Council 30, United Catering, Cafeteria and Vending Workers International Union, RWDSU/UFCW (Awrey Ba

48 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 360 NLRB No. 11 Council 30, United Catering, Cafeteria and Vending Workers, RWDSU/UFCW (Awrey Bakeries, LLC) and Loraine Whitfield Scussel. Case 07– CB–083076 November 26, 2013 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS HIROZAWA AND JOHNSON On April 4, 2013, Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Charging Party and the Acting General Counsel filed answering briefs and the Respondent filed a reply. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions,2 and to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set forth in full below.3 AMENDED REMEDY Because the Respondent has never been an employer of Loraine Whitfield Scussel, it shall not be required to file a report with the Social Security Administration allo- 1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis- trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder- ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. 2 In adopting the judge’s finding that a make-whole remedy is war- ranted in this case, we find it unnecessary to pass on his application of the analytical framework of Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980) (sub- sequent history omitted) to this remedial issue. 3 We have amended the remedy and modified the judge’s recom- mended Order consistent with our legal conclusions here and to con- form to the Board’s standard remedial language. We shall substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as modified. We shall also modify the judge’s recommended Order to remove the reference to “any other employer” in requiring that the Respondent cease and desist from restraining or coercing Awrey Bakeries in the selection of its representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. While we note that the Board has— without explanation—sometimes ordered respondents in 8(b)(1)(B) cases to cease and desist from restraining or coercing “any employer,” in other cases it has limited the scope of the cease-and-desist order to the employer in the case. Compare Elevator Constructors Local One (National Elevator Industry), 339 NLRB 977, 984 (2003) (“restraining or coercing any employer”) with Food & Commercial Workers Local 342-50 (Pathmark Stores), 339 NLRB 148, 151 (2003) (“restraining or coercing the Employer”). Absent an articulated rationale for requiring the broader “any other employer” language, and finding nothing in the record indicating it is warranted here, we have deleted this language from the Order and notice. cating backpay to the appropriate calendar quarters. Lati- no Express, Inc., 359 NLRB 518, 519 fn. 10 (2012). The traditional remedy for the 8(b)(1)(B) violation found here includes the requirement that the respondent send a letter to the discharged representative and to the employer stating that the respondent has no objection to the representative’s employment or selection as a repre- sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances by the employer, and that the respondent will not question the representative’s reemployment or reinstatement. See Auto Workers Local 259 (Atherton Cadillac), 225 NLRB 421, 423 (1976), enfd. mem. 562 F.2d 38 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. denied 434 U.S. 1011 (1978). Here, the record shows, and the judge found, that the Respondent sent such a letter to Whitfield Scussel and the Employer on February 8, 2013.4 We note, however, that the judge inadvertently failed to state in his remedy that the backpay period would end 5 days after the date that letter was sent, as required under Board law. See Miscellaneous Drivers & Helpers Local 610 (Bianco Mfg.), 236 NLRB 1048, 1048 fn. 1 (1978), enfd. per curiam 594 F.2d 1218 (8th Cir. 1979). We amend the judge’s remedy to correct this inadvertent error. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Council 30, United Catering, Cafeteria and Vending Workers, RWDSU/UFCW, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Restraining or coercing Awrey Bakeries in the se- lection of its representatives for purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances by condition- ing the grant of concessions in bargaining upon the dis- charge of Loraine Whitfield Scussel. (b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc- ing Awrey Bakeries in the selection of its representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Make Loraine Whitfield Scussel whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of its unlawful conduct through February 13, 2013, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the judge’s decision as amended in this decision. 4 Consistent with the judge’s recommended Order and notice, we therefore will not include language in the Order requiring the Respond- ent to send such a letter, but we will include in the notice a reference to this letter having been sent. FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS (AWREY BAKERIES, LLC) 49 (b) Compensate Loraine Whitfield Scussel for the ad- verse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award. (c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Warren, Michigan office copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa- tive, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees and members are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electroni- cally, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an in- ternet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respond- ent