Challenge-Cook Brothers Of Ohio, Inc.

434 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Challenge-Cook Brothers of Ohio, Inc. and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC. Cases 8-CA-15391, 8-CA-16250, 8-CA- 21118, 8-CA-21271, 8-CA-21383, and 8-CA- 21486 August 13, 1990 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, AND OVIATT On June 15, 1989, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Order Remanding The Board, inter aim, granted the General Counsel's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and remanded the compliance proceed- ing in Cases 8-CA-15391 and 8-CA-16250 to the Regional Director ' On September 15, 1989, the Regional Director for Region 8 issued a second order consolidating the unfair labor practice pro- ceeding in Cases 8-CA-21271, 8-CA-21383, and 8- CA-21486 with the prior consolidated unfair labor practice and compliance proceeding referred to above, and an amended consolidated complaint and notice of hearing against the Respondent alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act After being proper- ly served copies of the amended consolidated com- plaint, the Respondent filed an answer to the amended consolidated complaint on September 28, 1989 Subsequently, the Respondent filed a bank- ruptcy petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code Thereafter, the trustee m the bankruptcy proceeding, the Respondent, and the General Counsel entered into a written agreement in which the Respondent withdrew its answer to the back- pay specification and its answer to the amended consolidated complaint The agreement noted that the General Counsel would file a Motion for Sum- mary Judgment, and that all parties retain their rights under 11 U S C § 502 2 On May 10, 1990, the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment On May 14, 1990, the Board issued an order transferring the proceed- ing to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not be granted The Respondent and the trustee in the bankruptcy proceeding failed to file a response The allegations in the motion are therefore undisputed '295 NLRB 435 Earlier, on August 23, 1988, the Regional Director for Region 8 had Issued an order consolidating an unfair labor practice proceeding in Case 8-CA-21118 with the backpay proceeding in Cases 8-CA-15391 and 8-CA-16250 The unfair labor practice case was not In- cluded in the General Counsel's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 2 The provision of the Bankruptcy Code dealing with allowance of claims The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment of the Backpay Specification Section 102 56 of the Board's Rules and Regula- tionss provides that if an answer is not filed within 21 days from service of the backpay specification, the Board may find the allegations of the specifica- tion to be true and enter such an order as may be appropriate The specification states that the Re- spondent shall file an Answer to said Specification within twenty-one (21) days from the service hereof, and that to the extent that such Answer fails to deny allegations of the Specifi- cation in the manner required under the Board's Rules and Regulations, and the failure to do so is not adequately explained, such alle- gations shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and the Respondent shall be precluded from introducing any evidence controverting them The Respondent's withdrawal of its answer has the same effect as a failure to file an answer 4 Accord- ingly, we find the allegations of the backpay speci- fication to be true and grant the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment on the backpay specification We conclude that the backpay due the employ- ees listed in the backpay specification is as stated in the backpay specification computations, plus inter- est computed in the manner set forth in New Hori- zons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), and we shall order the Respondent to pay those amounts Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment of the Amended Consolidated Complaint Section 102 20 of the Board's Rules and Regula- tions provides that the allegations in the complaint shall be deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14 days from service of the complaint, unless good cause is shown The amended consoli- dated complaint states that unless an answer is filed within 14 days of service, "all of the allegations in the Amended Consolidated Complaint shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and may be so found by the Board" The Respondent's withdraw- 'Formerly Sec 102 54 The Board amended its Rules governing com- pliance proceedings effective November 13, 1988 The substance of