Georgia Kraft Co.

GEORGIA KRAFT CO. 29 Georgia Kraft Company, Woodkraft Division and Laborers' Local Union No. 246. Cases 10-CA- 15289, 10-CA-15293, and 10-CA-15564 March 10, 1988 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS BABSON AND CRACRAFT On August 31, 1987, Administrative Law Judge J. Pargen Robertson issued the attached supple- mental decision. The General Counsel filed excep- tions and a supporting brief. The Charging Party filed cross-exceptions, a supporting brief, and an answering brief to the Respondent's exceptions. The Respondent filed exceptions, a supporting brief, and answering briefs to the General Coun- sel's exceptions and the Charging Party's cross-ex- ceptions. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the supplemental deci- sion 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 recom- mended Order. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Georgia Kraft Company, Woodkraft Division, Greenville, Georgia, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order. ' In adopting the judge's finding that the named employees are not en- titled to backpay, we hold that the record does not support a finding that the alleged losses to the employees resulted from the Respondent's failure to execute the December 9, 1979 collective-bargaining agreement. Conse- quently, we find it unnecessary to reach the issues of whether the Gener- al Counsel's model is arbitrary or whether the employees failed to miti- gate their losses. We agree with the judge that in the circumstances here in which the parties negotiated a subsequent collective-bargaining agreement, backpay, if appropriate, should be measured from the date of the unfair labor prac- tice to the date on which the parties negotiated the subsequent agreement in good faith. In so doing, we disavow his reliance on P. J. Hamill Trans- fer Co., 277 NLRB 462 (1985), and KCW Furniture Co., 276 NLRB 957 (1985), for the more general proposition for which he cited them. We correct the typographical error in the recommended Supplemental Order to $29,640 from $29.640. In accordance with our decision in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), Interest on and after January 1, 1987, shall be com- puted at the "short-term Federal rate" for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U.S C. § 6621. Interest on amounts accrued prior to January 1, 1987 (the effective date of the 1986 amend- ment to 26 U S.C. § 6621), shall be computed in accordance with Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). Frank F. Rox Jr., for the General Counsel. J. Roy Weathersby and Dora L DeHaven, Esqs. (Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy), of Atlanta, Georgia, for the Respondent. Richard Barnes, Esq., of Atlanta, Georgia, for the Charg- ing Party. SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION J. PARGEN ROBERTSON, Administrative Law Judge. This is a proceeding for determination of backpay liabil- ity. By decision dated 30 September 1981 (258 NLRB 908) the National Labor Relations Board found, inter alia, that Respondent had illegally refused to execute a collective-bargaining agreement that it and Laborers' Local Union No. 246 agreed to on 9 December 1979. On 24 January 1983 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Elev- enth Circuit granted enforcement (696 F.2d 931). On 11 March 1987 a backpay specification issued alleging that Respondent owed backpay as a result of its actions found to be illegal in the above-mentioned decision of the Board. Specifically, the General Counsel alleges that backpay is owed by Respondent because it has continued to refuse to comply with the provisions of article 23, sec- tion 3(B); article 5, section 2(A); and article 26 of the 9 December 1979 collective-bargaining agreement. The first issue joined by the pleadings concerns the language of the 9 December 1979 agreement. Respond- ent contends that the agreement contained in appendix A of the backpay specification and the agreement submitted to it at various times by the Union are not the agreement reached on 9 December 1979. During the hearing here, I ruled that issue had been resolved by the Board. The Board found that a "writing" submitted to Respondent by the Union on 11 July 1980 constituted the collective- bargaining agreement with some "minor deviation." The Board then specified the nature of those deviations in footnote 9: The "writing" referred to is G.C. Exh. 34, and the "deviations" are as follows: The first paragraph of art. 5, sec. 2,A, p. 4 is ap- parently inconsistent with the Union's acceptance of Respondent's December 3 proposal, to include the third paragraph in that subsection. In any event, the record is clear that the Union unequivocally accept- ed Respondent's December 3 "Seniority" proposal. We note that the "offending" first paragraph was part of an initial proposal submitted by Respondent on November 6. Art. 5, sec. 2,B, subpar. 