customarily communicates with its employees and members by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Sign and return to the Regional Director for Region 7 sufficient copies of the notice for physical and/or elec- tronic posting by Awrey Bakeries, if willing, at all places or in the same manner as notices to employees are cus- tomarily posted. (e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director of Region 7 a sworn certifica- tion of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. APPENDIX NOTICE TO MEMBERS 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 Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice. FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO Form, join, or assist a union Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf with your employer Act together with other employees for your bene- fit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities. 5 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 Na- tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.” WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce Awrey Bakeries in the selection of its representatives for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining or the adjustment of grievances by condi- tioning the grant of concessions in bargaining upon the discharge of Loraine Whitfield Scussel. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce Awrey Bakeries in the selection of its representa- tives for the purpose of collective bargaining or the ad- justment of grievances. WE HAVE sent a written notice to Loraine Whitfield Scussel, with a copy to Awrey Bakeries, stating that we have no objection to her employment or selection as a representative for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances by Awrey Bakeries and that we will not question her reemployment or reinstate- ment. WE WILL make Loraine Whitfield Scussel whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a re- sult of our unlawful conduct, less any net interim earn- ings, plus interest. WE WILL compensate Loraine Whitfield Scussel for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award. COUNCIL 30, UNITED CATERING, CAFETERIA AND VENDING WORKERS, RWDSU/UFCW Rana S. Roumayah, Esq., for the General Counsel. Patrick J. Rorai, Esq. (McKnight, McClow, Canzano, Smith and Radtke, P.C.), of Southfield, Michigan, for the Re- spondent Union. William Nole Evans, Esq. (Evans Pletkovic, P.C.), of Hunting- ton Woods, Michigan, for the Charging Party. Joshua Gadharf, Esq. (McDonald Hopkins, PLC), of Bloom- field Hills, Michigan, for Awrey Bakeries, Party-in-Interest. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ARTHUR J. AMCHAN, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Detroit, Michigan, on February 10 and 11, 2013. Loraine Whitfield Scussel filed the charge on June 13, 2012. The General Counsel issued the complaint on November 27, 2012. The General Counsel alleges that Respondent, hereinafter re- ferred to as Council 30 or the Union, violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act in restraining and coercing Awrey Bakeries in the selection of its representa- tive for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances.1 More specifically the complaint alleges that on about May 23, 2012, Union President Joseph Silva conditioned the granting of concessions in bargaining and approval of a collective-bargaining agreement upon Awrey discharging the Charging Party, who was Awrey’s director of human resources. 1 Par. 10 of the complaint tracks the exact language of the statute in this regard. 50 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Awrey terminated Ms. Whitfield Scussel’s employment on May 30, 2012. On the entire record,2 including my observation of the de- meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Respondent Union, and the Charging Party, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION In 2011 and 2012 Awrey Bakeries produced and sold baked goods from two facilities; one in Livonia, Michigan, and the other in Noblesville, Indiana. During 2011 it derived gross revenue in excess of $500,000 and purchased and received goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from places outside the State of Michigan. Awrey Bakeries is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and the Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Union has represented employees at Awrey’s Livonia, Michigan facility for decades. It has negotiated collective- bargaining agreements with Awrey Bakeries, the most recent of which covers the period from September 1, 2010–August 31, 2015. Awrey’s negotiating team in the 2010 collective-bargaining negotiations consisted or four individuals; Robert Wallace, Awrey’s chief executive officer, Greg Gallagher, Awrey’s chief financial officer, Michael Kaldorf, Awrey’s vice president of operations and the Charging Party, Lorraine Whitfield Scussel, the director of human resources (hereinafter Whitfield Scussel). Awrey hired Ms. Whitfield Scussel as its director of human resources in October 2005. In this position she was the princi- pal management representative who negotiated with the Union with respect to grievances. Whitfield Scussel settled grievances and denied grievances. She represented Awrey at three arbitra- tions and approved all terminations, albeit with further review by CEO Bob Wallace. Ms. Whitfield Scussel also negotiated about 10 memorandums of understanding with the Union. Awrey lost money in every year between 2005 and 2012, with the exception of 2009. By May 2012, the company was deeply in