G4S Regulated Security Solutions, a Division of G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. f/k/a The Wackenhut

368 NLRB No. 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex- ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., A Division of G4S Regulated Security Solutions, Inc. f/k/a The Wackenhut Corporation and Thomas Frazier and Cecil Mack. Cases 12–CA–026644 and 12– CA–026811 June 5, 2019 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS KAPLAN AND EMANUEL On December 20, 2018, Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler issued the attached supplemental deci- sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and an argument in support, the General Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Respondent filed a reply brief. The General Coun- sel filed cross-exceptions and an argument in support, the Respondent filed an answering brief, and the General Counsel filed a reply brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the supplemental decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con- clusions and to adopt the recommended Supplemental Or- der as modified and set forth in full below.2 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Re- spondent, G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., a Division of G4S Regulated Security Solutions, Inc. f/k/a The Wackenhut Corporation, West Palm Beach, Florida, its of- ficers, agents, successors and assigns, shall make whole 1 We find merit in the General Counsel’s exception to the judge’s determination of discriminatee Cecil Mack’s interim earnings for the first quarter of 2011. In so finding, we rely on the State of Florida’s Department of Revenue report listing Mack’s earnings, on which the Re- gion reasonably relied, rather than Mack’s admittedly imprecise testi- mony, which he provided 7 years after the relevant time period. We also find merit in the General Counsel’s uncontested exception to a $10 cal- culation error by the judge. We have revised the backpay determination accordingly. 2 We shall amend the recommended Supplemental Order to reflect that Mack had interim earnings of $9230.76 in the first quarter of 2011, and to additionally increase by $10 the net backpay due Mack. Thus, the corrected net backpay amount due Mack for the entire backpay period is $362,213.58. In the underlying decision reported at 362 NLRB 1072 (2015), the Board ordered the Respondent to compensate Mack for the adverse tax consequences of receiving a lump sum backpay award and to file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating the backpay award to the appropriate calendar quarters. Id. at 1075. The United States Court Cecil Mack by paying him $362,213.58, plus interest ac- crued to the date of payment as prescribed in New Hori- zons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as pre- scribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010), minus tax withholdings required by Federal and State laws. Dated, Washington, D.C. June 5, 2019 ______________________________________ John F. Ring, Chairman ______________________________________ Marvin E. Kaplan, Member ________________________________________ William J. Emanuel Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD John King, Esq., for the General Counsel. Fred Seleman, Esq., for the Respondent. SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROBERT A. RINGLER, Administrative Law Judge. This supple- mental compliance proceeding was held in Miami, Florida, on May 23, 2018, pursuant to an amended compliance specification (the Specification). The Specification calculated backpay due under the National Labor Relations Board’s (the Board) Deci- sion and Order in G4S Regulated Security Solutions, 362 NLRB No. 134 (2015) (the Order).1 G4S objects, inter alia, to the Spec- ification’s treatment of Cecil Mack’s interim earnings and impo- sition of liability for his adverse tax consequences. of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit enforced the Board’s order in full. G4S Regulated Security Solutions v. NLRB, 670 Fed. Appx. 697 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). Accordingly, we note that the Respondent re- mains obligated to compensate Mack for the adverse tax consequences of receiving a lump sum payment in the amount ordered herein. As to the report-filing remedy, we recognize that we are powerless to modify a court-enforced order, see NLRB v. Gimrock Construction, Inc., 695 F.3d 1188, 1192−1194 (11th Cir. 2012); Scepter, Inc. v. NLRB, 448 F.3d 388, 391 (D.C. Cir. 2006), and we do not purport to do so here. We observe, however, that the Board has since revised this remedy to require employers to file a report with the Regional Director (rather than the So- cial Security Administration, which will not accept such a report before it receives the affected employee’s W-2 forms) allocating backpay to the appropriate calendar years (rather than quarters). See AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016). 