2, p. 5, omits the follow- ing sentence: Employees' shift will be changed only after at- tempts have been exhausted to fill the position from employees on the shift where the vacancy exists. This sentence appears in Resp. Exh. 19, submitted by Respondent on November 6. Art. 23 reflects the correct percentage wage in- crease, but neglects to translate that percentage into a "dollar/hour" rate. Art. 23, sec. 3 represents a written proposal sub- mitted by Respondent (Resp. Exh. 23(a)-(c)) but 288 NLRB No. 9 30 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1., which Respondent did not wish to incorporate into a written contract. The issue of whether or not to reduce an agreed-upon provision to writing, howev- er, is not the sort of failure to agree which would preclude our finding a "meeting of the minds." Thus if a party insists, an agreed-upon provision must be reduced to writing. See generally, Amalga- mated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO [Henry L Siegel Co., Inc..] v. 1V.L.R.B., 324 F.2d 228 (2d Cir. 1963). Thus it appears that of the four "inconsistencies" noted above, only the omission of the sentence from p. 5 of G.C. Exh 34 has no apparent explanation. General Counsel's Exhibit 34 was received in evidence as Joint Exhibit 3. Article 23, section 3(B) reads: B. Procedure to Determine Job Classification As- signments in the Lines of Progression This procedure applies only to the initial estab- lishment of lines of progression so that those em- ployees hired prior to the ratification date of this Agreement will have the opportunity to bid on their departmental jobs. 1. To determine regular job assignments in the lines of progression, employees hired prior to the ratification date of this Agreement will be eligible to bid within their department for jobs on their as- signed shifts. 2. Employees who bid on a job must have the ability to do the job and the physical fitness to per- form the job. In the event two or more employees bid on the same job who are equally qualified, then Department Seniority shall govern. 3. In a department where a job(s) is not filed by bid, the remaining employees not assigned to a reg- ular job will be offered the opportunity to select one of the unfilled jobs. The employee with the greater Department Seniority will be given the first selection opportunity among the unfilled jobs. As to article 5, section 2(A), a deviation is noted in footnote 9 of the Board's decision. The record shows that article 5, section 2, provides for promotions into vacant jobs. Promotions are granted, according to that provision, on the basis of qualifications and, in the event of equal qualifications, on the basis of first departmental, then plant seniority.' Backpay Due Employees In essence, the General Counsel alleges that backpay should accrue to named employees because those em- 1 On 14 August 1987 an Order to Show Cause issued directing the par- ties to show cause why the hearing should not reopen. That order was based on an exchange at 115 and 116 showing that testimony was ex- cluded that may have shown that the Union during negotiations m 1982, waived or compromised rights under arts. 23 and 5 of the 1979 contract; and on a showing that art. 5, sec 2(A), of the 1979 contract was not proved m accurate detail. Respondent answered that "it has no objection to reopening the hearing" and the General Counsel did not respond. In view of the failure of either party to express a strong desire to reopen, I order that the hearing will not reopen. ployees would have received pay grade promotions pur- suant to the provisions of article 23, section 3(B), and ar- ticle 5, section 2(A) in the 1979 contract. Prior to the 1979 negotiations, Respondent paid em- ployees in accord with its point system. The point system is described in article 23 of the 1978-1979 collec- tive-bargaining agreement: Each job function within a department shall be assigned a point value by the Company within the range from zero points to five (5) points. Points awarded in a department are not transferrable to an- other department. Normally, employees who trans- fer or are hired into a department will be assigned to the bottom or beginning job listed under the de- partment. Through job rotation training of employ- ees within the department, the employees will be given the opportunity to become proficient on other jobs within the department. In order to be eligible for a proficient rating on a job, the employee must operate the job for sixty (60) days and be able to demonstrate and explain the job function satisfacto- rily to this supervisor. After sixty (60) days on the job, the supervisor will review the employee's profi- ciency on the job, and the employee's knowledge of the job function. If in the judgment of the supervi- sor, the employee's proficiency, job performance, work record and knowledge of the job function is not satisfactory for points to be awarded to the em- ployee, another evaluation will be made in thirty (30) days. If the supervisor rates the employee as satisfactory, the point value of the job will be awarded to the employee. The rate of pay for an employee will be based on the number of points awarded by the supervisor in the department. The provisions in this Article are not