former Sec 102 54 has been incorporated Into Sec 102 56 as revised 4 Matshn Transport, 274 NLRB 529 (1985) 299 NLRB No 53 CHALLENGE-COOK BROS OF OHIO 435 al of its answer has the same effect as failure to file an answer 5 Accordingly, we grant the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment on the amended consolidated complaint On the entire record, the Board makes the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION The Respondent, an Ohio corporation, with an office and place of business in Bryan, Ohio, has been engaged in the manufacture of industrial laun- dry dryers and cement mixers Annually, until ceasing operations about August 14, 1988, in the course and conduct of its business operations, the Respondent purchased and received at its Bryan, Ohio facility products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Ohio We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act II ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The following employees of the Respondent con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act All production and maintenance employees at Respondent's Bryan, Ohio facility, including shipping and receiving clerks, jamtonal em- ployees, partsmen and utilitymen, but exclud- ing inspectors, chief inspectors, material con- trol clerks, draftsmen, office clerical employ- ees and professional employees, guards and su- pervisors as defined in the Act About August 8, 1974, and again about October 23, 1981, a majority of the employees in the unit by secret-ballot elections designated and selected the Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Respondent About August 15, 1974, and again about November 2, 1981, the Regional Director for Region 8 certified the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit At all times since 1974, the Union, by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, has been, and is, the exclusive rep- resentative of the employees in the unit The most recent collective-bargammg agreement between the Respondent and the Union was effec- tive from November 21, 1987, until June 30, 1988 5 Maishn Transport, supra By written agreement, the collective-bargaining agreement was extended until September 30, 1988 During the months of April, May, and June 1988, the Respondent and the Union met for the purpose of negotiating the effects of the Respond- ent's transfer of its cement mixer operation to Cal- houn, Georgia During this period, the Respondent refused to bargain over the effects of Respondent's transfer of operation unless and until the Union demonstrated to the Respondent's satisfaction that the unit employees had been affected by the reloca- tion of the cement mixer operation About July 15, 1988, the Respondent terminated a pension plan for the unit that was provided for in the collective-bargaining agreement The pension plan relates to the unit employees' terms and condi- tions of employment and is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining The Respondent engaged in these acts and conduct without prior notice to the Union, without having afforded the Union an op- portunity to bargain with respect to these acts and the effects of these acts, and without the consent of the Union Since about August 10, 1988, the Union has re- quested the Respondent to furnish the Union with the followmg information I When did the Company first consider closmg and/or selling this operation ? What factors caused it to consider such a possibility? If any of these factors relate to the financial condition of the Company, what, if any, data has the Company relied upon? If the Company has relied upon such data, the Union requests that it be furnished with copies of such data, or the opportunity to inspect and copy such data II What steps were taken in reviewing whether this operation should be sold and/or closed? In this regard, were the services of any governmental or private agencies or consult- ants utilized? If so, what are the names and ad- dresses of all of the governmental and/or pri- vate agencies or consultants utilized? III Have any reports been prepared by the Company or by any outside agencies or con- sultants, concerning the sale and/or closing? If so, the Union requests that it be furnished copies of such reports or the opportunity to in- spect and copy such reports IV When was the decision made to sell and/or close this operation? Who, employed by the Company, was responsible for the deci- sion[?] Will any of the operations currently performed at this facility be contracted out for 436 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD performance at any other location(s)? If so, where? To whom? V If this work is to be contracted out, will there be an