Superior Export Packing Co., Inc. And Meadowland Hy-Pro Industries, Inc. And Multiple Auto Parts, Inc.

SUPERIOR EXPORT PACKING CO 61 Superior Export Packing Co., Inc.' and Meadowland Hy-Pro Industries, Inc. and Multiple Auto Parts, Inc. and District 65, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases 22-CA-13806 and 22-CA-13888 July 16, 1990 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY On August 2, 1989, Administrative Law Judge Raymond P Green issued the attached supplemen- tal decision The General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting bnef, and Respondent Meadow- land Hy-Pro Industries, Inc filed a brief in opposi- tion to the exceptions The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority m this proceeding to a three- member 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, findmgs, 2 and conclusions, as further explained below, and to adopt the recommended Order 1 In adopting the judge's gross backpay formula, we find that the Respondent has met its burden of proving that, following its discriminatory refusal to hire the six discnmmatees, an undisputed decline in business sales reduced its work force to fewer than six and reduced the hours worked by those em- ployees to such a degree that the discnmmatees would have been periodically laid off or would have worked reduced hours for nondiscriminatory reasons throughout the backpay period It is clear from the record that the discnmmatees would not have worked even half of the hours credited to ' Although the name of Superior Export Packing Co. Inc continues to appear in the caption for this proceeding, all unfair labor practice alle- gations against this company have been dismissed and the General Coun- sel does not contend that It is liable for the backpay at Issue here 2 We agree with the Judge's findmg that backpay claimant Alexander is not entitled to backpay after May 1, 1985, when he began receiving Social Secunty Disability Benefits Contrary to the judge, we do not find that receipt of disability benefits, standing alone, is pnma facie proof in the circumstances of this case that Alexander no longer was in the labor market Alexander's disability (inability to speak or hear) did not prevent lum from working for the Respondent's predecessor and presumably would not have prevented him from working either for the Respondent Of It had not unlawfully refused to hire him) or for an Interim employer Furthermore, receipt of disability benefits did not require Alexander to cease looking for a job, although receipt of wages in excess of a certain amount would have entailed loss of eligibility for further benefits Alex- ander admitted, however, m an August 22, 1986 letter to the Board's Re- gional Office, that he stopped his pursuit of employment because he re- ceived disability benefits In the absence of any affirmative evidence that he thereafter resumed an mtenm Job search, we rely on this admission as pnma fame proof that Alexander was no longer in the labor market after May 1, 1985 The General Counsel has failed to rebut this proof them under the gross backpay formula used by the General Counsel Accordingly, we agree with the judge that application of this formula in the cir- cumstances of this case would be "arbitrary or un- reasonable," and we affirm the judge's finding that the alternative formula that he applied is a reasona- ble method for determining backpay here Boland Marine & Mfg Co, 280 NLRB 454 (1986), is distinguishable on the basis that, at the point in time when the judge in that case errone- ously tolled the backpay period for all discnmma- tees involved, the respondent's business decline had not reduced the relevant work force to a number below the number of discnmmatees Inasmuch as all the discnnunatees in Boland could have contin- ued to work in the reduced work force and there was no specific showing that any of them would have been laid off for nondiscriminatory reasons, the respondent failed to meet its burden of justify- ing any cutoff or diminution of backpay 2 The General Counsel has excepted to the judge's finding that backpay claimant DeMarco not entitled to backpay The General Counsel argues that the Respondent did not meet its burden of showmg that DeMarco concealed mtenm earn- ings We agree with the judge's finding, but we reject any implication that a backpay claimant's failure to cooperate in a prehearmg investigation per se disqualifies that claimant from receipt of backpay In this case, however, the compliance of- ficer testified that DeMarco acknowledged during the preheanng investigation that he had obtained interim employment and had worked "almost since the time he left Superior" Nevertheless, the com- pliance officer further testified that the computa- tion for DeMarco's backpay showed no offset for interim earnings because DeMarco refused to dis- close to the Region where he had worked or how much he had earned during the backpay period The compliance officer's testimony sufficed to meet the Respondent's burden of establishing that DeMarco mtentionally concealed interim earnings for all quarters of the backpay period Under these circumstances, the burden shifted to the General Counsel to rebut this evidence It is undisputed that the General Counsel did not subpoena or otherwise attempt to have DeMarco testify, nor does the General Counsel contend that DeMarco was un- available to testify Accordingly, we agree with the judge that the Respondent met its burden and that Starhte Cutting, 280 NLRB 1071 (1986), and 284 NLRB 620 (1987), is inapplicable ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law 299 NLRB No 9 62 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD judge and orders that the Respondents, Meadow- land Hy-Pro Industries, Inc and Multiple Auto Parts, Inc , Moonachie, New Jersey, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall pay James Al- exander, Daniel Chnstiano, Juan Diaz, Rafael Garcia, and Ramon Payan the sums set out in the recommended Order Mitchell Schley, Esq , for the General Counsel Michael W Appelbaum, Esq , for the Respondent SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE RAYMOND P GREEN, Administrative Law Judge This case was tried in Newark, New Jersey, on May 1, 1989 The compliance specification was issued by the Regional Director for Region 22 on December 28, 1988 On consideration of the entire record in this supple- mental proceeding including my observation of the de- meanor of the witnesses and after consideration