Besco Coatings And Besco Roofing And Coating, Inc. And Besco Roofing, Inc.

BETTER BUILDING SUPPLY CORP. Better Building Supply Corp., and Evergreen Roofing, Inc., its alter ego and Gerald R. Mylan and Verna A. Mylan, d/b/a Besco Coatings and Besco Roofing and Coating, Inc. and Besco Roofing, Inc. and Local 54 of the United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Association, AFL-CIO. Cases 19-CA-11908 and 19-CA-12035 26 February 1987 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On 15 September 1986 Administrative Law Judge George Christensen issued the attached supplemental decision. One of the Respondents, Besco Roofing, Inc., filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a threemember panel. 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 and to adopt the recommended Order.¹ ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondents, Better Building Supply Corp. and its alter egos, Evergreen Roofing, Inc. and Besco Roofing, Inc., Seattle, Washington, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall pay to the 69 individuals the sums listed in the appendix attached to the judge's decision, with interest computed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977), less applicable withholding taxes to be remitted to the appropriate authorities. 1 In adopting the judge's finding that Respondent Besco Roofing, Inc. (BRI) IS an alter ego of Better Building Supply Corp (BBSC) and its first alter ego, Evergreen Roofing, Inc (ERI), Chairman Dotson relies on all the factors discussed by the judge, including his finding that BRI was established to avoid making whole the 69 employees who suffered financial losses as a result of the unfair labor practices of BBSC and ERI Catherine Roth, Esq., for the General Counsel. Pat Gilliland, of Seattle, Washington, for Local 54. Judd H. Lees, Esq. (Williams, Lanza, Kastner & Gibbs), of Bellevue, Washington, for Besco Roofing, Inc. SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION GEORGE CHRISTENSEN, Administrative Law Judge. On 25 March 1986 I conducted a hearing at Seattle, Washington, to try issues raised by a backpay specification issued on 25 April 1985 following the enforcement by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on 10 May 1983 of a Decision and Order issued by the National Labor Relations Board (Board) on 3 December 1981 directing Evergreen Roofing, Inc. (ERI), as the alter ego of Better Building Supply Corp. (BBSC), to compensate employees who suffered wage and benefit losses by virtue of unfair labor practices committed by the common management of BBSC/ERI. The Board and the court adopted Administrative Law Judge Pannier's findings and conclusions that: BBSC and ERI were family corporations controlled by Gerald Mylan; BBSC was party to a collective-bargaining agreement covering the wages, benefits, etc., of certain of its employees; after a dispute with two benefits funds over BBSC's failure to make payments required under the agreement on behalf of BBSC employees covered by the agreement and during the term of the agreement, Mylan ceased doing business under the BBSC name, activated ERI, and under the ERI name continued doing business (roofing) at the same location, using the same equipment, processes, and the same managers, supervisors and many of the same employees he utilized to conduct business under the BBSC name and serving the same customer area, but without recognizing Local 54 as the collectivebargaining representative of the employees or complying with the terms of the unexpired BBSC Local 54 agreement; BBSC and ERI were alter egos within the meaning and application of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act); the conduct just set forth violated the Act; and ordered BBSC/ERI to make whole those employees who suffered wage and benefit losses by virtue of that conduct. The General Counsel has determined 69 employees were affected by the violations; listed in the backpay specification opposite their names the amounts due to each of the 69 to make them whole under the headings "wages" and "benefits"; and requested the entry of a Board order directing Besco Roofing, Inc. (BRI), as the latest BBSC alter ego created and controlled by Mylan,1 to pay the sums listed opposite the names of the 69, plus interest, less applicable withholding taxes. BRI admitted the General Counsel's wage and benefit determinations are correct but contends BRI cannot be required to remedy the unfair labor practices committed by Mylan while he was operating under his previous corporate identities because BRI is not an alter ego thereof and, in any event, any obligation owed to the 69 employ- 1 The parties stipulated after Mylan ceased to operate in the Seattle area under the corporate names of BBSC and ERI, he resumed operations under the corporate name Besco Roofing & Coating, Inc. (BRCI) and the name (as an