increase in the number of union and/or non-union employees actively at work at other company facilities as a result? If so, please identify the numbers of union and non- union employees at each such facility who will be hired and/or recalled from layoff as a result Also, provide the Umon with the wage rates of Company employees working at such facilities, and copies of the collective-bargain- ing agreements, if any, for such facilities, as well as copies of the pension and insurance agreements VI What wntten materials have been relat- ed [sic] upon by the Company in making the tentative decision to sell and/or close this op- eration? The Umon requests that it be fur- nished with copies of all wntten materials upon which the Company has relied, or the opportunity to inspect and copy such materi- als VII Have any written or oral agreements been made between representatives of the Company and outside firms or agencies in con- nection with the prospective sale and/or clos- ing, mcluding but not limited to, any written or oral agreements contractmg for the sale and/or closing of the plant or for removal of equipment from the plant? If so, the Union re- quests that it be furnished with copies of all such written agreements, or the opportunity to inspect and copy such agreements VIII If the Company has entered into a sale agreement with respect to this facility, the Union requests that it be provided with a copy IX The Union requests that the Company provide it with copies (or date where applica- ble) of the followmg (a) The qualified USWA/Challenge Cook Bros Pension Plan, any amendments, and the summary plant [sic] description (b) Active pension plan participants cate- gorized by age, seniority and credited serv- ice (vesting and benefit) (c) Retired participants categorized by date of retirement, age, credited service at retirement, amount and type of monthly benefit (d) Annual company contributions to the pension plan with schedule of dates and level of contributions from January 1, 1983 (e) Three most recent actuarial evalua- tions (f) Three most recent Department of Labor 5500 Forms, including Schedule B (g) Three latest trustees, or if the plan is administered by an insurance company, then the three latest annual reports from the in- surance company (h) A statement indicating any major changes in fund accounting procedures or assumptions which have occurred during the last three years (i) Current insurance agreements and sum- mary plan descriptions The information requested by the Union, as de- scribed above, is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union's performance of its function as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit Since about August 10, 1988, the Respondent has failed and refused to furnish the Union with this in- formation About August 14, 1988, the Respondent put into effect an agreement to sell its Bryan, Ohio facility and ceased operations The effects of the sale and closure of the Bryan, Ohio facility relate to the unit employees' terms and conditions of em- ployment and are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining The Respondent engaged in the acts and conduct described above without prior notice to the Union, without having afforded the Union an opportunity to bargain with respect to the ef- fects of these acts, and has failed and refused to re- spond to the Union's request, on August 12, 1988, for such bargaining By these acts and conduct, the Respondent has failed and refused, and is failing and refusing, to bargain collectively and m good faith with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 By refusing to bargain with the Union over the effects of its decision to relocate its cement mixer operation from Bryan, Ohio, to Calhoun, Georgia, unless and until the Union demonstrated to its satisfaction that the unit employees had been affected by the relocation, the Respondent has en- gaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 2 By unilaterally terminating a pension plan that was provided for in the collective-bargaining agreement, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 3 By failing to provide the Union with adequate pnor notice and an opportunity to bargain over the CHALLENGE-COOK BROS OF OHIO 437 effects of selling its Bryan, Ohio facility and ceas- ing operations, and by refusing to furnish the Union with information relevant to such bargain- ing, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act The Respondent shall be required to bargain with the Union over the effects of its decision to relocate its cement mixer operation without requir- ing the Union to demonstrate that the unit employ- ees have been affected 6 The Respondent shall also be required