of the briefs filed, I make the following FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I BACKGROUND The underlying decision in these cases was issued by an administrative law judge on May 12, 1986, and af- firmed by the Board on July 23, 1986 In pertinent part, the Board concluded 1 That Meadowland Hy-Pro Industries, Inc and Mul- tiple Auto Parts, Inc, although not alter egos of Superi- or Export Packing Co, Inc constituted a legal successor to Supenor 2 That Meadowland and Multiple had unlawfully re- fused to hire the warehouse employees of Superior be- cause those employees were represented by the Union As a consequence, the Board ordered that the com- plaint be dismissed as to Superior, that Meadowland and Multiple be required to bargain with the Union, and that the latter two Companies be required to offer immediate reinstatement and backpay to the employees named below I However, in the decision, the administrative law judge noted that the record was insufficient to determine whether the discnmmatees would have been terminated at some time after February 1985 even assuming that they had all been hired by the successor II THE ISSUES It is agreed that the backup period for all of the discri- mmatees commenced on January 1, 1985 The General Counsel concedes that valid offers of reinstatement were made to the discnmmatees on various dates, which there- fore terminated the backpay period Thus, the General Counsel concedes that offers of reinstatement were made to Alexander on August 1, 1988, to Chnstiano on July 15, 1988, to DeMarco on July 15, 1988, to Diaz on July 1 The Board's Order was enforced by the United States Court of Ap- peals, for the Third Circuit on May 12, 1988 18, 1988, to Garcia on November 15, 1988, and to Payan on November 15, 1988 The General Counsel also conceded that the discnmin- atees had certain amounts of interim earnings which should be offset against their gross backpay In this regard, the General Counsel amended the specification at the hearing to admit certain amounts of interim earnings for Chnstiano and this resulted in amending the specifi- cation from alleging net backpay on his behalf from $82,818 77 to $16,565 38 It is alleged by the General Counsel (and conceded by the Respondent), that the discrimmatees' rates of pay during the backpay period should be their last rates of pay with Superior (the predecessor), and that wage in- creases of 25 cents, 50 cents, 37-1/2 cents, and 25 cents should be included respectively, as of January 10 and November 7, 1985, September 10, 1987, and November 10, 1988 Also alleged by the General Counsel is that each of the discnmmatees would have received at the end of 1985, 1986, and 1987 the same bonuses as were received by employee Antonio Pison The most serious issue in this case (involving the most money), is the question as to what formula should be used to ascertain gross backup The General Counsel contends that the appropriate measure of the hours that each of the discnminatees would have worked each week during the backpay period is the average hours worked per week by the Respondent's full-time employ- ees who performed the same work, excluding any indi- viduals who worked fewer than 24 hours during any given week 2 To illustrate, if during one particular week in 1987, there were seven employees who worked in the warehouse for more than 24 hours, one would total their regular hours during that week and divide by Section 7 That would yield the average weekly regular hours for each of the discnmmatees who would all be credited with the average for that particular week Similarly, for overtime hours, the General Counsel would total the overtime hours during that week, divide by section and that would yield the average number of overtime hours to be credited to each of the discrimmatees during the exemplar week According to the General Counsel's for- mula, to arrive at each of the discrimmatees' quarterly gross back wages (leaving aside for the moment bo- nuses), one needs only to multiply the wage rate of each discrimmatees by the average weekly regular and over- time hours credited to each discrimmatees during the rel- evant quarter As will be seen, the problem with the General Coun- sel's theory is that it does not take into account the fact that during virtually all of the backpay period, the number of Respondent's "replacement" employees was significantly fewer than the number of discnmmatees In summary, the General Counsel's overall contention in this case is that the Respondent owes the discnmina- 2 The General Counsel asserts that the Board when using a formula based on the average workweek of a representative complement of em- ployees excludes individuals who work fewer than 24 hours per week in order to take Into account nominal absenteeism See International Trailer Co, 150 NLRB 1205, 1211 (1965), Harvest Queen Mill Co, 90 NLRB 320, 344 (1950) SUPERIOR EXPORT PACKING CO 63 tees as net backpay, the amounts set forth below, plus in- terest James Alexander 3$83,739 61 Daniel Chnstiano 16,565 38 Anthony DeMarco 78,126 49 Juan Diaz 30,312 26 Rafael Garcia 38,497 65 Raman Payan 19,158 84 Discussion Turning first to the formula, the Respondent contends that the formula designed by the General Counsel is pu- nitive rather than remedial in that it does not take into account the overall and substantial decline in the Re- spondent's business operations after it became a successor and failed to hire the employees named above In this regard, the Respondent produced evidence establishing that due to competition and other factors beyond its con- trol, the business declined from sales of $23 million by the predecessor in 1984 to $16 5 million by the Respond- ent dunng its first year of operations after it took over In the next 2 years Respondent's sales declined further to $15 million in 1986, and $13 million in 1987 The Respondent then points to the payroll records to show that consistent with the aforesaid decline in sales, the number of bargaining unit employees actually used by it over the entire backpay period to perform the work done by the six discnminatees was consistently less than the number six To illustrate, assume that during a par- ticular week during the backpay period, there were three replacement employees who worked a total of 120 hours In that circumstance the Respondent would contend that there were 120 hours to be credited to the discnmmatees which could be allocated either by giving 40 hours to the three discnmmatees