1 On November 21, 2016, the Order was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in an unpublished opinion, and judg- ment was entered. (GC Exh. 1(o-p)). 2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DISCUSSION I. ORDER The Order found that G4S Regulated Solutions, a Division of G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. (G4S) violated the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by firing Thomas Frazier and Cecil Mack. It ordered a make-whole remedy for their lost wages and reimbursement for any adverse tax consequences as- sociated with receiving such backpay in a lump-sum payment. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Litigation of Substantive Liability On June 27, 2011, an Administrative Law Judge (the ALJ) is- sued an Initial Decision in this case, which found that Mack and Frazier were supervisors and dismissed unfair labor practice charges related to their firings. On September 28, 2012, the Board reversed the Initial Decision, found that they were not su- pervisors and remanded the case to the ALJ. 358 NLRB 1701 (2012). On November 16, 2012, the ALJ issued a Supplemental Decision, which held that G4S unlawfully fired them and or- dered a make-whole remedy (the Supp. ALJD). On December 21, 2012, G4S filed exceptions.2 On January 11, 2013, the General Counsel (the GC) filed cross-exceptions, which challenged the Supp. ALJD’s failure to require reimbursement for excess federal tax liability under La- tino Express, Inc., 359 NLRB 518 (2012). On April 30, 2013, the Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Order, which af- firmed the Supp. ALJD, but, modified the order to include tax reimbursement under Latino Express. See 359 NLRB 947, 947 fn. 1 (2013). On May 13, 2013, G4S filed a petition for review of the Board’s Supplemental Decision and Order in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (the D.C. Circuit). On June 27, 2014, the Board issued an Order holding this case in abeyance, and setting aside its Supplemental Decision and Order.3 On July 25, 2015, the Board issued a revised Decision and Order, which reviewed the record de novo, reaffirmed the unlawful firings, and ordered a remedy that calculated damages and interest under F. W. Wool- worth and included excess federal tax reimbursement under Don Chavas LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB 101 (2014).4 On July 23, 2015, G4S filed a petition for review in the Elev- enth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 26, 2015, the Board filed a cross-petition for enforcement. Although G4S appealed the supervisory and termination issues, it did not appeal the rem- edy itself (i.e., the application of F.W. Woolworth and Don Cha- vas LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas). On November 21, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit issued an unpublished decision, which de- nied G4S’ appeal and affirmed the Board.5 2 The exceptions did not challenge the remedy, including the calculus of damages under F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950). 3 The Board took this action under NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014). It later requested dismissal of the petition for review in the D.C. Circuit, which was granted. 4 Don Chavas LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas essentially reaf- firmed Latino Express. B. G4S’ Partial Compliance G4S, thereafter, partially complied with the Board’s Order. It offered reinstatement to Mack and Frazier, posted a Notice citing its violations, and made a lump-sum payment of back wages to Frazier.6 Regarding Mack, it refused, however, to tender a lump- sum payment and raised objections to his interim earnings de- ductions and the remedial application of F.W. Woolworth and Don Chavas LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, which led to this compliance hearing. C. Specification On April 17, 2018, Region 12 of the Board issued the Speci- fication. On April 24, 2018, G4S filed its Amended Answer. D. Motion to Strike Parts of G4S’ Amended Answer On May 11, 2018, the GC moved to strike parts of the Amended Answer (the Motion).7 The GC asserted that: the Amended Answer improperly denied matters that were litigated before the Board