debt. As a result, on about May 7, 2012, Awrey’s board of directors hired Barry Kasoff, president of Realization Services, Inc., to make the company profitable or sell its assets. Kasoff first met with the Union and Awrey’s management team, including Ms. Whitfield Scussel on May 14, 2012. At this meeting, Kasoff said there would have to be layoffs of both hourly bargaining unit employees and salaried employees. Joseph Silva, the Union’s president, asked if Bob (CEO Wal- lace), Greg (CFO Gallagher) and Loraine (Ms. Whitfield Scussel) were going to be laid off or terminated. He stated that 2 Tr. 19, L. 18 and Tr. 154, L. 15 incorrectly identify the presiding judge. I grant the General Counsel’s unopposed motion to supplement the record. Thus, I receive into evidence Jt. Exh. 1, the Union’s February 8, 2013 letter to Ms. Whitfield Scussel. In the letter, the Union stated it had no objection to her employment with Awrey and that on January 16, 2013, it had requested that Awrey consider her reinstatement. the Union wanted these individuals to be gone. Kasoff did not respond to Silva (Tr. 27, 139, 202–203).3 Whitfield Scussel was unpopular with some unit employees, but, on the other hand, had a good relationship with some union representatives. One particular issue which made her unpopu- lar with some bargaining unit employees was her role in nego- tiating a new provision in the current collective-bargaining agreement. This clause provided health insurance benefits to employees only if they worked 1560 hours during a 12-month rolling period (Tr. 309, 320–322; GC Exh. 2, p. 20). This par- ticularly impacted Awrey’s “flex” employees who worked as replacements for the regular workforce. The individuals that met on May 14, met again on May 16. Scott Mazey, the Union’s attorney, was charged with the task of drafting a memorandum of understanding in which the Un- ion would agree to certain midterm contract concessions. There was another meeting on May 17 during which the Union stated it would hold a meeting to present the proposed conces- sions to its membership on Sunday, May 20. On May 20, the union membership voted on a memorandum of understanding (MOU) which the union leadership had at least agreed could be presented for the membership’s consider- ation. That MOU proposed to amend the September 1, 2010 collective-bargaining agreement in a number of ways. First it provided for the layoff of 26 unit employees by May 25, based on plantwide seniority. The MOU also provided that, “It is further agreed that there shall also be job eliminations of man- agement personnel in a similar percentage of the management workforce” (GC Exh. 8). The proposed MOU reduced the hourly pay of the remaining employees by $2 per hour and made a similar reduction in pay for the remaining management personnel. The 26 employees were provided with recall rights, including recall in the event that the Noblesville, Indiana operations were moved to Livonia. At the first meeting, the membership rejected the concessions and the MOU. On May 23, Kasoff met and spoke with unit employees in the parking lot of the Livonia plant to try to win their support for the concessions. Kasoff entertained questions from the employees. One or several employees asked whether the three top managers, meaning, in the employees’ view, Wallace, Gal- lagher, and Ms. Whitfield Scussel, were going to lose their jobs (Tr. 268, 278–279, 305). The union membership rejected the concessions following Kasoff’s speech to them. 4 3 Silva’s testimony at Tr. 258–261 does not directly contradict Whitfield Scussel, Gallagher, and even Kasoff as to what he said on May 14. 4 Joseph Silva and union committee chairperson David Bullion testi- fied that Kasoff promised to terminate two of the three before the sec- ond vote (Tr. 269, 284, 293). I do not credit this testimony. If this were so, such a provision would have been in the first draft of the MOU; not merely the second. Moreover, I credit the testimony of security guard James Pallarito that Kasoff promised to terminate Gal- lagher and Whitfield Scussel after the second vote (Tr. 108). Despite Pallarito’s personal friendship with Whitfield Scussel, his boss, there are a host of reasons to credit his testimony. Kasoff didn’t directly contradict Pallarito’s testimony, he merely testified that he did not recall either telling the Union that he would fire 2 of the 3, or that Silva FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS (AWREY BAKERIES, LLC) 51 Almost immediately following this meeting, Kasoff met with union officials at the entrance to the plant. While they were talking security guard James Pallarito brought mail into the plant from his guard shack. As he passed by Kasoff and the union representatives he overheard Kasoff ask why the conces- sions in the MOU were rejected. Union President Joseph Silva replied that the reason was that Kasoff did not “give them the Big 3,” meaning the terminations of Wallace, Gallagher, and Whitfield Scussel. Kasoff replied that he could not terminate all three but that he would terminate Whitfield Scussel immedi- ately and Gallagher in 60 days (Tr. 108).5 Kasoff shut the plant down for the rest of May 23, and for several days thereafter. On May 29, unit employees ratified a revised version of the MOU. The revised version of the MOU (GC Exh. 9), provided in the second paragraph, for the elimina- tion of management personnel in a similar percentage to that of the union employees. However, it also stated, “It is further agreed that 2 of the 3 highest management employees currently employed by Awrey