with the highest seniority, or by dividing the 120 hours by 6, giving each discnmmatees credit for 20 hours during that particular week Under this proposed concept, the overall gross backpay (no matter how allocated to individuals), would be consider- ably less than if the General Counsel's formula was adapted For if the General Counsel's concept was ac- cepted, the 120 hours actually worked by the three re- placements would result in a total of 240 hours bemg credited to the discnmmatees Thus, under the General Counsel's formula, one would divide 120 by 3 to yield an average of 40 hours for the week and then credit each of the six discnmmatees with 40 hours worth of gross back- pay for that week (40 times 6=240) Over the years the Board has applied a number of dif- ferent formulas to determine the backpay of discnmina- 3 Alexander became eligible for Social Security Disability Benefits in May 1985 on account of his deafness, and the record indicates that from that time and for some or all of the remaining backpay penod, he re- ceived $668 per month The General Counsel in his brief contends that Alexander's receipt of disability benefits does not establish his unavailabil- ity for work and should not toll his backpay He does concede however, that the payments might be construed as analogous to mtenm earnings In that case, Alexander's net backpay would be considerably lower than $83,739 if he collected the disability payments throughout the entire backpay period tees 4 The aim of using one formula as opposed to an- other, is to restore the discrimmatees, as accurately as possible, to the economic situation they would have been in absent the illegal discrimination against them In this respect, the Board has "broad discretion" to shape or choose a formula designed to best approximate what the discnmmatees would have earned but for the illegal action against them Bagel Bakers Council of Greater New York v NLRB, 555 F 2d 304, 305 (2d Cur 1977), NLRB v Brown & Root, Inc , 311 F 2d 447, 452 (8th Cir 1963) In Brown & Root, the court stated aster aim Prefatory to a discussion of respondents' attack on the formula employed by the Board in calculat- ing the amounts of the backpay awards, it is well to note that the purpose of a back pay award is to make whole the employee who has been discrimi- nated against as the result of an unfair labor prac- tice The employee is entitled to receive what he would have earned normally during the period of the discrimination against him, less what he actually earned in other employment during that period Of course, an employee must use reasonable diligence to find employment during the period of discrimina- tion He is not entitle to back pay for periods during which he voluntarily remained in idleness In solving the problems which arise in back pay cases the Board is vested with a wide discretion in devising procedures and methods which will effec- tuate the purposes of the Act Obviously, in many cases it is difficult for the Board to determine precisely the amount of back pay which should be awarded to an employee In such circumstances the Board may use as close ap- proximations as possible, and may adopt formulas reasonably designed to produce such approxima- tions We have held that with respect to the formu- la for arriving at back pay rates or amounts which the Board may deem necessary to devise in a par- ticular situation, "our inquiry may ordinarily go no further than to be satisfied that the method selected cannot be declared to be arbitrary or unreasonable in the circumstances involved "5 In the circumstances involved, it is my opinion that adoption of the General Counsel's formula would be ar- bitrary or unreasonable Had the records of the Compa- ny shown that over the 3-year backpay period, the normal complement of bargaining unit employees was generally five or six or higher, it would be easy to pre- sume that the discnminatees would have worked during the entire backpay period with few or no layoffs In that circumstance, the averaging formula as postulated by the General Counsel would be perfectly reasonable, even if 4 A variety of different formulas are described in the Board's Case Handling Manual for Compliance Proceedings Secs 10534 to 10544 5 In NLRB v Brown & Root, supra, the court approved the Board's use of a formula which computed the average hours of all employees work- ing in the discrimmatees's job category for each week during the backpay period When the weekly average hours were determined, gross backpay was calculated by multiplying the average hours figure by the appropri- ate hourly wage rate 64 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on occasion, the replacement work force dropped below SIX However, given the evidence that the Respondent's business has steadily declined over the backpay period and the evidence that it never subcontracted out bargain- ing unit work, it is reasonable to conclude that the number of workers it used to perform warehouse and/or driving functions during the backpay penod was consist- ent with its business needs The point is that after the Re- spondent took over the business, it consistently used fewer employees than six employees and this leads me to the conclusion that had the six discnminatees been hired on January 1, 1985, many of them would nevertheless have been laid off for substantial penods of time during the backpay period because there simply was not enough work for six employees to do on a steady, week-in and week-out basis 8 The General Counsel argues quite properly that the burden of proof on this score belongs to the Respondent, New England Tank Industries, 147 NLRB i98, 601 (1964) He also argues that the lesser number of employ- ees can be explained by a number of factors, including the fact that supervisory people did warehouse work during the backpay period, that the Respondent made the existing work force work harder, and "most signifi- cantly" the fact that during many of the weeks, the smaller work force worked large accounts of overtime I do not find any of these contentions persuasive In the case of supervisors doing bargaining unit work, there was no evidence that the prior contract prohibited supervisors from doing such work Further, as the suc- cessor is not bound to the predecessor's contract, there is no reason to assume that any contract would have con- 6 Based on G C Exh 5, which is a summary of the Respondent's pay- roll records, I have calculated the following by adding up all of the hours