subject to the Grievance and Arbitration Proce- dures. During the 1979 negotiations, Respondent sought to amend its pay system Under the point system, approxi- mately 80 percent of the employees had acquired 10 points and were receiving top pay. Therefore, Respond- ent's labor cost were high. The 1979 contract provided that only those employees employed before the ratifica- tion date of the 1979 agreement would be paid under the point system. In its backpay specification, the General Counsel does not allege that the employees are entitled to backpay be- cause of losses suffered during the existence of the 1979- 1982 agreement. However, in negotiations between Re- spondent and the Union in 1982, an agreement was reached to phase down employees in point system grades one and two. The appropriate language in the 1982 agreement provides: ARTICLE 23 DEPARTMENTS, POINT SYSTEM AND HOURLY WAGE RATE SCHEDULE The departments and job classifications of the Greenville Plant covered by the Agreement are GEORGIA KRAFT CO. 31 listed in this Article, but shall not constitute a guar- antee of any such department or job classification during the term of this agreement because of its list- ing in this Article. Point System The Point System contained in the January 1, 1978-October 31, 1979 Labor Agreement is elimi- nated and shall only apply to those employees hired prior to October 31, 1979 who were covered by the Point System on that date. Those employees who were not at the top rate of $6.53 per hour prior to October 31, 1979 have been given the opportunity within their assigned department on October 31, 1979 to train and qualify for the required points to reach the rate of $6.53 per hour during the period from December 10, 1979 to November 3, 1980. There shall be no further wage rate increases for any of these employees based on the former Point System method. The Point System rate obtained by an employee shall only apply to that employee when permanently assigned to the department in which the employee earned the Point System rate. Employees hired after October 31, 1979 shall not be eligible for the Point System, but will be covered by the established job rates as listed in this Article. Point System rated employees in grades 1 and 2 will have their Point System rate phased down ac- cording to the following schedule: 1st Year - 2d Year 3d Year Grade 2 Job Rate 5.07 5.22 5.38 P.S. 800 8.00 6.52 6.11 P.S. 7.48 7.48 6.52 6.11 Grade 1 Job Rate 4.75 4.89 5.04 P.S. 800 1st 6 Mm 8.00 6.52 6.11 2d 6 Mos. 7.50 P.S 7.48 1st 6 Mos 7.48 6.52 6.11 2d 6 Mos. 7.25 Point System rated employees in grades 3, 4, and 5 will have their Point System Rate "red circled" for the duration of the 3-year contract while as- signed to a job classification in their current perma- nent Grade. No wage increase will be added to any Point system rate. A Point System employee as- signed to a job classification with a Job Rate higher than the employee's Point System rate will receive the higher Job Rate while assigned to the job classi- fication and will no longer be classified as a Point System employee. The General Counsel contends that but for Respond- ent's refusal to comply with the provisions of the 1979- 1982 agreement found in article 23, section 3(B), and arti- cle 5, section 2(A), the point system employees named in paragraphs 7 and 9 of the backpay specification would have advanced beyond grade levels one or two, 2 and would not have been subjected to the phase down re- quired in article 23 of the 1982 agreement. At the outset, it is necessary to consider the General Counsel's theory in light of several arguments raised by Respondent: 1. The backpay liability resulted solely from 1982 ne- gotiations: When the parties negotiated a new agreement in the fall of 1982, the Board's decision was outstanding. That decision (225 NLRB 908) issued on 30 September 1981. In the fall of 1982 the matter was pending before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Elev- enth Circuit. The court's decision issued some months after the 1982 negotiation concluded (24 January 1983). Nevertheless, despite pendency of the matter in the Eleventh Circuit, both parties were well aware of the Board's decision during the 1982 contract negotiations. The General Counsel's backpay liability is based en- tirely on losses claimed from wage phase downs speci- fied in article 23 of that 1982 agreement. Those phase downs affected employees named in the backpay specifi- cation. Respondent contends that the Union, by agreeing to the terms of the 1982 agreement, and especially by agree- ing to the provisions of article 23 at a time when it was aware of the Board's underlying decision, voluntarily waived any claim to future backpay liability for employ- ees in point system grades 1 and 2. 