to bargain with the Union over the ef- fects of selling its Bryan, Ohio facility and ceasing operations, and to furnish the Union with the re- quested information We shall accompany our order to bargain with a limited backpay require- ment designed to make whole the employees for losses sustained as a result of the violation, and to re-create in some practicable manner a situation in which the parties' bargaining position is not entire- ly devoid of economic consequences for the Re- spondent We shall do so in this case by requiring the Respondent to pay backpay to its employees in a manner similar to that required in Transmarme Navigation Corp, supra Thus, the Respondent shall pay employees backpay at the rate of their normal wages when last in the Respondent's employ from 5 days after the date of this Second Supplemental Decision and Decision and Order until the occur- rence of the earliest of the following conditions (1) the date the Respondent bargains to agreement with the Union on those subjects pertaining to the effects on its employees of its decision to sell its Bryan, Ohio facility and cease operations, (2) a bona fide impasse in bargaining, (3) the failure of the Union to request bargaining withm 5 days of this decision, or to commence negotiations within 5 days of the Respondent's notice of its desire to bar- gain with the Union, or (4) the subsequent failure of the Union to bargain in good faith, but in no event shall the sum paid to any of these employees exceed the amount the affected employees would have earned as wages from the date on which he 6 See 282 NLRB 21 (1986) This is not, basically, a new violation and we do not order a new Transmanne Navigation Corp remedy (170 NLRB 389 (1968)), but order the Respondent to pay those amounts listed in the backpay specification and, as indicated, to bargain without requirmg a demonstration of consequences on the unit or she was laid off to the time he or she was re- called or secured equivalent employment else- where, or the date on which the Respondent shall have offered to bargain, whichever occurs sooner, provided, however, that in no event shall this sum be less than these employees would have earned for a 2-week period at the rate of their normal wages when last in the Respondent's employ We shall further order the Respondent to imme- diately reestablish the pension plan as provided for in the collective-bargaining agreement, and make whole its unit employees for terminating the pen- sion plan, including paying any amounts unlawfully withheld, making pension contributions that have not been paid and that would have been paid in the absence of the Respondent's unlawful discontinu- ance of the plan, 7 and by reimbursing unit employ- ees for any expenses ensuing from the Respondent's failure to make any payments as set forth in Kraft Plumbing & Heating, 252 NLRB 891 fn 2 (1980), enfd mem 661 F 2d 94 .0 (9th Cir 1981), to be computed in the manner set forth in Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), with interest to be computed in the manner prescribed in New Hori- zons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Challenge-Cook Brothers of Ohio, Inc. Bryan, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall pay those employees listed in "Appendix B" those amounts listed next to their names, plus interest accrued to the date of payment in the manner set forth in this decision, minus tax withholdings required by Federal and state law, and pay United Steelworkers of America, AFL- CIO-CLC the dues deductions listed in "Appendix C" on behalf of those employees listed, plus inter- est IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Respondent, Challenge-Cook Brothers of Ohio, Inc , Bryan, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union concerning the effects of the relocation of 7 Because the case involving the pension plan arose in 1988, and the Respondent subsequently filed its bankruptcy petition, the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, Pub L 98-353, Stat 333 (1984), is controlling rather than NLRB v Bildisco & Bddisco, 465 US 513 (1984) Consequently, we have not limited the Respondent's make-whole liability for its 8(aX5) violations to the prepennon period See Barney Goldstein, Inc. 288 NLRB 92 (1988) Because the provisions of employee benefit plan agreements are van- able and complex, we leave to the compliance stage the question whether the Respondent must pay any additional amounts into the benefit plan in order to satisfy our "make-whole" remedy Merryweather Optical Co. 240 NLRB 1213 (1979) 438 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the cement mixer operation from Bryan, Ohio, to Calhoun, Georgia, without requinng the Union