worked by anyone doing unit work In the first quarter of 1985, the range of bargaining unit employees was from four to six, and the average weekly hours worked was 220 This would yield work for 5 5 employees per week if they worked a normal 40-hour week In the second quarter there were two to four employees with a weekly average of 112 hours which would yield work for 2 8 em- ployees/week In the third quarter there were two to four employees with a weekly average of 132 hours yielding work for 3 3 employees/- week In the fourth quarter there were three to four employees with a weekly average of 151 hours yielding work for 3 7 employees/week In the first quarter of 1986 there were two to five employees with a weekly average of 135 hours yielding work for 3 38 employees/week In the second quarter there were two to five employees with a weekly average of 160 hours yielding work for four employees/week In the third quarter there were three to five employees with a weekly average of 168 hours yielding work for 4 2 employees/week In the fourth quarter there were two to four employees with a weekly average of 123 30 hours yielding work for 3 08 employees/week In the first quarter of 1987 there were one to three employees with a weekly average of 107 hours yielding work for 2 67 employees/week In the second quarter there were two to three employees with a weekly average of 108 77 hours yielding work for 2 72 employees/week In the third quarter there were two to four em- ployees with a weekly average of 121 77 hours yielding work for 3 04 employees/week In the fourth quarter there were two to three employ- ees with a weekly average of 105 hours yielding 2 63 employees/week In the first quarter of 1988 there were three employees with an average of 142 23 hours yielding work for 3 55 employers/week In the second quar- ter there were one to five employees with a weekly average of 117 46 hours yielding work for 2 94 employees/week In the third quarter there were three to five employees with a weekly average of 177 38 hours yielding work for 443 employees/week In the fourth quarter there were two to four employees with a weekly average of 124 12 hours yielding work for 3 1 employees/week tamed a prohibition against supervisors doing bargaining unit work Finally, the assumption on the General Coun- sel's part that if supervisors had not done such work, there would have been enough work for two additional employees is hopelessly speculative Much the same can be said about the contention that under the successor the employees worked harder and therefore if they worked at the same slow pace as before, there would have been room for more employees In his brief, the General Counsel states "Most signifi- cantly, a review of the payroll summary sheets shows that employees throughout the backpay period regularly worked large amounts of overtime, often working over fifty and sixty hours per week This kind of over- time shows that there was work available for more em- ployees than the payroll lists Had Respondent not un- lawfully failed to retain the Superior work force this large amount of overtime could have translated into straight time work for the discnmmatees " However, as demonstrated above at footnote 6, adding up all the overtime, plus hours worked by part-time and summer employees, still does not come close to providing a full week of employment for all of the six discnnunatees, during any quarter within the backpay period In my opinion the General Counsel's reliance an Boland Marine & Mfg Go, 280 NLRB 454, 460-461 (1986), is misplaced In that case, the company employed 270 unit employees at the time of the unfair labor prac- tice, but that number had declined drastically throughout the backpay period until it reached a low point of 25 The Board reversed the finding of the admimstrative law judge that the backpay tolled as of a date 2 years after the unfair labor practice had been committed because, in the view of the administrative law judge, there would have been no work by that time for the discnmmatees In the present case, there is no contention by the Re- spondent and there will be no finding by me that the backpay period will be tolled on account of the decline in the Respondent's business Rather, the question before me is whether the backpay formula proposed by the General Counsel reasonably approximates the account of earnings that the discnmmatees would have made had they been hired by the Respondent Before descnbmg the formula which I shall adopt in this case, I note here a few matters which will be rele- vant to that issue First, Antonio Pison, who worked for the predecessor, was hired by the Respondent and worked continuously during the backpay period Al- though he is not exactly a replacement or substitute em- ployee, it seems self-evident to me that the hours that he worked should be included when making a formula for gross backpay Second, because the Respondent as a suc- cessor (and not as an alter ego), was not required to adopt the union contract and because all of the discn- mmatees, had they been hired, would have started out with same starting dates, there is no basis for asserting that any discrimmatees should have seniority vis-a-vis any other Finally, I note that both the predecessor and the successor used drivers and warehouse employees interchangeably and therefore, there is no basis for giving preference to either group SUPERIOR EXPORT PACKING CO 65 Given my conclusion that during the backpay period there was not enough work to give on a continuous basis to all of the discnmmatees, it seems to me that the fairest way of determining gross backpay is to total all of hours of bargaining unit work performed in each week of the backpay period (including the hours worked by Pison, by part-timers and by summer employees), and then divide by the number of the discnmmatees available for work during the period in question In this manner, any particular week's actual work hours would be allocated to the discnmmatees equally Moreover, by allocating the hours equally to all of the discnmmatees I am taking Into account that there is no rational basis for determin- ing which of them would or would not have been laid off at any particular time because work was not available for the entire group Issues also arose as to a number of the individual dis- cnminatees Thus, there were a variety of contentions by either side as to Alexander, DeMarco, Garcia, and Payan None of these people testified in this proceedmg and