2. The Region's model arbitrarily establishes a basis for illustrating loss of earnings which does not follow crite- ria established in the collective-bargaining agreement: Respondent argues that the model used to prepare the backpay specification was designed to ensure that none of the former point system employees suffered loss of earnings. From an examination of the 1979 and the 1982 contracts, it is apparent that Respondent was moving toward elimination of the point system. However, the Union negotiated over that issue and certain procedures were included in the contracts that were designed to provide point system employees with an opportunity to avoid harm to their pay. The Union and Respondent did not agree to guarantee that no former point system em- ployee would have his or her pay reduced. Respondent contends that the General Counsel extended such a guar- antee by constructing its model around those pay system employees that suffered pay reductions even though the employees would have suffered pay reduction in the ab- sence of Respondent's unfair labor practices. Respondent argues that the Region's theory is not rationally based. In its model, the General Counsel uses seniority as the sole determining factor. Respondent points out that the contract requires that the bidding employee must first be the most qualified bidder. Additionally, Respondent points out that some employees with less seniority than those employees named in the backpay specification re- ceived promotions. That factor may illustrate that less 2 Under the point system employees could acquire as many as 10 points that placed them at pay grade 5. Pay grade 5 paid top wages. Pay grade 1 paid entry level wages. Grades 1 and 2 were subject to wage phase down beginning in November 1983. Grades 3, 4, and 5 did not suffer a pay reduction. 32 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD senior employees were more qualified than employees named in the specification, or that those named in the specification elected not to seek promotions. Additionally, Respondent contends that the one-time bid that the General Counsel contends was required under article 23, section 3(B), was not required under the circumstances. Respondent argues that it lawfully estab- lished the lines of progression during the strike that start- ed on 15 November and ended 9 December 1979 and that it was not necessary to bid into those lines (jobs) after 10 December 1979. Respondent also argues that the Union waived any right to complain by not grieving its failure to hold a one-time bid at a time proximate to the 1979 contract. Respondent argues that grievances were processed during the terms of the 1979-1982 contract and that the Union could have timely filed and processed grievances. Respondent also argued that the underlying Board Order did not direct the payment of backpay and that such an order is a prerequisite to backpay specification proceedings. Earle Equipment Co., 270 NLRB 827, 828 (1984). 3. Employees failed to mitigate their losses: Respond- ent argues that if it is found that the General Counsel presented a rational based model, the named employees failed to mitigate their losses by failing to bid on numer- ous grade 3 or higher jobs. Findings During the hearing, the General Counsel moved to strike Respondent's answer and deemed specified para- graphs as admitted. The General Counsel contends that Respondent did not comply with the provisions of Sec- tion 102.54 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Section 102.54 states, in pertinent part: As to all matters within the knowledge of the re- spondent, including but not limited to the various factors entering into the computation of gross back- pay, a general denial shall not suffice. I deny the General Counsel's motion. As shown here, this is not a simple backpay proceeding., The General Counsel's allegations are complex, lending themselves to many arguments. Respondent's answer is detailed to the point of joining all issues. Moreover, Respondent's answer is not contentious to the point of making asser- tions that are not factually supportable. Additionally, Re- spondent clearly states its defense in its answer. In es- sence, Respondent contends that the General Counsel's basic conclusions are erroneous. Therefore, according to Respondent, there is no basis on which it could construct a model of its own. Additionally, I find that Respondent's argument that the General Counsel lacks authority to seek backpay is not supported by the record. The Board's Order in the underlying unfair labor practice proceeding requires Re- spondent to comply with the terms of its 1979 collective- bargaining agreement with the Union. To the extent the General Counsel is able to show that backpay should flow from Respondent's failure to comply with that agreement, a compliance proceeding is proper. 