to demonstrate that the employees in the following appropriate unit have been affected All production and maintenance employees at Employer's Bryan, Ohio facility, including shipping and receiving clerks, jamtonal em- ployees, partsmen and utihtymen, but exclud- ing inspectors, chief inspectors, matenal con- trol clerks, draftsmen, office clerical employ- ees and professional employees, guards and su- pervisors as defined in the Act (b) Refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union concerning the effects of selling the Bryan, Ohio facility and ceasing operations (c) Refusing to provide the Union with relevant information to enable the Union to discharge its function as exclusive representative of the unit em- ployees (d) Terminating the pension plan provided for in the collective-bargaining agreement without the consent of the Union (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of the nghts guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) On request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the unit employees concerning the effects of the relocation of the cement mixer operation from Bryan, Ohio, to Calhoun, Georgia, without requiring the Union to demonstrate that the unit employees have been affected (b) On request, bargain collectively with the Union concerning the effects of selling the Bryan, Ohio facility and ceasing operations (c) Pay the employees who were laid off due to the decision to sell the Bryan, Ohio facility and cease operations, their normal wages for the period set forth in the remedy section of this decision (d) On request, furnish the Union with the rele- vant information requested on or about August 10, 1988, to enable the Union to discharge its function as exclusive representative of the unit employees (e) On request, reestablish the pension plan as provided for in the collective-bargaining agree- ment (f) Make whole all unit employees for any losses they may have suffered as a result of termmatmg the pension plan as provided for in the collective- bargaining agreement in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision (g) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copy- mg, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order (h) Mail an exact copy of the attached notice marked "Appendix A" 8 to the Union and to all the employees who were laid off as a result of the relo- cation of the cement mixer operation and/or as a result of selling and ceasing operations of the Bryan, Ohio facility Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after being signed by the Respondent's authonzed representative, shall be mailed by the Respondent immediately upon receipt to each of the laid-off employees (i) Notify the Regional Director in wntmg within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply 8 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board" APPENDIX A NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith with United Steelworkers of Amenca, AFL-CIO- CLC concerning the effects of the relocation of the cement mixer operation from Bryan, Ohio, to Cal- houn, Georgia, without requiring the Union to demonstrate that the employees in the following appropriate unit have been affected All production and maintenance employees at Employer's Bryan, Ohio facility, including shipping and receiving clerks, janitorial em- ployees, partsmen and utilitymen, but exclud- ing inspectors, chief inspectors, matenal con- trol clerks, draftsmen, office clerical employ- ees and professional employees, guards and su- pervisors as define in the Act WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith with the Union concerning the effects of selling the Bryan, Ohio facility and ceasing operations WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish the Union with relevant information to enable the Union to dis- charge its function as exclusive representative of the unit employees WE WILL NOT terminate the pension plan provid- ed for in the collective-bargaining agreement with- out the consent of the Union WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer- cise of the nghts guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively with the Umon as the exclusive representative of the unit employees concerning the effects of the relo- cation of the cement mixer operation from Bryan, Ohio, to Calhoun, Georgia, without requinng the Union to demonstrate that the unit employees have been affected WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively with the Union concerning the effects of selling the Bryan, Ohio facility and ceasing operations WE WILL pay those employees who were laid off due to our decision to sell our Bryan, Ohio fa- allay and cease