and Eleventh Circuit (e.g., supervisory status and the validity of firings); and G4S is barred from objecting to backpay calculations under F.W. Woolworth and Don Chavas LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas because it failed to previously raise such objections before the Board and Eleventh Circuit. III. RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE The Motion is granted. In American Eagle Protective Services Corp., the Board held: “Issues litigated and decided in an unfair labor practice pro- ceeding may not be relitigated in the ensuing backpay proceed- ing.” . . . . By choosing not to file exceptions . . . Respondents chose not to question whether . . . a different make-whole rem- edy [is warranted]. . . . Accordingly. . . . [they are] barred from raising these affirmative defenses at the compliance stage of this proceeding. 366 NLRB No. 144, slip op. at 2 (2018) (citations and footnotes omitted). Paragraphs 1, 2, and 6(a), (d), (e), (f), and (h) of the Amended Answer are, accordingly, stricken to the extent that they deny supervisory status and the invalidity of the firings. The Motion is also sustained to the extent that it challenges back- pay calculations under F.W. Woolworth and compensation for tax consequences under Don Chavas LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, inasmuch as G4S failed to previously object to these remedies. Aroostook County Regional Ophthalmology Center, 332 NLRB 1616 (2001). IV. REMAINING ISSUES Although the Motion resolved several issues, other matters re- main open. These open issues involve, inter alia: Mack’s interim earnings calculations for various quarters; his search-for-work efforts; and whether he engaged in gross misconduct in losing an 5 On January 24, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit denied G4S’ request for a panel rehearing. 6 Frazier has been made whole, and is not at issue in this litigation. 7 Although the Motion was filed before the May 23, 2018 compliance hearing, the parties were advised at a prehearing conference that my rul- ing would be incorporated in this Supplemental Decision. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC. 3 interim job. V. COMPLIANCE PROCEEDING RECORD8 A. Introduction On February 2, 2010, G4S unlawfully terminated Mack. In August 2017, he was reinstated to his lieutenant position, in ac- cordance with the Board’s Order. B. Work History and Interim Employment 1. Unemployment Benefits: February 2010 to August 2010 Mack initially received state unemployment benefits (UI). He received such benefits until August 2010, when he was hired by Rent-A-Wheel, his first interim employer. 2. Rent-A-Wheel Employment: August 2010 to June 2011 In August 2010, Mack started working for Rent-A-Wheel. He began in a full-time collections specialist job, which he held for about 2 weeks. He was then promoted to an assistant store man- ager slot, which he held for another 2 weeks. Around mid-Sep- tember 2010, he was promoted to a full-time store manager po- sition at a $44,000 annual salary. In June 2011, he was fired for allegedly taking an improper payment, i.e., depositing an early payment into the wrong customer account. He said that he thought that his actions were valid and was trained to handle transactions this way by a former manager. He stated that the payment at issue always remained in the customer’s name (i.e., was never deposited under his name). 3. UI Benefits Rejection Following this separation, he applied for UI benefits, which Rent-A-Wheel challenged. He averred that he did not receive his hearing notice, and that his UI claim was consequently re- jected. 4. Rent-A-Center Acceptance (RAC) Employment: February 2012 to March 2013 In February 2012, Mack began at RAC as a collection special- ist. He worked 40 hours per week for $13 per hour. He contin- ued to search for a better job during this period and eventually accepted a slot with the United States Postal Service (USPS). 