1. The effects of the 1982 negotiations: As shown above, the parties negotiated a new collective-bargaining agreement in the fall of 1982 at a time when all were aware of the Board's 30 September 1981 decision (258 NLRB 908). That contract included article 23 that in- cluded the following paragraph: Point System The Point System contained in the January 1, 1978-October 31, 1979 Labor Agreement is elimi- nated and shall only apply to those employees hired prior to October 31, 1979 who were covered by the Point System on that date. Those employees who were not at the top rate of $6.53 per hour prior to October 31, 1979 have been given the opportunity within their assigned department on October 31, 1979 to train and qualify for the required points to reach the rate of $6.53 per hour during the period from December 10, 1979 to November 3, 1980. There shall be no further wage rate increases for any of these employees based on the former Point System method. The Point System rate obtained by an employee shall only apply to that employee when permanently assigned to the department in which the employee earned the Point System rate. The above language indicates that the parties were in agreement that all point system employees had been af- forded the opportunity to qualify for required points. The date on which employees returned to work after the 15 November 1979 strike was 10 December 1979. Re- spondent offered evidence during the hearing that the initial lines of progression within the respective depart- ments were, of necessity, established during that strike. It appears clear that the Union agreed nevertheless that be- ginning on 10 December 1979 and extending through 3 November 1980, the point system employees were af- forded the opportunity to train and qualify for required points. Moreover, at the time when Respondent and the Union were agreeing that employees had been given the opportunity to qualify for required points, there was no finalized provision penalizing those employees that had not qualified. At that time, despite Respondent's prior unfair labor practices, no employee had suffered loss of earnings. _ _ On recognizing and agreeing that employees had been afforded the opportunity to qualify for points, however, the Union agreed to provisions in the contract that would eventually penalize those employees who failed to qualify. The negotiated wage rate reduction for point system employees grades 1 and 2 did not begin until the second year of the 1982 contract. The Union did not waive any rights under the 1979- 1982 contract. Instead the Union actively negotiated changes in the pay structure of some point system em- ployees. In fact, there were no backpay claims to waive under the 1979-1982 contract. All parties agree that no backpay liability occurred, if at all, until after the first year of the 1982 agreement. GEORGIA KRAFT CO. 33 When the Union agreed to reduce the wages for point system employees in grades 1 and 2, those grades 1 and 2 employees were known by name. From the above, it is apparent that article 23, section 3(B), or article 5, section 2(A), did not proximately con- tribute to reduction in wages for those employees listed in either paragraph 7 or paragraph 9 of the backpay specification. The Union and Respondent have the right to negotiate wage reductions. The facts show that is pre- cisely what occurred in the fall of 1982. Obviously, the Union had an opportunity in 1982 to propose contract language that would protect those employees named in the backpay specification. The Union did, through nego- tiations, agree that those employees had been afforded opportunities to "qualify" for required points. I am convinced that it was the 1982 contract and not article 23, section 3(B), and article 5, section 2(A), of the 1979 contract that established losses through wage re- ductions. As shown here, the General Counsel's model draws highly speculative conclusions from premises out- side the terms of the 1979 contract. However, in the fall of 1982, it was unnecessary for the Union to speculate. The Union knew or could have known which point system employees remained in grades 1 and 2. The Union also knew or could have known what actions Re- spondent had taken in affording point system employees opportunities to qualify for grade 3 or above. Against that background, the 1982 agreement was negotiated. It would be an improper interference with those negotia-. tions to now go behind the contract and levy penalties because the parties were able to reach agreement. In 8(a)(5) cases where the respondent refuses to comply with the terms of an agreement, the accerted practice is to run backpay from the date of their unfair labor practice to the date on which the parties negotiate an agreement in good faith (P. J. Hamill Transfer Co., 277 NLRB 462 (1985); KCW Furniture Co., 276 NLRB 957 (1985)). If that practice is followed here, it becomes apparent that no backpay is due. The employees suffered no lost earnings during the period from December 1979 to November 1982. 