whatever information I have is the result of the pre- hearing investigation as reported to the Region's compli- ance officer either verbally or in wntmg Regarding Anthony DeMarco, the compliance officer testified that during the backpay investigation, DeMarco told him that he had been employed "almost since the time he left Superior" DeMarco refused, however, to disclose where he worked or how much he earned during the backpay period Inasmuch as DeMarco has willfully concealed from the Board's Regional Office his interim earnings during the entire backpay period, it is my opinion that he should be denied all backpay 7 See Ad Art, 280 NLRB 985 (1986), American Navigation Go, 268 NLRB 426 (1983) Accordingly, I shall eliminate him from the formula and instead of initially dividing the number of hours per week by six discnmmatees, I shall divide that number by five James Alexander is a deaf-mute who was employed as a driver and warehouseman He was actually laid off before the Respondent took over In his written comnun- 'cations with the Region, he indicated that for a period of time after his layoff, through March 1985, he unsuc- cessfully looked for other employment In a letter to the Region dated August 22, 1986, Alexander wrote The purpose of this letter in regards to my past em- ployment efforts At the time of my dismissal from Superior Export, I tried to look for gainful employ- ment, but because of the fact that I am 60 years of 7 I see no basis for establishing a 1-year escrow account for DeMarco as was done in Starhte Cutting, 280 NLRB 1071 (1986), Starhte Cutting, 284 NLRB 620 (1987) (Starhte and Iron Workers Local 373 (Building Contractors), 295 NLRB 648 (1989) In those cases, the Board ordered gross backpay to be placed Into escrow accounts for 1 year on behalf of missing and nontestifymg claimants The Board further ordered in the latter case that if a person made a claim during the year, the Respondent would be afforded the opportunity to question him about his interim earnings The Board further ordered in the Iron Workers case that "No funds will be disbursed to any claimant who refuses to provide the re- quested information or to appear for an interview" As DeMarco has already refused to provide information regarding his interim earnings, I see no reason to put money on his behalf into an escrow account and wait another year to finally resolve this case age and a deaf-mute, employment was hard to find I received Social Security Disability and am still re- ceiving, that is the reason why I stopped my pursuit of employment It's next to impossible for a man of my age and apparent handicap to find work I hope that at the hearing this will be considered The evidence shows that Alexander became eligible for Social Security Disability Benefits as of May 1985 and that as a consequence, he received $668 per month for at least 2 years The Respondent's contention that Alexander should be disallowed any backpay because he failed to look for work, is clearly not supported by sufficient evidence to sustain the Respondent's burden The more serious ques- tion involves his application for and receipt of Social Se- curity Disability Benefits In addition to old age benefits, the Social Security Act provides disability benefits In order to be eligible for such benefits, one must be unable to engage in "any sub- stantial gainful employment by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months" Further, in order to be declared as dis- abled, a worker must be unable, considering age, educa- tion, and work experience, to engage in any kind of sub- stantial gainful work which exists in the national econo- my whether or not such work exists in the immediate area, whether a specific job vacancy exists, or whether the worker would be hired if he or she applied for work See Social Security Handbook section 507 et al See also section 223(d)(1) of the Social Secunty Act Under the National Labor Relations Act, the general rule is that an employer is ordinarily not liable for back- pay for periods when an employee is unavailable for work due to illness or a disability NLRB v Ongmal Oyster House, 822 F 2d 413, 415 (3d Cir 1987), Canova v NLRB, 708 F 2d 1498 (9th Cif 1983), American Mfg Go, 167 NLRB 520 (1967) Cf Jenkins Index Corp, 283 NLRB 457 fn 3 (1987) In the present case the evidence shows that Alexander, because of his condition as a deaf-mute was unable to obtain interim employment during some or all of the backpay period and received Social Security Disability Benefits, commencing on May 1, 1985 In my opinion this evidence establishes prima facie, that as of May 1, 1985, Alexander no longer was in the labor market due to his disability I therefore am satisfied that the Re- spondent has met its burden in this respect, the General Counsel not having shown that despite the disability, Al- exander nevertheless was able to obtain employment during the backpay period (In fact the evidence suggests that Alexander did not seek employment after he became eligible to receive disability benefits) 8 8 Under the Social Security law It would theoretically be possible to collect disability benefits and to work simultaneously For example, earn- ings of below $190 per month will not disqualify someone for recovenng the disability benefit Also, earnings between $190 and $300 per month may or may not, depending upon circumstances, disqualify a recipient Finally, It is possible under the law for a recipient to receive the monthly benefit and to have a trial work period of up to 9 months 66 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD My determination regarding Alexander necessarily af- fects the formula as he no longer was available for em- ployment after May 1, 1985 Accordingly, instead of di- viding each week's available total hours by 5 (having ex- cluded DeMarco), I shall, after May 1 divide the weekly hours of bargaining unit work by 4 so as to allocate the gross hours per week to the remaining discnmmatees I also note that backpay periods for Chnstiano and Diaz end respectively on July 15 and 18, 1988 Therefore for the remainder of the backpay period for Garcia and Payan (from mid-July 1988 until November 15, 1988), I shall divide the total hours by 2 In a somewhat related manner, the Respondent argues that Rafael Garcia should not be eligible for backpay during the months of April and May 1986 because he was injured and unable to work As Garcia was not called as a witness, the only evidence on this question came from the