decision. REMEDY The Respondents' obligations to the backpay claimants and to the employees from whose wages unlawful de- ductions were made will be adequately discharged by their payment to the claimants of the respective amounts set forth in the stipulation entered into between Re- spondent Employer and the General Counsel, the terms of which have been summarized above and in the Ap- pendix which is annexed hereto and made part of this de- cision. The Appendix hereto sets forth the calculations of the sums owing to the employees therein named by reason of the unlawful deductions made from their wages. Of the total sum of $4576.40 which I have deter- 3 At the time the amendment was allowed, permission was granted for the General Counsel to file a posthearing exhibit, for which Exh. 13 was reserved, in which the February deductions would be allocated to vari- ous employees. Local 6 was to have the right to rebut it if so advised. However, no additional exhibit has been filed. 1292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mined to be owing,' Respondent Local 6 is primarily liable for 'repayment of $4490 and Respondent Employer' is primarily liable for repayment of $86 .40. Although both are jointly and severally liable for the entire obliga- tion, I concur with the position of the General Counsel that each is primarily -liable for -reimbursement of that portion -of the moneys which it received. 'Loft Painting Co., 267 NLRB 74 ( 1983); Wismer & Becker, 228 NLRB 779 (1977). 1 Respondent Employer is also liable to the General Counsel for court costs in the amount of $350•and I have made provision therefor in the recommended Order. Interest shall be computed and paid on such amounts, by Respondent Employer in accordance with 'its stipula- tion of settlement of the backpay claims insofar as the same is applicable, and otherwise the claimants shall be jointly and severally liable for interest in accordance with Seafarers Great Lakes District, 138 NLRB 1142 (1962), Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977), and Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed' ORDER Respondents Sanford Home for Adults and Local 6, International Federation of Health Professionals, Interna- tional Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO, and their officers, agents, successors; and assigns, jointly and sev- erally, shall 1. Make whole Blanca Llanos and Elena Munteanu, backpay claimants involved in this proceeding , by pay- ment to them of the following amounts of net backpay together with interest to be computed in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision minus tax withholding and other sums required to be withheld by Federal, state, and local laws: (a) Respondents shall pay to Blanca Llanos the sum of $3078, with interest. ' • A, ' (b) Respondents shall pay to Elena Munteanu the sum of $2300, with interest. 2. Respondents shall jointly and severally reimburse the following named employees and former employees for initiation fees, dues, 'assessments, and other moneys paid by or withheld from them, as follows * If no exceptions are filed as.provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order ' shah , 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- po , Nehmet R. Bacu $ 28.80 Ana Maria Blackman 117.60 Anna Borawska 220.80 Helen Brady 9.60 Betty Cope 9.60 Luzmira Delucia 146.40 Grace Dey 55.20 •Danuta Dobrowska 38.40 Raul Alcides Echeverri 338.80 Gloria Esobar 38.40 Georgina Fuentes 57.60 Roberto Gonzalez 88.80 Pat Gonzalez 9.60 Andrei Grygo 38.40 Marina Guzman 192.40 Rosa Ituralde 98.40 Janina Jamiolkovska 86.40 Miroslaw Kotarske 28.80 Stefan Krasinsky 163.60 Teresa Krolik 19.20 Jan Kumik 134.40 Alcee Marice 28.80 Michael Mayer 338.80 Efrain Melendez 154.00 Maria Aida