Bakeries (being the CEO, CFO and Hu- man Resources Director) shall be terminated, one being imme- diately, and one being in 60 days.” The new MOU also added a provision granting laid-off un- ion employees a $1500 severance payment. The new MOU phased in the wage reduction called for in the first MOU. It provided for a $1 pay cut on June 1, 2012, and then another $1 cut on September 1. Unit employees approved the revised MOU and Kasoff terminated Whitfield Scussel that day. Gal- lagher worked another 60 days as called for in the MOU. After Whitfield Scussel’s termination her duties have been performed in succession by Janet Lewis, Awrey’s benefits manager, then Mike Kaldorf, who was rehired as chief operations officer, and then by Chris Heiden, Awrey’s current human resources man- ager. Why I discredit Barry Kasoff’s testimony that he had decided to terminate Whitfield Scussel prior to May 23. I find that the Union coerced Awrey to terminate the em- guaranteed ratification if Kasoff terminated Whitfield Scussel (Tr. 209– 211). Bullion confirmed that Pallarito passed within 2 feet of Kasoff and the union representatives while they were talking, lending circum- stantial corroboration of Pallarito’s testimony (Tr. 309–311). Addition- ally, Pallarito’s testimony is consistent with the changes in the MOU between the second vote and third vote. Finally, Pallarito’s testified the Gerald Mull, a union committeeman and agent, told him that that MOU was approved on May 30 because Kasoff promised to get rid of Gal- lagher and Whitfield Scussel. Mull did not testify and Pallarito’s May 30 email at 9:08 a.m. to Whitfield Scussel, GC Exh. 7 [the reason for the overwhelming vote was the promise of Greg and your heads.] adds credibility to his testimony. 5 Respondent attacks Pallarito’s credibility on the grounds that he could not have heard the conversation about which he testified during a period of 5 seconds. I reject this argument. Respondent’s witness Bullion testified Pallarito was within earshot for 5 seconds; Pallarito’s testimony indicates he could hear what was being said for a longer period of time (Tr. 106–109). I also rely on the fact that Respondent’s witnesses Kasoff, Silva and Bullion testified after Pallarito’s very damaging testimony. Respondent did not ask Kasoff anything about Pallarito. Silva denied seeing him during the post-vote meeting on May 23. This is unlikely given the fact that Pallarito is 6’8” tall and is otherwise a very big man. ployment of Whitfield Scussel and Gallagher. Moreover, it is not all certain that Kasoff would have terminated either one but for the pressure from the Union. I do not credit the testimony of Barry Kasoff that he decided to terminate Whitfield Scussel prior to May 23. At transcript 189, Kasoff testified that he decided to lay off Whitfield Scussel and Gallagher on May 12, before he ever met them. However, Kasoff also testified that Whitfield Scussel was terminated in part due to his evaluation of her performance as human resources director (Tr. 192–195). At transcript 216, Kasoff testified that he added the language promising to termi- nate two of the three “top management” because he “was at the intolerance level as it related to Loraine and Greg Gallagher.” If Kasoff decided to terminate Whitfield Scussel before he ever met her, her job performance would not have mattered to him. On May 23, after the second vote on the MOU, Kasoff met with Whitfield Scussel and Gallagher and told them that the Union was very angry with them. He told Whitfield Scussel that the Union wanted her terminated and asked her when was the last time she was out on the plant floor (Tr. 43, 57, 146– 150, 222–224). This conversation would have made no sense had Kasoff decided to terminate Whitfield Scussel on May 12, or any time prior to May 23. Legal Analysis Board law is crystal clear that employees, unions, and em- ployers have the right to select whomever they choose to repre- sent them for purposes of collective bargaining and grievance adjustment. Conversely, the other parties must deal with the other’s chosen representative except in extraordinary circum- stances not present in this case. Section 8(b)(1)(B) provides that it is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to “restrain or coerce . . . an employer in the selection of his repre- sentatives for the purpose of collective bargaining or the ad- justment of grievances, United Parcel Service, 330 NLRB 1020 fn. 1 (2000).” I find that Union President Joseph Silva conditioned the granting of concessions in bargaining upon Awrey discharging the Charging Party, Lorraine Whitfield Scussel, Awrey’s direc- tor of human resources. Thus, I conclude that the Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) as alleged, Auto Workers Local 259, 225 NLRB 421 (1976). Respondent Union relies on Teamster Local 507 (Klein News), 306 NLRB 118 (1992), in arguing that the complaint should be dismissed because the General Counsel has not shown a nexus between its conduct and Whitfield Scussel’s functions as Awrey’s collective-bargaining representative. That reliance is misplaced. As that decision makes clear, there are two kinds of 8(b)(1)(B) violations: those applied directly against an employer and those indirectly applied against the representative in order to “adversely effect” the manner in which the representative performs his or her duties such as grievance processing. The latter class of cases emanates from the Board’s decision in San Francisco-Oakland Mailers Union No. 18 (Northwest Publications, Inc.), 172 NLRB 2173 (1968). The distinction