compliance officer who testified that his information was that Garcia hurt his arm while working on his interim job and therefore was out of work for 2 months As the only evidence relating to Garcia's injury was that it was incident to his interim employment, the backpay period shall not be tolled for the period of his injury In American Mfg Co, supra, the Board stated The origins and causes of infections and organic infirmities, such as influenza and heart attacks, for example, are usually not known and cannot be de- termined or assumed It is ordinarily reasonable to assume, however, that absences from work because of such illnesses would probably have occurred even if the employee had not been discharged As the claimant's loss therefore cannot be said to have a likely relationship to the unlawful discrimination, disallowance of backpay for all periods of unavail- ability because of such illnesses is proper The same underlying reasoning does not, howev- er, apply to periods of illness, which occur because of industrial accidents suffered during the course of interim employment or are otherwise attributable to the unlawful conduct of the Respondent The causes of such ailments are known and attributable to events which would not have taken place, or to environmental factors which would not have been present, had the employee not been unlawfully re- moved from his employment in the Respondent's plant Where an interim disability is closely related to the nature of the interim employment or arises fram the unlawful discharge and is not a usual incident of the hazards of living generally, the period of disabil- ity will not be excluded from backpay Consonant with its obligation to establish deductions from backpay, the Respondent continues to have the burden of demonstrating that an excludable period of absence from work because of illness has taken place, and the General Counsel may rebut this by showing the unusual nature of the disability, its causes, probable relation to the unlawful discharge because of the hazards of interim employment, search for work, etc Ramon Payan has worked during the entire backpay period at a full-time job As shown by General Counsel's Exhibit 5, Payan on occasion during the backpay period (usually on Saturdays), has worked for the Respondent Thus, during the backpay period Payan moonlighted on occasion at the Respondent while working at his regular job elsewhere The Respondent asserts that the compliance specifica- tion is in error because it does not include Payan's earn- ings at the Respondent, during the backpay period as part of his interim earnings Under Board law, where a discnmmatee had no sup- plementary job prior to the discrimination, any earnings from a second "moonlighting" job during the backpay period is not included in interim earnings Miami Coca- Cola Co, 151 NLRB 1701, 1710 fn 24 (1965), Acme Mat- tress Co, 97 NLRB 1439, 1443 (1952) Therefore as Payan's occasional work at the Respondent during the backpay period was a supplemental job to his regular employment situation during that time, his earnings at the Respondent shall not be added to his interim earn- ings The General Counsel showed that during the backpay period, bonuses were paid around Christmas time to em- ployees of the Respondent, generally in the amount of 1 week's pay Accordingly, I agree with the General Counsel that gross backpay should include a bonus to each discrimmatee, assuming that he would have been employed during the relevant period The amount to each would be determined by multiplying the person's pay rate at the time of the bonus times 40 On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed9 ORDER The Respondents, Meadowland Hy-Pro Industries, Inc and Multiple Auto Parts, Inc , Moonachie, New Jersey, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1 Make payment to James Alexander the sum of $6,264 01 plus interest, less tax withholdings required by Federal and state laws 2 Make payment to Daniel Christian° the sum of $3,168 08 plus interest, less tax withholdings required by Federal and state laws 3 Make payment to Juan Diaz the sum of $15,463 83 plus interest, less tax withholdings required by Federal and state laws 4 Make payment to Rafael Garcia the sum of $22,829 16 plus Interest, less tax withholdings required by Federal and state laws 5 Make payment to Ramon Payan the sum of 10,449 60 plus interest, less tax withholdings required by Federal and state laws 6 No money is owed to Anthony DeMarco 9 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 pur- poses SUPERIOR EXPORT PACKING CO 67 Reg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay Gross Backpay Reg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay Gross Backpay 1985/1 12-5 40 278 00 444 46 28 1-3 222 $13764 12-12 40 278 00 10 104 25 1-10 40 258 00 21 65 $20946 12-19 35 94 249 80 1-17 ao 258 00 12 85 124 32 12-26 33 31 231 50 1-23 39 5 254 77 Bonus = $27800 1-31 40 258 00 123 119 00 2-7 317 204 46 Totals $3,21076 $3013 $3,518 89 2-14 30 55 197 00 2-21 38 04 245 36 1986/1 2-28 34 05 219 60 1-2 40 $27800 6 $8924 3-7 34 45 222 20 1-9 25 94 180 28 3-14 ao 258 00 465 45 00 1-16 19 75 137 26 3-21 40 25800 32 31 00 1-23 24 28 168 75 3-28 40 258 00 36 34 83 1-30 28 81 200 23 2-6 35 06 243 67 Totals $3,029 03 $563 61 $3,592 64 2-13 33 56 233 24 Interim Earnings = $3,100 14 2-20 38 38 266 74 Net Backpay = $492 50 2-27 40 278 00 8 8 34 1985/2 3-6 33 75 234 56 4-4 40 $25800 825 $8000 3-13 39 81 276 68 4-11 40 258 00 995 96 26 3-20 40 278 00 84 876 4-18 37 07 239 10 3-27 31 06 215 86 4-25 29 85 192 50 Totals $2,991 27 $10634 $3,097 61 5-2 18 85 121 58 Interim Earmngs = $1,742 00 5-9 40 258 00 175 16 93 Net Backpay = $1,355 61 5-16 305 196 72 5-23 25 19 162 50 1986/2 5-30 216 139 32 4-3 30 38 $21114 6-6 267 172 20 4-10 ao 278 00 37 $386 6-13 262 169 00 4-17 ao 278 00 379 39 50 6-20 20 129 00 4-24 ao 278 00 619 64 53 6-27 327 211 00 5-1 33 06 229 77 5-8 35 75 248 46 Totals $2,506 92 $193 19 $2,700 11 5-15 24 06 167 20 Interim Earnings = $1,284 68 5-22 32 38 225 00 Net Backpay = $1,415 43 5-29 ao 278 00 1 88 1960 1985/3 6-5 40 278 00 412 42 95 7-4 32 87 $20814 6-12 40 278 00 869 90 60 7-11 23 69 152 80 6-19 ao 278 00 12 06 125 72 7-18 ao 258 00 125 12 09 6-26 ao 278 00 275 28 67 7-25 37 5 241 87 Totals $3,305 57 $41543 $3,721 00 8-1 29 62 191 04 Interim Earnings = $1,742 00 8-8 37 31 24065 Net Backpay =$1,979 00 8-15 40 258 00 18 17 41 8-22 34 56 223 00 1986/3 8-29 40 258 00 37 360 7-3 40 $27800 13 187 $13747 9-5 29 94 193 00 