2. The model is arbitrary: I also agree with the Re- spondent's contention that the backpay specification model is arbitrary. In effect, the model shows a cause in fact much in the same vein as showing that an accident victim would not have been injured if he had been in an- other location. The General Counsel's model purports to show that article 23, section 3(B), and article 5, section 2(A), con- tributed to the wage reductions. However, in order to il- lustrate that point, the model ignores the language in two provisions of the 1979 contract indicating the most quali- fied bidder would be awarded each job. Perhaps, as the compliance officer implied, it would have been difficult to gather the information necessary to construct a model using qualifications as a prime criteria. However, the record does not support a basis to ignore the contract. The record fails to show that any effort was made to de- termine the facts necessary to use qualifications as a cri- teria. I cannot depart from requirements of the contract on nothing more than the assertion that it would have been difficult to construct an accurate model. I find that the General Counsel was not justified in using seniority as the sole qualifying factor when in fact the primary factor under the terms of the contract was qualifications. Moreover, the General Counsel did not rebut Re- spondent's evidence that the lines of progression were es- tablished during the 15 November through 10 December strike. A reading of article 23, section 3(B), does not pre- clude such an interpretation. The compliance officer tes- tified that it was reasonable to conclude that the Union would have requested the one-time bid in March 1980. However, article 23 does not provide for a bid on request by the Union, and article 23 does not impose any time re- strictions on Respondent holding the bid. The backpay model uses the term department to in- clude the larger departments that were created in the 1979 contract. However, article 23, section 2, entitled "Departments and Hourly Wage Rate Schedule," pur- ports to create larger departments to apply to the non- point system employees. Subsequently, at article 23, sec- tion 3, the contract provides that point system employees may train within their "current departments." Chrrent departments during 1979 negotiations included log yard, sawmill, stacker, and saw shop. By article 23, section 2, log yard, sawmill, stacker, and saw shop were combined into one department, the green end department. In the model, the General Counsel uses the term current de- partment to include the green end department. That in- terpretation is incorrect. The resultant model incorrectly shows employees within the smaller departments have more job bid opportunities than they would have experi- enced under the 1979 contract. Finally, Respondent argues that the named employees failed to mitigate their losses. The record supports Re- spondent's argument but, moreover, by showing that the named employees failed to bid on available jobs, Re- spondent illustrated the unlikelihood that those employ- ees would have bid on jobs under article 23, section 3(B), or article 5,. section 2(A). The employees named in the backpay specification had opportunities but failed to bid on jobs offering promo- tions. The following chart shows the number of bid op- portunities afforded each employee from 1980 through 1985. 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Oneida Parks 5 8 1 3 6 3 Yvonne Blalock 6 8 1 2 0 0 Arthur Lee Jones 3 7 1 1 1 0 Charles N. Brown 0 5 1 0 1 0 Alexander Buchanan 0 5 1 0 0 0 Marvin Steel 0 4 1 0 2 3 Thomas Gates 0 4 1 0 2 3 Roosevelt Martin 0 2 0 0 0- 7 Eloise Favors 3 7 1 1 6 3 Hazel Owens 3 6 1 1 0 0 James O'Neal 2 6 1 1 3 1 Robert Walton 0 4 1 0 1 0 Larry Amey 0 4 1 0 0 0 Daniel Addison 0 4 1 0 1 0 Ronald Singleton 0 2 0 0 0 0 34 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A "backpay remedy must be sufficiently tailored to ex- punge only the actual and not merely speculative conse- quences of the unfair labor practices." Sure Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883, 900 (1984). The record illustrates that the General Counsel's backpay specification is merely speculative whether Respondent's unfair labor practices contributed to pay reductions. Union Dues Respondent did not deduct from employees' pay, nor remit to the Union, dues during the period of the 1979- 1982 contract. Prior to the 1979 agreement employees had duly executed checkoff authorizations. The 1978 checkoff authorization and the form provided in the 1979-1982 agreement were the same: Check Off Authorization Card I hereby authorize and direct my employer to deduct from my wages the monthly dues of $ and direct that such amount so deducted be sent to the Secretary-Treasurer of Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. This authorization of the deduction of dues shall remain in force for a period of one year or until the termination date of the agreement, whichever occurs first, and shall automatically renew itself for successive periods of one year or succeeding agree- ment periods, whichever shall be shorter, until writ- ten notice by the employee to the employer and the Union revokes this authorization in any ten day period prior to the expiration of each one year period, or each applicable agreement. The pertinent provisions of article 26 of both the 1978-1979 and the 1979-1982 contracts are as follows: PAYROLL DEDUCTION OF UNION DUES SECTION 1. During the term of this Agreement, the employer shall deduct the annual Union mem- bership dues on a monthly basis from the pay of each employee who executes a voluntary authoriza- tion in the form shown in Exhibit B of this