operations, their normal wages for a period required by the National Labor Relations Board WE WILL, on request, furnish the Union with rel- evant mformation requested on or about August 10, 1988, to enable the Union to discharge its function as exclusive representative of the unit employees WE WILL, on request, reestablish the pension plan as provided for in the collective-bargaining agreement WE WILL make whole all unit employees for any losses they may have suffered as a result of our ter- mmatmg the pension plan as provided for in the collective-bargaining agreement, plus interest CHALLENGE-COOK BROTHERS OF OHIO, INC APPENDIX Claimant Backpay Alexander, D $3,914 46 Baerlm, L 1,085 38 Barber, C 6,262 66 Barnes, J 10,620 36 Barton, K 663 68 Baughman, P 6,077 94 Bentley, R 1,547 72 Bernath, M 556 72 Bowers, B 3,929 41 Bowers, C 3,063 81 Bnner, D 936 78 Burus, R 11,363 20 Buttermore, D 17,194 67 Calvin, R 4,436 31 Campbell, W 10,629 93 CHALLENGE-COOK BROS OF OHIO 439 Carpenter, W . 790 48 Carr, C 10,255 88 Carroll, S 17,494 97 Clark, W 8,92497 Clemans, D 3,225 26 Cogswell, E 10,838 70 Connolly, F 2,128 27 Cook, D 1,865 24 Coolman, R 10,551 65 Crites, J 3,378 71 Culler, R 1,282 91 Degroff, M 10,138 45 Dobson, R 7,52445 Dohm, R 9,194 62 Dow, R 5,071 40 Echler, W 10,847 37 Esquibel, F 3,63609 Fee, H 5,780 85 Fix, T 8,332 92 Flory, C 9,396 89 Fox, J 9,13674 Geiger, D 5,700 19 Gentit, D 10,236 29 Gentit, P 5,978 03 Gilcher, R 16,789 54 Gonzales, J 9,455 59 Grunden, R 11,299 74 Hackworth, B 8,000 92 Hageman, W 13,022 11 Hanenkratt, C 7,083 63 Harding, W 10,560 33 Hart, H 9,977 52 Hartsock, R 3,23042 Hausch, C 5,61943 Henry, H 2,196 53 Houck, N 10,421 29 Houk, R 5,25743 Jackson, T 14,048 56 Jones, W Keck, J 3,775 08 3,498 91 Keller, V 4,975 70 Keller, W 10,664 73 Knepper, A 556 72 Knepper, W 10,882 79 Kmsely, J 13,414 34 Koch, J 10,403 33 Kosier, C 9,666 95 Krontz, S 4,226 31 Laney, G 5,071 40 Lange, H 556 72 Lilly, C 10,629 93 Mapes, G 10,421 15 March, T 10,516 84 Masters, G 10,977 88 May, N 5,689 01 Miller, J 4,256 54 440 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mobley, G 5,543 96 Carpenter, W 9 20 Mollett, L 4,679 95 Carr, C 119 32 Petre, D 6,191 09 Carroll, S 203 55 Pierce, G 8,959 76 Clark, W 103 83 Pierce, W 10,377 66 Clemans, D 156 99 Pike, G, Jr 3,642 67 Cogswell, E 126 10 Pollock, T 11,578 10 Connolly, F 24 76 Rebeck, T 601 01 Cook, D 118 77 Reed, H 10,047 11 Coolman, R 122 75 Reichle, J 4,075 59 Crites, J 61 48 Rhodes, C 10,316 78 Culler, R 31 13 Robison, W 10,690 83 Degroff, M 117 95 Roehrs, J 3,553 30 Dobson, R 87 55 Sawvel, W 6,941 60 Dohm, R 106 98 Schelling, J, Sr 6,71547 Dow, R 59 00 Schlosser, V Schofield, F Shaffer, T Sholl, V Shutts, R Sidle, D Siegel, J Slone, M Smith, D Smith, M Sorg, S Stambaugh, R 547 87 2,431 87 2,338 65 9,028 28 13,029 23 6,12495 10,490 74 9,36645 570 64 1,489 50 2,305 58 5,758 60 Echler, W Esquibel, F Fee, H Fix, T Flory, C Fox, J Geiger, D Gentit, D Gentit, P alcher, R Gonzales, J 126 19 42 31 63 49 96 95 117 79 150 68 66 31 190 25 69 55 195 33 110 01 Stratton, C 10,490 75 Grunden, R 131 46 Towns, M 10,421 15 Hackworth, B 93 08 Traxler, L 10,073 20 Hageman, W 151 49 Tressler, R 2,907 17 Hanenkratt, C 82 41 Trott, G 568 11 Harding, W 122 87 Underwood, R 6,576 29 Hart, H 116 08 Vema, B 10,047 12 Hartsock, R 37 58 Villareal, 0 9,43640 Hausch, C 65 37 Voglesong, P 556 72 Henry, H 25 55 Wagner, D 3,524 23 Houck, N 121 23 Walker, F 11,931 36 Houk, R 61 17 Zielke, W 12,674 15 Jackson, T 163 44 Jones, W 43 92 APPENDIX C Keck, J 40 71 Claimant Dues Deduction Keller, V 57 90 Alexander, D $45 54 Keller, W 124 07 Baerlm, L 12 62 Knepper, A 648 Barber, C 72 86 Knepper, W 113 54 Barnes, J 123 54 Kmsely, J 156 05 Barton, K 8 91 Koch, J 121 03 Baughman, P 70 71 Kosier, C 112 47 Bentley, R 38 03 Krontz, S 49 17 Bernath, M 648 Laney, G 59 00 Bowers, B 59 00 Lange, H 648 Bowers, C 35 65 Lilly, C 123 67 Brmer, D 38 81 Mapes, G 121 25 Burus, R 132 20 March, T 122 36 Buttermore, D 200 05 Masters, G 127 72 Calvin, R 51 61 May, N 66 19 Campbell, W 123 67 Miller, J 49 52 CHALLENGE-COOK BROS OF OHIO 441 Mobley, G 64 50 Shutts, R 146 72 Mollett, L 54 45 Sidle, D 71 25 Petre, D 72 02 Siegel, J 122 06 Pierce, G 104 24 Slone, M 108 97 Pierce, W 120 74 Smith, D 664 Pike, 0, Jr 123 56 Smith, M 17 33 Pollock, T Rebeck, T Reed, H Reichle, J 134 70 6 99 116 89 47 41 Sorg, S Stambaugh, R Stratton, C Towns, M Traxler, L 26 82 67 00 122 05 121 25 117 20 Rhodes, C 120 02 Tressler, R 33 83 Robison, W 124 37 Trott, G 661 Roehrs, J 41 34 Underwood, R 76 51 Sawvel, W 80 76 Vema, B 116 88 Schellmg, J, Sr 78 13 Villareal, 0 109 78 Schlosser, V 6 37 Voglesong, P 648 Schofield, F 28 29 Wagner, D 41 01 Shaffer, T 27 21 Walker, F 138 81 Sholl, V 105 04 Zielke, W 147 45