7-10 40 278 00 10 104 25 9-12 39 38 254 00 7-17 ao 278 00 443 46 20 9-19 23 69 152 80 7-24 40 27800 456 47 50 9-26 17 81 114 87 7-31 ao 27800 11 25 117 28 Totals $2,746 17 $33 10 $2,779 27 8-7 ao 278 00 8-14 40 278 00 387 463 40 34 48 27 Interim Earnings = $1,742 00 8-21 32 125 223 27 Net Backpay = $1,037 27 8-28 ao 278 00 75 7 80 1985/4 9-4 30 16 209 60 10-3 29 $18700 9-11 39 69 275 85 10-10 385 248 32 9-18 34 87 242 35 10-17 345 222 50 9-25 36 44 253 26 10-24 38 25 246 70 Totals $3,175 07 $54913 $3,724 20 10-31 33 44 215 69 Interim Earnings = $1,742 00 11-7 36 31 252 35 Net Backpay = $1,982 20 11-14 40 278 00 188 19 60 11-21 38 62 268 40 1986/4 11-28 36 75 254 50 10-2 40 $27800 56 $5 84 68 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Reg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay Gross Backpay Reg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay Gross Backpay 10-9 30 56 212 40 9-3 33 188 243 10 10-16 33 44 232 40 9-10 27 44 201 00 10-23 30 69 213 30 9-17 23 19 170 00 10-30 30 19 209 80 9-24 24 88 175 80 11-6 20 63 143 38 11-13 20 138 00 11-20 29 56 205 44 11-27 30 208 50 Totals $2,696 82 $13190 Intenm Earnings = $1,742 00 Net Backpay = $1,086 72 $2,710 72 12-4 32 875 228 48 1987/4 12-11 30 125 209 37 10A 22 75 $16660 12-15 40 278 00 2 20 85 10-8 21 81 160 00 12-25 30 208 50 10-15 22 75 166 60 Bonus = $27800 10-22 24 94 182 70 10-29 23 56 172 50 Totals $2,346 10 $2669 $2,650 80 11-5 23 75 174 00 Interim Earnings = $1,742 00 11-12 24 188 177 20 Net Backpay = $908 79 11-19 22 44 164 40 11-26 23 06 169 00 1987/1 12-3 24 19 177 20 1-1 40 $27800 25 $2600 12-12 24 125 176 70 1-8 33 229 35 12-17 34 375 251 80 1-17 34 25 238 30 12-24 40 293 00 2 22 00 1-22 33 56 233 24 12-31 33 75 247 20 1-29 215 149 40 2-5 26 06 181 10 Bonus = $29300 2-12 32 18 223 65 2-19 22 06 153 30 2-26 31 215 45 3-5 22 153 00 Totals $293 00 $2,678 90 $2200 Interim Earnings = $1,720 00 Net Backpay = $1,273 90 $2,993 90 3-12 145 100 80 1988/1 3-19 13 56 94 40 1-7 35 69 $261 40 3-26 21 94 152 48 1-14 40 293 00 2 $220 Totals $2,034 02 $2600 $2,060 00 1-21 36 25 265 53 Interim Earnings = $1,742 00 1-28 33 125 242 64 Net Backpay = $31800 2-4 40 293 00 138 15 16 2-11 39 19 287 00 1 98 7/2 2-18 33 06 242 20 4-2 27 19 $18900 2-25 34 125 250 00 4-9 23 56 163 70 3-3 36 125 264 60 4-16 29 125 202 40 3-10 28 88 211 50 4-23 325 225 80 3-14 37 75 276 50 4-30 40 278 00 1 375 14 33 3-24 31 75 232 60 5-7 27 19 189 00 3-31 32 75 240 20 5-14 23 44 162 90 5-21 27 44 190 70 5-28 22 94 159 40 6-4 23 125 160 70 Totals $3,360 17 $1736 Interim Earnings = $3,120 00 Net Backpay = $257 33 $3,377 53 6-11 24 69 171 30 1988/2 Interim Earnings Exceeded Net Backpay 6-18 26 06 181 00 6-25 24 375 169 40 1988/3 7-7 35 94 $263 26 Totals $2,443 30 $1433 $2,45763 7-14 33 125 242 64 Interim Earnings = $1,742 00 7-21 40 293 00 15 25 $16750 Net Backpay = $715 63 7-28 40 293 00 49 88 548 00 198713 8-4 40 293 00 52 625 578 20 7-2 40 $27800 3 125 7-9 40 278 00 55 7-16 12 19 84 72 $3560 57 30 8-11 40 293 00 67 125 737 53 8-18 40 293 00 62 125 682 60 8-25 40 293 00 46 875 515 00 9-1 40 293 00 41 375 454 60 7-23 33 75 234 60 9-8 40 293 00 14 75 162 00 7-30 315 218 90 8-6 13 75 95 60 9-15 40 293 00 78 125 858 40 9-22 40 293 00 54 25 596 10 8-13 26 94 187 20 8-20 40 278 00 375 39 00 9-29 40 293 00 36 75 403 80 8-27 36 25 251 90 Totals $3,728 90 $5,703 73 $9,432 62 1985/1 1-3 222 1-10 40 1-17 40 1-23 39 5 1-31 40 2-7 31 7 2-14 30 55 2-21 38 04 2-28 34 05 3-7 34 45 3-14 40 3-21 40 3-28 40 $13764 279 00 21 65 $22650 279 00 12 85 134 40 275 50 279 00 123 128 70 216 20 213 00 265 40 237 50 238 90 279 00 465 48 65 279 00 32 33 50 279 00 36 37 60 SUPERIOR EXPORT PACKING CO 69 Gross OT Pay Backpay Gross Reg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay Backpay Reg firs Reg Pay OT Hrs Interim Earnings = $3,526 25 Net Backpay --= $5,906 37 1A98/4 10-6 40 $29300 39 $428 50 10-13 40 293 00 255 280 20 10-20 40 293 00 24 375 267 80 10-27 40 293 00 205 225 20 11-3 40 293 00 16 175 80 11-10 40 303 00 8 375 95 14 11-17 40 303 00 27 75 315 20 11-24 40 303 00 15 170 40 Totals $2,374 00 $1,958 24 $4,332 24 Interim Earnings = $2,080 00 Net Backpay = $2,252 24 Gross Reg firs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay Backpay Totals $3,258 14 $60941 $3,867 55 Interim Earnings = $3,040 63 Net Backpay = $82692 1985/2 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1985/3 Interim Earmngs Exceeded Gross Backpay 1985/4 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1986/1 1-2 40 $29800 856 $9600 1-9 25 94 193 90 1-16 19 75 147 60 1-23 24 28 181 50 1-30 28 81 215 40 2-6 35 06 262 00 2-13 33 56 250 90 2-20 38 38 286 90 2-27 40 298 00 8 900 3-6 33 75 252 30 3-13 39 81 297 60 3-20 40 298 00 84 900 3-27 31 06 232 20 Totals $3,214 30 $11400 $3,328 30 Interim Earnings = $3,120 00 Net Backpay = $208 30 1986/2 4-3 30 38 $22700 4-10 40 298 00 37 $415 4-17 40 298 00 379 42 50 4-24 40 298 00 619 69 40 5-1 33 06 247 00 5-8 35 75 267 20 5-15 24 06 180 00 5-22 32 38 242 00 5-29 40 298 00 1 88 2100 6-5 40 298 00 4 12 46 00 6-12 40 298 00 8 69 97 40 6-19 40 298 00 12 06 135 20 6-26 40 298 00 2 75 30 80 Totals $3,547 20 $44648 $3,993 68 Interim Earnings = $3,354 00 Net Backpay = $63968 1986/3 7-3 40 $298 00 13 187 $14790 7-10 40 298 00 10 111 20 7-17 40 298 00 443 50 00 7-24 40 298 00 456 51 00 7-31 40 298 00 11 25 126 10 8-7 40 298 00 387 43 40 8-14 40 298 00 463 42 00 8-21 32 12 240 10 8-28 40 298 00 75 840 9-4 30 16 225 40 9-11 39 69 201 10 9-18 34 87 260 60 9-25 36 44 272 40 Totals $3,583 60 Interim Earnings = $3,558 00 Net Backpay = $615 60 1986/4 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1987/1 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1987/2 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1987/3 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1987/4 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1988/1 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1988/2 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1988/3 7-7 35 94 $282 10 7-14 33 125 260 00 7-21 40 314 00 15 25 7-28 40 314 00 49 88 8-4 40 314 00 52 625 8-11 40 314 00 67 125 8-18 40 314 00 62 125 8-25 40 314 00 46 875 9-1 40 314 00 41 375 9-8 40 314 00 14 75 9-15 40 314 00 78 125 9-22 40 314 00 54 25 9-29 40 314 00 36 75 Totals $3,996 10 Interim Earnings = $3,963 00 Net Backpay = $6,146 50 1988/4 10-6 40 $31400 10-13 40 314 00 10-20 40 314 00 10-27 40 314 00 11-3 40 314 00 $59000 $4,173 60 39 25 5 24 375 205 16 $17960 587 30 619 70 790 40 731 50 552 00 487 20 173 70 920 00 638 