individual, along with his wife) as Besco Coating (BC), ceased to operate under those names; resumed operations under the BRI corporate name, BBSC, ERI, and BRCI are in Chapter 11 bankruptcy and have no assets; the dischargeable debts of BC have been extinguished in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and that Mylan 1S currently operating under the BRI corporate name. 283 NLRB No. 18 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ees was extinguished by the 1984 court order discharging BC's debts. The issues are: (1) whether BRI is BBSC's latest alter ego and, if so, (2) whether the bankruptcy court order discharging BC's debts prevents Board entry of an order directing BRI to make the 69 employees whole for the wage and benefits losses they suffered by virtue of the unfair labor practices Mylan committed while operating under his earlier corporate identities. Findings were entered in the original proceeding to the effect: BBSC was engaged in business as a roofing contractor in the Seattle, Washington area from offices and facilities located at 3116 N.E. 133d; Gerald Mylan owned 51 percent of its stock, his wife, Verna, owned 10 percent, and his son, Gerald Mylan Jr. (Mylan Junior), owned the remaining 40 percent; Mylan and salesmen employed on a commission basis solicited customers for the work of installing new roofs and the repair or replacement of existing roofs (on both residential and commercial structures); Mylan, Mylan Junior, and other BBSC supervisors assigned crews (applicators) to perform the jobs secured by Mylan and the sales force; BBSC supplied vehicles,2 materials, and equipment; Mylan (and his designees) collected moneys due, ordered and paid for all materials, equipment, supplies, labor, services, etc., and issued guarantees of the work; and Mylan exercised overall direction and control of the business. Findings were also entered in the original decision: ERI was owned by the Mylan family in the same proportions as BBSC; controlled by Mylan; conducted the same business from the same location serving the same market,3 utilized the same vehicles, materials, equipment, and methods employed by BBSC, but, in an effort to circumvent any claim by Local 54 to continue representation of its employees, characterized the individuals who directed and performed the work, as well as the salesman, "independent contractors" and employees of the alleged "independent contractors." Mylan commenced his operations under the BRI corporate identity at the same location from which he operated BBSC, ERI, BRCI, and BC-3116 N.E. 133d, Seattle;4 Mylan and his wife own 100 percent of the (unissued) stock; Mylan and commission-paid salesmen solicit prospects in the Seattle area for performance of the work of repairing or removing and replacing existing roofs, primarily on commercial structures; Mylan has the same "independent contractors" (and their alleged employees) perform the work he or his salesmen secure; to perform the work Mylan provides the applicators with a vehicle he built by cannibalizing two of the vehicles he owned 2 While operating under the corporate names BBSC and ERI, Mylan used both a hot and a cold process in completing built-up roofs composed of alternating layers of material and either hot or cold applications; as he acquired tractor/tank-trailer rigs necessary for the cold applications, he phased out the use of equipment and materials for hot applications; the tractor/tank-trailers all carried the logo "BeScO." 3, While operating under the ERI name, the business was expanded to the solicitation and performance of jobs in Portland, Oregon, and a city in Colorado, as well as Seattle 4 Forced to vacate those premises by foreclosure action, Mylan purchased land and buildings at 233 S Holden Street, Seattle (in early 1985), and continued the same business from that address and operated under his previous identities, still carrying the BeScO logo, plus necessary materials and equipment; the work is performed in the same manner it was performed by the previous entities controlled by Mylan; Mylan exercises overall control over terms for performance of the work, collection of receipts, disbursement of costs and expenses, issuance of guarantees, etc. (in the BRI name). The Board (and reviewing courts of appeals) repeatedly have ruled an employer, whether operating as an individual or a corporate entity, for purposes of the Act will be considered the alter ego of another and responsible for remedying the unfair labor practices of the latter when the two were in substantially the same business under substantially the same ownership, control, and management, utilizing the same operational methods and equipment, and producing the same product for the same market or customer area.