between the two types of cases is discussed in detail in the Su- preme Court decision in NLRB v. Electrical Workers Local 340, 52 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 481 US 573 (1987). These cases often concern a union mem- ber who performs some supervisory type functions for his or her employer (i.e., grievance adjustment at step 1)—sometimes in addition to performing functions consistent with being a rank and file employee. The requirement in Teamster Local 507 that the record establish a sufficient nexus between the Respond- ent’s coercive conduct and the representative’s performance of functions related to his or her status as an employer’s repre- sentative for collective bargaining, only applies to the second class of cases. Moreover since the Charging Party in the instant case almost exclusively performed functions related to collective bargain- ing, I would find the record shows a sufficient nexus assuming such a showing was required. Indeed, there is no explanation for the Union’s hostility towards her other than that emanating from the performance of her duties in collective bargaining and grievance adjustment. Indeed, the Union concedes that some of it members “were not pleased with Ms. Scussel’s performance in terms of reducing benefits for the flex group” (Tr. 309). The Charging Party is entitled to a make-whole remedy In order to violate Section 8(b)(1)(B), the Respondent Union need not have been successful in coercing Awrey to terminate the Charging Party. However, I conclude that Respondent Un- ion’s coercion was at least a contributing factor in Awrey’s decision to terminate the Charging Party. The Respondent certainly did not establish that Awrey would have discharged Whitfield Scussel in the absence of its coercion. I analogize this case to the Board’s analysis in cases involving discrimina- tion by employers. In order to establish that an employer violated Section 8(a)(1) in discharging or disciplining an employee, the Board generally requires the General Counsel to make an initial show- ing sufficient to support an inference that the alleged discrimi- natee’s protected conduct was a ‘motivating factor’ in the em- ployer’s decision. Then the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the same action would have taken place even in the absence of protected conduct, Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 889 (lst Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), approved in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393, 399–403 (1983); American Gardens Management Co., 338 NLRB 644 ( 2002). The Board will not seek to quantitatively analyze the effect of the unlawful cause once it has been found. “It is enough that the employees' protected activities are causally related to the employer action which is the basis of the complaint. Whether that ‘cause’ was the straw that broke the camel's back or a bul- let between the eyes, if it were enough to determine events, it is enough to come within the proscription of the Act.” Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083, 1089 fn. 14; accord: Bronco Wine Co., 256 NLRB 53, 54 fn. 8 (1981). Having found a causal relationship between the Charging Party’s discharge and Respondent’s violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B), I conclude that she is entitled to a make-whole rem- edy. The Board granted such relief to Anthony Dazzo, a man- ager who lost his job due a union’s violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B), Auto Workers Local 259, 225 NLRB 421 (1976).6 CONCLUSION OF LAW By conditioning the grant of concessions in bargaining with Awrey Bakeries upon the discharge of Loraine Whitfield Scussel Respondent has restrained and coerced Awrey Bakeries and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean- ing of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act. REMEDY The Respondent, having contributed to the discharge of the Charging Party, it must make her whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits. It shall also reimburse Loraine Whitfield Scussel for any out-of-pocket expenses incurred searching for work. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), com- pounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). Reimbursement interest shall be comput- ed in the same manner. I have granted the General Counsel’s motion to supplement the record with Joint Exhibit 1, which establishes that Re- spondent Union contacted Awrey on January 16, 2013, and requested that the Employer consider the Charging Party’s reinstatement. The Employer declined. Respondent mailed a letter to the Charging Party on February 8, 2013, informing her of its contact with the Employer and stating that it had no ob- jection to the Charging Party’s reinstatement, or her role as a representative of the Employer for purposes of collecting bar- gaining or grievance adjustment. Respondent shall file a report with the Social Security Ad- ministration allocating backpay to the appropriate calendar quarters. Respondent shall also compensate the Charging Party for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering periods longer than 1 year, Latino Express, Inc., 359 NLRB 518 (2012). [Recommended Order omitted from publication.] 6 In Teamsters Local 70, 183 NLRB 1330 (1970), the Board de- clined to order a make-whole remedy for a 8(b)(1)(B) violation. That case is distinguishable from the instant case in that the employer’s bargaining representative was not an employee of the employer and thus was not discharged as a result of the union’s coercion.