80 433 20 $6,11340 $l0,10950 $45920 30030 28700 241 40 188 40 70 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Gross Reg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay Backpay Reg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs Gross 07' Pay Backpay 11-10 ao 324 00 8 375 101 80 11-17 40 324 00 27 75 337 20 11-24 ao 324 00 15 182 30 Totals $2,542 00 $2,097 60 $4,963 60 Interim Earnings = $2,950 00 Net Backpay = $2,013 60 Reg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay Backpay Gross 1985/1 1-3 222 $17982 1-10 40 334 00 21 65 $271 17 1-17 ao 334 00 12 85 160 95 1-23 395 329 00 1-31 ao 334 00 123 154 05 2-7 317 264 70 2-14 30 55 255 09 2-21 38 04 317 72 2-28 34 05 284 32 3-7 34 45 287 65 3-14 40 334 00 465 58 24 3-21 ao 334 00 32 40 08 3-28 ao 334 00 36 45 09 Totals $3,922 30 plus $729 58 $4,651 88 Interim Earnings --= $3496 50 Net Backpay = $1,155 38 1985/2 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1985/3 Intenm Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1985/4 10-3 29 $242 15 10-10 38 5 321 47 10-17 345 288 08 10-24 38 25 319 39 10-31 33 44 279 22 11-7 36 31 321 34 11-14 40 354 00 188 $2496 11-21 38 62 341 79 11-28 36 75 325 24 12-5 40 354 00 444 58 94 12-12 40 354 00 10 132 75 12-19 35 94 318 07 12-26 33 31 294 79 Bonus = $35400 Total plus $4,113 54 plus $21665 $4,684 19 Interim Earnings = $3,397 50 Net Backpay = $1,286 69 1986/1 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1986/2 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1986/3 4o 7-3 $35400 13 187 $17505 7-10 354 00 132 27 4o 10 7-17 354 00 58 81 40 443 60 53 4o 7-24 354 00 456 149 34 ao 7-31 354 00 11 25 51 37 ao 8-7 354 00 3 87 8-14 354 00 4 63 59 00 4o 8-21 284 30 32 125 8-28 40 354 00 75 995 9-4 30 16 267 00 9-11 39 69 351 25 9-18 34 87 308 60 9-25 36 44 322 50 Totals $4,365 65 plus $696 32 $5,061 97 Interim Earnings = $4,528 13 Net Backpay = $533 84 1986/4 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1987/1 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1 98 7/2 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1 98 7/3 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1987/4 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1988/1 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1988/2 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1988/3 7-7 35 94 $331 55 7-14 33 12 305 58 Totals $637 13 Intenm Earnings = $44496 Net Backpay = $192 17 Gross Reg firs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay Backpay 1985/1 22 2 $21034 ao 379 00 21 65 $30765 40 379 00 12 85 182 60 39 5 374 26 ao 379 00 123 116 54 31 7 300 36 30 55 289 46 38 04 360 52 34 05 322 62 34 45 326 41 ao 379 00 465 66 08 ao 379 00 32 45 47 40 379 00 36 51 15 Totals $4,457 97 $76949 $5,227 46 Interim Earnings = 0 Net Backpay = $5,227 46 1985/2 4-4 40 $37900 825 $11723 4-11 ao 379 00 995 141 40 4-18 37 07 351 24 4-25 29 85 282 83 5-2 188 178 60 5-9 40 379 00 175 24 87 5-16 305 290 00 5-23 25 19 238 58 5-30 21 6 204 66 6-6 267 253 00 6-13 262 248 5 6-20 20 189 50 6-27 327 309 83 Totals $2,294 00 plus $283 50 $2,577 50 Interim Earnings = 0 Net Backpay = $2,577 50 1-3 1-10 1-17 1-23 1-31 2-7 2-14 2-21 2-28 3-7 3-14 3-21 3-28 71 SUPERIOR EXPORT PACKING CO Gross Reg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay Backpay 1985/3 7-4 32 87 $31144 7-11 23 69 224 46 7-18 ao 379 00 125 $1776 7-26 375 355 31 8-1 29 62 280 65 8-8 37 31 353 50 8-15 40 379 00 18 25 58 8-22 34 56 327 46 8-29 40 379 00 37 526 9-5 29 94 283 68 9-12 39 38 373 12 9-19 23 69 224 46 9-26 17 81 168 75 Totals $4,039 83 plus $48 60 $4,088 43 Interim Earnings = $1,017 61 Net Backpay = $3,070 82 1985/4 10-3 29 $27478 10,40 385 364 80 10-17 345 326 90 la-24 38 25 362 40 10-31 33 44 316 80 11-7 36 31 362 20 11-14 ao 399 00 188 $2812 11-21 38 62 385 20 11-28 36 75 366 60 12-5 40 399 00 444 66 40 12-12 ao 399 00 10 144 90 12-19 35 94 358 50 12-26 33 31 332 30 Bonus = $39900 Totals $4,287 48 $239 42 $4,925 90 Intenm Earnings = $2,861 25 Net Backpay = $2,064 65 1986/1 1-2 40 $39900 85 $12800 1-9 25 94 258 75 1-16 19 75 197 00 1-23 24 28 242 20 1-30 28 81 287 40 2-6 35 06 350 00 2-13 33 56 334 75 2-20 38 38 382 84 2-27 40 399 00 8 11 97 3-6 33 75 336 65 3-13 39 81 397 10 3-20 40 399 00 84 12 57 3-27 31 06 309 82 Gross Reg Hrs Reg Pay OT firs OT Pay Backpay 1986/2 30 38 $30300 ao 399 00 37 ao 399 00 3 79 ao 399 00 6 19 33 06 329 77 35 75 356 60 24 06 240 00 32 386 323 00 ao 399 00 1 88 28 12 ao 399 00 4 12 61 63 40 399 00 8 69 130 00 ao 399 00 12 06 180 40 ao 399 00 275 41 14 Totals $4,744 37 $59613 $5,340 50 Interim Earnings = $4,447 91 Net Backpay = $892 59 1986/3 7-3 40 $39900 13 187 $19728 7-10 40 39900 10 147 96 7-17 40 39900 443 66 27 7-24 40 39900 456 68 22 7-31 40 39900 11 25 168 30 8-7 ao 399 00 3 87 57 90 8-14 ao 39900 463 69 26 8-21 32 125 320 45 8-28 40 39900 75 11 22 9-4 30 16 300 84 9-11 39 69 395 90 9-18 34 87 347 80 9-25 36 44 363 49 Totals $4,920 49 $78641 $5,706 90 Interim Earnings = $5,073 58 Net Back Pay = $633 32 1986/4 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1987/1 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1987/2 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1987/3 Interim Earnmgs Exceeded Gross Backpay 1987/4 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1988/1 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1988/2 Interim Earnings Exceeded Gross Backpay 1988/3 7-7 35 94 $37198 7-14 33 125 342 84 7-21 40 414 00 15 25 $23653 Totals $794 82 $236 53 $1,031 35 Interim Earnings = $581 77 Net Backpay = $449 58 4-3 4-10 4-17 4-24 5-1 5-8 5-15 5-22 5-29 6-5 6-12 6-19 6-26 $5 54 56 70 92 60 Totals $4,293 51 Interim Earnings = $3,243 75 Net Backpay = $1,202 30 $15260 $4,44605 Gross Reg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay Backpay 1985/1 1-3 222 $17982 1-10 40 334 00 1-17 ao 334 00 1-23 395 329 00 1-31 40 334 00 2-7 317 264 70 21 65 $271 17 12 85 160 95 123 154 05 72 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Reg firs Reg Pay OT firs OT Pay Gran Backpay Reg Hrs Reg Pay OT Hrs OT Pay Gross Backpay 2-14 30 55 255 09 1985/2 2-21 38 04 317 72 4-4 ao $33400 825 $10333 2-28 34 05 284 32 4-11 ao 334 00 995 124 62 3-7 34 45 287 65 4-18 37 07 309 53 3-14 40 334 00 465 58 24 4-25 29 85 249 25 3-21 40 334 00 3 2 40 08 5-2 18 8 157 40 3-28 40 334 00 36 45 09 Totals $1,384 18 plus $22795 $1,612 13 Totals $3,922 30 plus $729 58 $4,651 88 Intenm Earnings = 0 Interim Earnings = p Net Backpay = $1,612 13 Net Backpay = $4,651 88 Grand Total Net Backpay = $6,264 01