⁵ Mylan owned and owns a majority of the stock in BBSC and BRI; he was in overall control of BBSC and is in overall control of BRI; he was engaged in the roofing business in the Seattle area as BBSC and is engaged in the roofing business in the Seattle area as BRI; both BBSC in the past and BRI in the present used and use the same vehicle(s), materials, equipment, mode of operation to serve the same customer market utilizing some of the same personnel (and, certainly, personnel exercising the same skills and functions). This identity readily supports a finding BRI is BBSC's current alter ego. BRI contends it is not BBSC's latest alter ego because: (1) while Mylan and his wife own all of BRI's stock, Mylan Junior owned 40 percent of BBSC's stock; (2) since he commenced operations as BRI, Mylan has limited his structures in the Seattle area while Mylan, when operating as BBSC, worked on commercial and residential structures and, while operating as ERI, continued that broader line of work and expanded his operations to include the Portland, Oregon, and Littleton, Colorado areas; (3) Mylan Junior allegedly has continuously operated under the ERI name in the Portland area and (recently) expanded operations to compete with Mylan in the Seattle area; (4) while Mylan solely manages BRI, he shared management functions with Mylan Junior and Chuck Gordon while operating as BBSC; (5) as BRI, Mylan does not conduct operations from the same facili- 5 Commissary of Great Race Pizza Shoppes, 277 NLRB 1175 (1985); Rogers Cleaning Contractors, 277 NLRB 482 (1985), Edward Cooper Painting, 273 NLRB 1870 (1985), Watt Electric Co., 273 NLRB 655 (1984), Advance Electric, 268 NLRB 1001 (1984), E G Sprinkler Corp., 268 NLRB 1241 (1984), enfd 741 2d 10 (2d Cir 1984), William B. Allen, 267 NLRB 700 (1983), enfd. 758 F 2d 1145 (6th Cir 1985); All Kind Quilting, Inc., 266 NLRB 1186 (1983); Campbell Harris Electric, 263 NLRB 1143 (1982), enfd 719 F.2d 292 (8th Cir 1983), Custom Mfg. Co., 259 NLRB 614 (1981), Whitehall Packing Co, 257 NLRB 193 (1981); S. L Industries, 252 NLRB 1058 (1980), J M. Tanaka Construction, 249 NLRB 238 (1980), enfd 675 F.2d 1029 (9th Cir 1982); Southeastern Envelope Co., 246 NLRB 423 (1979), Nelson Electric, 241 NLRB 545 (1979), enfd. 638 F 2d 965 (6th Cir 1981), Patino, Victor & Nydia, 241 NLRB 774 (1979), Crawford Door Sales, 226 NLRB 1144 (1976) Also see Hot Bagels & Donuts of Staten Island, 244 NLRB 129 (1979), enfd. 622 F.2d 1113 (2d Cir 1980), Asbestos Workers Local 53 Pension Fund V. Insul-Contractors, 115 LRRM 2442 (D.C La), and Crest Tankers v Maritime Union, 605 F.Supp 1270 (Mo 1985), enfd 122 LRRM 3237 (8th Cir. 1986) BETTER BUILDING SUPPLY CORP. ties he utilized while operating as BBSC; (6) Mylan as BRI conducts his operations with one tractor/tank-trailer and three trucks with title ownership of all four in the name of BRI while he operated as BBSC with six tractor/tank-trailers with title held in the BBSC name and the same three trucks, then leased under the BBSC name; (7) while operating as BBSC, Mylan employed six applicator crews and five salesmen, while as BRI he employs one applicator crew and an undesignated number of salesmen; (8) as BRI, he does not employ the same personnel he employed while operating as BBSC; (9) since commencing operations as BRI, Mylan has used the cold application process exclusively, while he used both the hot and cold application processes while operating as BBSC; (10) BRI did not complete any BBSC contract and is not performing work for the same customers as BBSC; and (11) the General Counsel failed to establish Mylan commenced operations as BRI to avoid making whole the 69 employees who lost wages and benefits as a result of the unfair labor practices he committed while operating as BBSC/ERI. With respect to (1), the Board and the courts repeatedly have held that changes in the proportional ownership of a family corporation are irrelevant when the same individual has the controlling interest, as here.⁶ As to (2), a reduction in the scope of operations has likewise been held ineffective, i.e., when the alter ego conducts far less business, a portion of the former business, serves a smaller market, etc.⁷ With respect to (3), Mylan is caught in a seeming contradiction; Mylan testified Mylan Junior has continuously engaged in the roofing business under the ERI name since shortly after BBSC was deactivated and ERI was activated in its stead, in the Portland area; stipulated ERI is without assets and in Chapter 11 bankruptcy; testified while operating as ERI, he sold the equipment, assets, etc. he utilized in doing business as ERI in Portland to Mylan Junior prior to ERI's demise; and Mylan Junior currently competes against him for business in the Seattle area. The only reasonable inferences to be drawn from the foregoing are either: Mylan and Mylan Junior created a seperate entity in Portland to forestall claims against that portion of their assets held in the ERI name or the two parted ways and Mylan Junior purchased that