Agree- ment. SECTION 2. The employer shall not be required to deduct dues from the pay of any employee until the Union shall have delivered to the employer a copy of such voluntary authorization for check-off which has been properly executed by such employ- ee. SECTION 3 Each month the employer will deduct from the pay of each employee who has ex- ecuted an authorization card the amount specified, on the card, during the first pay period of each month. The amount so deducted shall be remitted to the Union by the twentieth of the month. In the event that improper deductions are made and remit- ted to the Union, the employee's sole recourse shall be from the Union. The employer shall not be liable hereunder for any loss of dues sustained by the Union as a result of the employer's clerical mistakes or the like. SECTION 4. The Union shall indemnify and hold harmless the employer against any form of ji- ability arising out of any action taken or not taken by the employer for the purpose of complying with any provision of this Article. In the event that the Union claims the employer has, on any total month- ly deduction, deducted from the wages of its em- ployees monthly Union dues in an amount less than properly authorized, such claims will be deemed waived unless the Union notifies the employer of the alleged discrepancy before the next month's de- ductions. SECTION 5. In the event of a violation of any of the provisions of the No Strike-No Lockout Arti- cle of this Agreement (Article 3) the employer may suspend or terminate the deduction of dues provi- sions of this Article, in addition to pursuing any other remedies which are available. SECTION 6. Employee Cancellation of Authorization The provisions of this Section shall amend and take precedent over the check off authorization can- cellation stated in the Union's Checkoff Authoriza- tion Card. An employee who has authorized payroll deduc- tion of Union dues may cancel such authorization by giving written notice to the Company during the twenty (20) day period. Commencing ten (10) days prior to and ending ten (10) days after an anniversa- ry date or a termination date of this Agreement. The first anniversary date of this Agreement shall be December 4, 1978. Such voluntary authorization is irrevocable unless cancelled by the employee as provided above or until termination date of the present Agreement, whichever occurs sooner and shall be automatically renewed as an authorization from year to year unless revoked as provided above. Respondent contends that the 1978-1979 authoriza- tions to deduct dues were automatically canceled when the Union terminated the contract at its expiration date on 31 October 1979. The General Counsel argues that the underlying Board decision specified there was no hiatus between the 1978 and the 1979 contracts and that the previously executed dues-checkoff authorizations re- mained in full effect. Finding A reading of the checkoff authorization and the lan- guage in both the 1978 and 1979 contracts illustrate that the dues-checkoff authorizations automatically renew at the end of the contract. Absent revocation by the respec- tive employee the dues deductions should have contin- ued in accordance with the contracts and the authoriza- tions. Moreover, even though the parties did not reach agreement until 9 December 1979, the underlying Board GEORGIA KRAFT CO. 35 decision clearly states that there was no hiatus and that the effective date reverted back to the termination of the 1978 agreement. The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the Board by including a caveat that the 1979 agreement commenced at the conclusion of the 15-day extension of the 1978 contract. Therefore, I agree with the General Counsel. Re- spondent breached its 1979-1982 agreement by refusing to check off employees' dues and remit those funds to the Union. Southland Dodge, 205 NLRB 276 fn. 1 (1973); Stackpole Components Co., 232 NLRB 723 (1977); El Centro Community Mental Health Center, 266 NLRB 1 (1983). Although the Union did not grieve Respondent's refus- al to remit union dues during the 1979-1982 agreement, the record shows that Respondent was refusing to abide by the terms of that agreement. As shown in the under- lying decision, Respondent did not comply with the terms of the contract, and the Union was processing unfair labor practices against Respondent. Conclusions To the extent shown above, I conclude that the formu- las used in the backpay specification were reasonable and appropriate and that the mathematical calculations based on the formula were accurate. In accordance with the backpay specification, Re- spondent's answer, stipulation of the parties, and the complete record, I find that Respondent failed to pay, and it is directed to remit to the Union, dues owed under its 1979-1982 collective-bargaining agreement with the Union in accordance with the net backpay calculation marked "Appendix" attached hereto. ORDER The Respondent, Georgia Kraft Company, Woodkraft Division, Greenville, Georgia, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall Pay to Laborers' Local