Mendoza 182.80 Ryszard Michalczyk 67.20 Jose Moreno 88.80 Maria Ola • Orolhowska 19.20 Bertha Pagoulatos 338.80 Theresa Pinkway 19.20 Wanda Redutta 172.80 Olga Royas 19.20 Amparo Salazar 9.60 Pedro Sanchez 386.80 Wilhemina Seddoh 365.20 Irena Smogoreszka 134.80 Gisele Maria Theodore 60.00 Sophie Wargacki 211.60 Regina Zdrodowska 57.60 Total . $4,567.40 Of such ' sum, Respondent Local 6 shall be primarily liable, and Respondent Employer secondarily liable, for the repayment of $4490 and Respondent Employer shall be primarily liable, and Respondent Local 6 secondarily liable, for repayment of $86.40. 3. Respondent Employer shall pay to the General Counsel the sum of $350 in satisfaction of its obligations for court costs in connection with proceedings had in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Name 4 978 1979 1st 2d Q , 3d Q 4th Q 19801st 2d Q 3d Q 4th Q 1981 1st 2d Q 3d Q 4t98Q 19821st 2d Q Total Due Ana ` Maria Black- man....... $21.60 $19.20 $28.80 $28.80 $19.20 $117.60 Rosa Itur- aide....... 21.60 19.20 28.80 28.80 - - - - - = - - - - - 98.40 Grace Dey....... 16.80 19.20 19.20 - - - - - - - - - - - 55.20 Bertha - Pagou= latos...... 21.60 19.20 28.80 28.80 28.80 $28.80 $28.80 $28.80 $19.20 $28.80 $38.80 $28.80 $9.60 - - 338.80 Jose - - ' Moreno 21.60 19.20 28.80 19.20 - - - - - - - - - - - 88.80 Luzmira Delu- cia ......... 21.60 19.20 28.80 28.80 28.80 19.20 - - - - - - - 146.40 Roberto Gonza- - lez......... 21.60 19.20 28.80 19.20 - - - - - - - - - - - 88.80 Pedro - - - San- chez ...... 21.60 19.20 28.80 28.80 28.80 28.80 28.80 28.80 19.20 28.80 38.80 28.80 Michael - - Mayer... 21.60 19.20 28.80 28.80 28.80 28.80 28.80 28.80 19.20 28.80 38.80 28.80 9.60 - - 338.80 Raul • Al- - cides Eche- verri ...... 21.60 19.20 28.80 28.80 28.80 28.80 28.80 28.80 19.20 28.80 38.80 28.80 9.60 - - 338.80 Gisele Maria Theo- " - " dore ...... 21.60 19.20 19.20 - - - - - - - - - - - - 60.00 Wilhel- - - ' mina Seddoh. - 19.20 28.80 28.80 28.80 28.80 28.80 28.80 19.20 28.80 38.80 28.80 28.80 $19.20 $9.60 365.20 Teresa - _ - - ' _ Krolik... - - - 19.20 - - - - - - - - - - - 19.20 Maria O1a - • . • • Orol- howska. - - - 19.20 - - - - - - - - - - - 19.20 Janina Jamiol- kovska.. - - - 9.60 28.80 28.80 19.20 - - - - - - - ' 86.40 Wanda Re- dutta ..... - - - 9.60 28.80 28.80 28.80 28.80 .19.20 28:80 172.80 Name 1978 19791st 2d Q 3d Q 4th Q Q 4th Q 19801st Q 2d Q 3d Q 4th Q 1981 1st 2d Q 3d Q 1 h Q 19821st 2d Q Total Due Andrei Grygo... 28.80 9.60 38.40 Alcee Marice.. 28.80 - - - - - - - - - 28.80 Anna Bor- awaka.... 9.60 28.80 28.80 28.80 19.20 28.80 19.20 28.80 19.20 9.60 220.80 Regina Zdro- dowska. 9.60 28.80 19.20 - - - - - - - 57.60 Pat Gonza- lez ......... 9.60 9.60 Jan Kumik.. 28.80 28.80 19.20 28.80 28.80 - 134.40 Miroslaw Ko- tarske.... 9.60 19.20 - - - - 28.80 Irena Smo- goreszka. - 28.80 19.20 28.80 38.80 19.20 134.80 Stefan Kra- sinsky.... 9.60 28.80 19.20 28.80 38.80 28.80 9.60 163.60 Danuta Do- browska. 9.60 28.80 - - - - - - 38.40 Georgina Fuentes. 9.60 28.80 19.20 - - - 57.60 Marina Guzman. - 19.20 19.20 28.80 38.80 28.80 28.80 19.20 9.60 192.40 Maria Aida Men- doza...... .60 8.80 9.20 8.80 8.80 8.80 8.80 82.80 Efrain Melen- dez ........ 9.60 28.80 19.20 28.80 38.80 28.80 154.00 Sophie War- gacki..... 9.60 28.80 19.20 28.80 38.80 28.80 28.80 19.20 9.60 211.60 Ryszard Mi- chalczyk. 9.60 28.80 19.20 9.60 67.20 Olga Royas ... 9.60 9.60 19.20 Nehmet R. Bacu ..... 19.20 9.60 28.80 1978 Name 4th Q 19801st 1981 1st 19791st 2dQ 3dQ 4th Q 2dQ 3dQ 4th Q 2dQ 3d Q Q Q Q 1981 4th Q 1982 1st Q 2dQ Total Due Helen Brady.... 9.60 9.60 Betty cope..... 9.60 - - 9160 Gloria Esobar.. Theresa 9.60 19.20 9.60 38.40 Pink- way....... 9.60 9.60 - 19.20 Amparo Salazar.. Pedro 9.60 - - 9.60 San- 28.80 19.20 9.60 386.80 chez ...... Total. $4,567.40