portion of the equipment and business used to conduct the Portland operations and has since operated as sole owner of a separate entity from ERI. The latter inference is supported by the fact that the Mylans in their listing under the heading of "Lawsuits" attached to their Section 7 bankruptcy filing list the case of Evergreen Roofing of Oregon, Inc. and Jay Mylan V. Besco Roofing & Coatings, Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon No. A8304-02310. In any event, I find and conclude whether or not ERI continues to exist and function, the Board is not precluded from seeking derivative liability for Mylan's unfair labor practices in one or more of his prior identities from his latest alter ego, BRI. Turning to (4), the same principles as those controlling (2) are applicable; due to the reduced scale of his operations as BRI, Mylan necessarily employs fewer managers; this has no bearing on the issue of whether his majority ownership, control, and direction of two corporations engaged in the same business in the same area using the same equipment and methods, warrants a holding the later-created corporation is the alter ego of the earliercreated corporation. Next, (5), I have entered findings Mylan commenced business as BRI at the same premises he conducted business under the BBSC and ERI names; the fact he was forced to later move his operations due to bank foreclosure to a new location has no bearing on the determination just stated.⁸ The short answer to (6) and (7) is that they are governed by the same principles set out in (2), i.e., Mylan's reduced operations as BRI of course do not necessitate ownership of the same number of vehicles or personnel he required to conduct his much larger business as BBSC and the fact he leased the three trucks as BBSC which he now owns as BRI are irrelevant to the alter ego issue. As to (8), Mylan's reduced operations as BRI of course means a reduced staff and it is significant as part of that reduced staff Mylan employs the same crew chief he employed as BBSC to man his remaining tractor/- tank-trailer and direct his single crèw (Chris Romel), the same repair specialist he employed as BBSC (Eric Youmans) and the same individual he employed as BBSC to assemble and mix materials, dispatch trucks, etc. (Ron Richart). Mylan's failure as BRI to employ the same individuals as applicators and salesmen as he employed as BBSC is readily explained by the fact he terminated the former during his various identity changes and the latter left as his business declined; this has no relevance to the alter ego issue, SO long as it is established Mylan's latest creation, BRI, may be classified as BBSC's latest alter ego by Virtue of the fact it is owned, controlled, and managed by Mylan to conduct the same business serving the same customer base using the same equipment and mode of operation and employing persons exercising the same functions and skills. Turning to (9), findings were entered by Judge Panniet in the original case Mylan as BBSC/ERI was phasing out his use of hot applications as he built or acquired tractor/tank-trailers; the fact he was still performing some jobs using hot appications is thus irrelevant, since it is undisputed Mylan completed his changeover to the cold application process between the time he ceased to operate as BBSC and commenced operations as BRI. Concerning (10), of course, Mylan did not complete any jobs as BRI he contracted for as BBSC, since he had ample opportunity to do so in his numerous identities prior to his creation of BRI and it goes without saying as BRI he would not be removing and replacing the same roofs he removed and replaced as BBSC (or repairing them, unless earlier guarantees applied). The only relevant inquiry is whether as BRI he is serving the same class of customers in the same area or market he served 6 Rogers Cleaning Contractors, Edward Cooper Painting, Advance Electric, E. G. Sprinkler, Campbell Harris Electric, Crawford Door Sales, ibid 7 William B. Allen, All Kind Quilting, Customer Mfg., Whitehall Packing. J. M. Tanaka Construction, Crest Tankers, ibid. 8 Custom Mfg, ibid. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as BBSC. The answer to that inquiry is positive, for as BRI he solicits and performs work he solicited and performed as BBSC-the repair, removal, and replacement of existing roofs on commercial structures. As to (11), the Board and most reviewing courts have held proof a wrongdoer has created an alter ego to escape liabilities imposed for violations of the Act is only one of the criteria to be scrutinized in determining whether to impose derivative liability to remedy the violation, and is not determinative.9 In this case it is clear Mylan held the controlling ownership interest and exercised management control (including control of management labor relations) over a succession of entities starting with BBSC and ending (currently) with BRI doing business as a roofing contractor in the Seattle area employing the same methods, equipment, materials, supplies, supervision, and workers serving the same class of customers in the same area; i.e., Mylan has been "the common strand, linchpin, principal, operator, and guiding star of the business, as well as each of the "enterprises' in question. 