Union No. 246 the sum set out below as total amount due on the attached net backpay compilation marked "Appendix," for loss of dues suf- fered, with interest, as a result of Respondent's failure to comply with the 1979-1982 collective-bargaining agree- ment between Respondent and the Union: $29,640. APPENDIX Employee On Checkoff Employed Termination Amount Due Roger Williams Yes Yes $255.00 Grady Barber Yes Yes 255.00 Cecil Barber Yes Yes 255.00 Preston D. Barlow Yes Yes 255.00 James W. Guy Yes Yes 255.00 Guy W. Helton Yes Yes 255.00 Willie L. Harris Yes No 5/12/80 37.50 Alex Favors Yes Yes 255.00 Betty Gunnin Yes No 7/1/81 150.00 Oliver Thompson Yes Yes 255.00 William C. Moore Yes Yes 255.00 Arthur Howard Yes Yes 255.00 William C. Bass Yes No 9/19/80 67.50 Oneva Parks Yes Yes 255.00 Ed Argroves Yes Yes 255.00 Paul Whitten Yes Yes 255.00 Fay Thompson Yes No 3/2/81 105.00 Roger O'Neal Yes No 2/1/80 15.00 Bobby Price Yes Yes 255.00 Terry Tenney Yes No 3/1/81 105.00 Harold Duke Yes Yes 255.00 Yvonne Blalock Yes Yes 255.00 Robert Hollis Yes Yes 255.00 Michael Buttram Yes No 9/19/80 67.50 Joe L. Hughes Yes No 5/15/81 127.50 Mary Burth Yes Yes 255.00 Fred Matthews Yes No 4/26/82 210.00 Charles E. Brown Yes Yes 255.00 Doug Prather Yes Yes 255.00 Jerry Kierbow Yes No 7/8/80 52.50 Michael Lanier Yes No 7/1/81 150.00 Roger Martin Yes Yes 8/10/81 150.00 Charlie Veal Yes Yes 255.00 Donald Leonard Yes Yes 255.00 Larry Howard Yes Yes 255.00 36 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX-Continued Employee On Checkoff Employed Termination Amount Due Albert Reeves Yes Yes 255.00 Clarence Russell Yes No 5/10/82 217.50 Leon Cobb Yes Yes 255.00 Willie Tenney Yes Yes 255.00 James Kelly Yes Yes Promoted 60.00 9/1/80. Roger Harper Yes Yes Promoted 37.50 6/1/80. Joe Perryman Yes Yes 255.00 Lee Roy Reeves Yes Yes 255.00 Hilton Strozier Yes Yes 255.00 Homer Reeves Yes Yes 255.00 Marvin Snelling Yes Yes 255.00 Tim Kendrick Yes Yes 255.00 Fred Yarbrough Yes Yes 255.00 Willie Bryant Yes No 3/3/80 15.00 Glene E. Brown Yes Yes 255.00 Merriam C. Frost Yes Yes 255.00 Charles Johnson Yes No 6/8/81 135.03 Janice Boudrie (Throckmorton) Yes Yes 255.00 Paul Fox Yes Yes 255.00 John Todd Yes Yes 255.00 Wiley Shephard Yes Yes 255.00 Eulis Favors Yes Yes 255.00 Robert Works Yes Yes 255.00 Arthur L. Jones Yes Yes 255.00 Hazel Owens Yes Yes 255.00 James Stitcher Yes Yes 255.00 Crosby Favors Yes Yes 255.00 Roosevelt Martin Yes Yes 255.00 Ulysses Mahone Yes Yes 255.00 Gilbert Harris Yes No 2/1/80 15.00 R. Barry McCoy Yes Yes 255.00 Albert Bouchard Yes Yes 255.00 J. Smith Yes No 9/21/80 67.50 Johnny Ledford Yes Yes 255.00 Clarence Watson Yes Yes 255.00 James O'Neal Yes Yes 255.00 Thomas Blalock Yes Yes 255.00 Donald Thrash Yes Yes 255.00 Edward Amey Yes Yes 255.00 Frank Harps Yes Yes 255.00 Willie Clemons Yes Yes 255.00 Nelson Godfrey Yes Yes 255.00 Grady Green Yes No 3/1/81 105.00 George Burch Yes No 3/17/80 22.50 Alan Amerson Yes Yes 255.00 William Cook Yes No 11/6/80 82.50 J. Mike Williams Yes No 6/23/80 45.00 J. Randall Ray Yes Yes 255.00 Brian Oliver Yes Yes 255.00 Charles Prather Yes Yes 255.00 Jethro Gosdin Yes No 9/19/80 67.50 Charles N. Brown Yes Yes 255.67 Nathaniel Murrah Yes No 8/17/81 150.00 William Melson Yes Yes 255.00 Lester R. Moore Yes No 10/15/81 165.00 Render Johnson Yes Yes 255.00 Harvey McGruder Yes Yes 255.00 John Ward Yes Yes 255.00 Gerald St.Clair Yes Yes 255.00 David Callaway Yes Yes 255.00 Symon Reeves Yes Yes 255.00 GEORGIA KRAFT CO. 37 APPENDIX-Continued Employee On Checkoff Employed Termination Amount Due William Moultrie Yes Yes 255.00 William Gross Yes Yes 255.00 Anthony R. Brown Yes Yes 255.00 Marvin Steele Yes Yes 255.00 Terry Walton Yes Yes 255.00 Alexander Buchanan Yes Yes 255.00 Robert L. Thrash Yes Yes 255.00 Tom Gates Yes Yes 255.00 Robert Reeves Yes Yes 255.00 Terry C. Flourney Yes Yes 255.00 Ulis Daniels Yes No 5/12/80 37.50 Warner Slaton Yes No 6/23/80 45.00 Herbert Steele Yes Yes 255.00 Robert Walton Yes Yes 255.00 Larry Amey Yes Yes 255.00 James Cheney Yes No 6/23/80 45.00 Daniel Addison Yes Yes 255.00 John Walker Yes Yes 255.00 Phillip Faulkner Yes Yes 255.00 Eldred Devore Yes No 9/1/81 150.00 Anthony Crouch Yes No 2/27/80 15.00 Wayne Arrington Yes No 2/1/82 187.50 Ronnie O'Neal Yes Yes 255.00 Ronnie Wilbur Yes Yes 255.00 Richard Smith Yes Yes 255.00 Jeffrey Hughes Yes No 5/15/80 37.50 Robert Russell Yes No 3/16/81 112.50 James Cranston Yes No 4/7/80 30.00 Charles Damron Yes Yes 255.00 George Roland Yes Yes 255.00 Bluford Fowler Yes Yes 255.00 Ricky W. Snell Yes No 2/23/81 105.00 Dale J. McKinley Yes No 2/1/80 7.50 Boyd Jones Yes Yes 255.00 Perry Whatley Yes No 10/20/80 75.00 L. G. Stinson Yes Yes 255.00 Walter Colwell Yes No 2/23/81 105.00 Willie L. Parham Yes No 7/15/81 142.50 Kenneth Modlin Yes Yes 255.00 Ronald Singleton Yes Yes 255.00 Jim Nixon Yes Yes 255.00 Mike Owens Yes Yes 255.00 Etimothy Carreker Yes Yes 255.00 Willie G. Johnson Yes Yes 255.00 Terry G. Thompson Yes No 2/1/80 7.50 Donny Phillips Yes Yes 255.00 Charlie Stinson Yes No 10/1/81 150.00 Willie Colton Yes No 4/12/82 210.00 Total Amount Due . $29,640.00