10 BRI easily satifies the criteria applied by the Board and reviewing courts in a determination of whether or not BRI is BBSC's latest alter ego, 11 i.e., I have determined BBSC and BRI were and are owned and controlled by Mylan, they were and are engaged in the same business (roofing) under the same dominant manager (Mylan), operating with the same vehicles and equipment using the same operational methods, and employees exercising the same skills (in some cases, the same individuals) to serve the same class of customers in the same area; in such cases the Board and reviewing courts have held the current alter ego entity (Mylan, as BRI) derivatively liable for the Act violations committed by the earlier entity (Mylan, as BBSC), whether or not it has been established the alter ego was created to avoid such derivative liability. 12 Even assuming it is incumbent on the Board to find Mylan established BRI to avoid making whole the 69 employees who suffered financial losses due to Mylan's attempted evasion (as BBSC and ERI) of the BBSC- Local 54 agreement, as the court in the Asbetos Workers Local 54 Pension Fund case, cited above, stated: "We cannot permit them (the defendants) to evade obligations to the plaintiff's by setting up what appears to be a new company, but is in reality a continuation of the old ones." 115 LRRM 2445. The history of Mylan's succes- 9 Allcoast Transfer, 271 NLRB 1374 (1984), affd 780 F.2d 576 (6th Cir 1986); E. G. Sprinkler Corp, ibid.; Fugazy Continental Corp., 265 NLRB 1301 (1982), affd 725 F 2d 1416 (D.C. Cir. 1984), J. M. Tanaka Construction supra, Trico Products, 239 NLRB 65 (1978), affd. 636 F.2d 266 (10th Cir 1980); Nelson Electric, supra, Crawford Door Sales, supra. 10 William B. Allen, 267 NLRB 700, 705-706 (1983), quoted with approval by the Sixth Circuit, 758 F 2d 1145 (1985) 11 See the cases cited in fn. 5 above 12 As the Second Circuit stated in the E G Sprinkler case cited above, "here the record bears very substantial evidence that EG and GPP (EG's alter ego) shared substantially identical management, supervision, customers, ownership and business purpose. The argument that the Board must find anti-union animus or an intent to evade union obligations before it can impose alter ego status IS unpersuasive. The cases show that anti-union animus may be 'germane' or even a sufficient basis for imposing alter ego status they do not establish that anti-union motivation IS necessary" 741 F 2d 10, 12 [Emphasis and material in parentheses added ] Also see Hot Bagels & Donuts of Staten Island, supra sive creations and dissolutions, culminating in his latest creation (BCI), demonstrates an intent to avoid satisfying his obligations to his creditors, including the 69 employees who suffered financial losses due to his manipulations under former identities, and I so find and conclude. I therefore further find and conclude BRI is BBSC's latest alter ego derivatively liable for the moneys due the 69 former BBSC/ERI employees set forth in the specification. Next addressing the bankruptcy issue, it was established that in July 1983 Gerald and Verna Mylan, as individuals doing business under the name Besco Coating, filed a petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code asserting they ceased doing business under that name in May 1983 and seeking release from the claims of creditors on the ground their liabilities exceeded their assets. The Mylans attached schedules to the petition listing the secured and unsecured debts they sought released. Under the scheduled headed "Lawsuits" the Mylans listed the case of NLRB V. Better Building Supply Corp., No. 82- 7199 (9th Cir.). 13 In January 1984, Bankruptcy Judge Kenneth S. Treadwell ordered the petitioners be "released from all dischargeable debts" and ruled "any judgment heretofore or hereafter obtained in any court other than this court is null and void as a determination of the personal liability of the debtor with respect to debts dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523." [Emphasis added.] BRI contends that Order bars the Board, on behalf of the 69 employees who suffered monetary losses as a result of Mylan's unfair labor practices as BBSC/ERI, from seeking reimbursement of those losses from BRI. The first negative to this contention arises from the fact the bankruptcy was a personal (Chapter 7) bankruptcy of the Mylans as individuals while the Board Order pending before the Ninth Circuit case involved BBSC and ERI as corporate entities and they were in Chapter 11 bankruptcy at that time (the parties so stipulated). On those facts, it appears the Ninth Circuit case was listed improperly, in the wrong proceeding. Second, it has been established a corporate obligation may not be discharged by a personal bankruptcy petition. 14 And in any event, the Board and reviewing courts have ruled the Board has sole authority to determine and enforce backpay awards to remedy violations of the Act, 15 irrespective of whether there was a hiatus between the time a wrongdoer ceased operations due to bankruptcy and the time he resumed operation under another identity. 16 As the Board stated in the International Technical Products case, "To find otherwise would be tantamount to a relinquishment by the Board of its statutory obligation to remedy unfair labor practices and also its 13 BBSC/ERI's appeal from and the Board's cross-petition for enforcement of the Board's original Order in this case was pending before the Ninth Circuit at that time. 14 Bankruptcy code sec. 727(a)(1) 15 International Technical Products Corp, 249 NLRB 1301 (1980), and cases cited; also see Secs 10 and 15 of the Act 16 See cases cited in fn 5 BETTER BUILDING SUPPLY CORP. authority to proceed against a successor employer in furtherance of that obligation." 249 NLRB at 1303. On the basis of the foregoing, I reject BRI's position that the Board is barred from entering an order directing that BRI as BBSC's latest alter ego make whole the 69 individuals named in the backpay specification for their losses caused by Mylan's manipulations as BBSC and ERI. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended¹⁷ ORDER The Respondent, Better Building Supply Corp. and its alter egos Evergreen Roofing, Inc. and Besco Roofing, Inc., Seattle, Washington, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall pay to the 69 individuals listed on the attached appendix the sums listed opposite each name under the headings "Wages" and "Benefits," plus interest on the sums due calculated in the manner set out in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and computed in accordance with the formula set out in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977) (also see Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962)), less applicable withholding taxes, to be remitted to the appropriate authorities. 17 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended 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 purposes APPENDIX A Employee Wages Benefits Total James Allen $0.00 $98.00 $98.00 John Allen 23.04 230.31 253.35 Scott Bander 4.70 499.41 574.11 William Baxter 191.10 91.14 282.24 Bruce Beidliman 0.00 13.02 13.02 Don Bigelow 790.88 2977.64 3768.52 Daniel Bowers 1834.38 1634.65 3469.03 Terry Bucke 234.00 90.48 324.48 Robert Buhl 49.92 47.04 96.96 James Burg 491.04 91.15 582.19 Walter Campbell 0.00 35.28 35.28 Michael Christopherson 72.96 55.87 128.83 Douglas Coughtry 21.00 52.08 73.08 Jack Creswell 16.15 15.81 31.96 Thurston DeLano 74.25 246.45 320.70 Fred G. Dibble 1110.22 3405.09 4515.31 Dennis Ellis 499.59 356.74 856.33 William M. Evans 10.80 22.32 33.12 Eugene Fisher 0.00 397.88 397.88 Fred Fowler 141.36 60.76 202.12 Albert Gagnon 0.00 26.97 26.97 Greg Galcotti 249.16 119.56 368.72 James Genson 0.00 648.16 648.16 William Givler 0.00 0.00 0.00 Craig Golab 0.00 79.98 79.98 Alex Guillen 333.30 552.44 885.74 Mark Hammond 0.00 44.64 44.64 Dan Harrelson 0.00 0.00 0.00 Glen Harris 98.58 543.12 641.70 Todd Holein 130.65 277.15 407.80 Ron Howard 18.24 7.84 26.08 Scott Ingrahm 256.75 103.53 360.28 Richard Johnson 15.36 11.76 27.12 Kenneth Keith 111.30 2514.85 2626.15 Mark Kohovtek 76.80 58.80 135.60 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX A-Continued Employee Wages Benefits Total Joe Lartz 828.51 1179.56 2008.07 Rob Lartz 510.81 957.63 1468.44 William Lindgren 0.00 2655.20 2655.20 Ron Loghry 77.05 45.57 122.62 Matthew Luke 0.00 304.12 304.12 Patrick C. Manus, Jr. 349.44 358.55 707.99 Richard Marshall 0.00 108.79 108.79 Blake McKinnon 85.00 2066.63 2151.63 Donald Mylan 353.70 730.99 1084.69 Walter Noshi 0.00 412.58 412.58 Timothy Pearson 11.20 14.88 26.08 Lonnie Plecher 1254.64 1193.99 2448.63 John Poffenroth 150.15 71.61 221.76 John Price 0.00 63.70 63.70 Fred Rach 38.72 170.52 209.24 David Ray 325.85 126.69 452.54 Steve Romei 144.43 2685.96 2830.39 Richard Russell 48.13 64.13 112.26 Ray Sambana 11.15 699.37 710.52 Larry Schaefer 54.60 26.04 80.64 Tim Speckman 39.75 1121.82 1161.57 James Stallman 39.15 25.11 64.26 Lark M. Stebbins 0.00 92.08 92.08 Larry Stenstad 154.79 585.83 704.62 Bill Stolze 32.20 42.78 74.98 Don Waddell 139.50 230.64 370.14 James Wagner 546.05 742.84 1288.89 Tedd Webb 379.72 758.76 1138.48 Glen Widermoth 6.25 5.55 11.80 Brett Wilson 89.16 70.56 159.72 David Wilson 359.10 1012.79 1371.89 Douglas Witham 254.87 733.90 988.77 Jeff Witham 57.60 280.86 338.46 Eric Yormans 430.85 527.59 958.44