5. USPS Employment: March 2013 to July 2017 In March 2013, Mack began as a USPS city carrier; he worked about 60 hours per week at $14.10 per hour. In mid-2015, he became a full-time city carrier earning $17.25 per hour. He also received improved health coverage and a thrift savings retire- ment plan (TSP) (i.e., a 401K plan benefit). He continued to work for the USPS until his July 31, 2017 reinstatement to G4S. 6. Search-For-Work Efforts a. General Counsel’s Position Mack applied for dozens of law enforcement, civil service, se- curity, retail and other jobs, while he was unemployed. (Tr. 24– 57; GC Exhs. 4–5.) He filed job applications in person, via email and on company websites. He made multiple phone calls in 8 Unless otherwise stated, factual findings arise from joint exhibits, stipulations, and undisputed evidence. furtherance of his job search. He attempted to maximize his in- terim earnings by seeking out higher-paying jobs even when he was already employed, as exemplified by his pursuit of the USPS job. He also attempted to increase his marketability by receiving state training in cable technician and splicer work. As a result of such efforts, he remained gainfully employed during the major- ity of his backpay period. b. G4S’ Stance Claude Seltzer, a certified vocational rehabilitation counselor, testified that he has expertise regarding the southern Florida job market.9 He prepared for his testimony by reviewing Mack’s background (i.e., his employment application and training certif- icates) and help wanted ads for security guards listed in the Mi- ami Herald. (R. Exh. 4.) He opined that, from 2010 to 2013, there were several open security officer and supervisory jobs that Mack could perform. (Tr. 107.) He added that, in May 2014, the Miami area had 19,420 security guard positions averaging $11 per hour. (R. Exh. 3.) He claimed that Mack’s job search was deficient because he should have filed more applications in person, with the goal of obtaining impromptu interviews. How- ever, he conceded, on cross-examination, that the newspaper ads relied upon in forming his opinion did not describe how many available jobs, if any, existed, and agreed that he did not know many other unemployed licensed security guards were compet- ing against Mack during the relevant period. (Tr. 120–23.) He also denied knowing how many nuclear security officer jobs ex- isted in southern Florida during the relevant period (i.e., Mack’s G4S job), and agreed that G4S’ Turkey Point facility is the only nuclear plant in the area that he was aware of. VI. ANALYSIS A. Compliance Proceeding Standards Compliance proceedings restore the status quo ante existing before the unfair labor practice. Hubert Distributors, Inc., 344 NLRB 339, 341 (2005). An unfair labor practice finding is pre- sumptive proof of backpay liability. Beverly California Corp., 329 NLRB 977, 978 (1999). The GC must first adduce the gross backpay amount due. Hansen Bros. Enterprises, 313 NLRB 599, 600 (1993). Thereafter, the burden shifts to the respondent to reduce its liability. Church Homes, Inc., 349 NLRB 829, 838 (2007). The GC need only show that his gross backpay amounts are reasonable and non-arbitrary. Performance Friction Corp., 335 NLRB 1117 (2001). B. Specification and Contentions 1. Rent-A-Wheel a. Interim Earnings: Third Quarter of 2010 The Specification reasonably calculated third quarter 2010 in- terim earnings. G4S made this argument concerning this quarter: Mack was credited with only $901.94 of interim earnings for the third quarter of 2010, which resulted in net backpay of $18,941.28 for that quarter. . .. [H]e started with Rent A Wheel 9 He has testified as an expert in cases involving lost earnings, labor markets and transferable skills. 4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD “right in the middle” of August 2010, . . . [i.e.] on or about Au- gust 16, 2010. Based on annual compensation of approxi- mately $44,000 per year, he had interim earnings . . . [of] $846.15 per week from August 16, 2010 through September 30, 2010, for total interim earnings in that quarter of $5,923.08 (rather than the $901.94 of interim earnings shown in the Com- pliance Specification). That means the net back pay for the third quarter of 2010 should be $13,920.14 (rather than $18,941.28). (Br. at 2.)10 G4S mischaracterizes the record. It avers that the Specifica- tion’s accounting of third quarter earnings are invalid because Mack started a $44,000 per year job in mid-August 2010, which is incorrect. In fact, Mack did not start the $44,000 per year manager job until mid- to late-September 2010, after first work- ing as a collections specialist and assistant store manager at lower wages. G4S, thus, failed to show that this calculation was unreasonable. b. Interim Earnings: First Quarter of 2011 G4S demonstrated that the Specification’s first quarter interim earnings for 2011 are unreasonable. It asserted that: Mack . . . ma[de] . . . $44,000 per year [at] . . . Rent A Wheel (Tr. at 34), . . . [i.e.,] approximately $846.15 per week. Alt- hough the first quarter of 2011 consisted of thirteen weeks, the Compliance Specification, Appendix H, only lists interim earn- ings of $9,230.75 for that quarter, rather than $10,999.95 (13 weeks x $846.15 per week). As such, the net backpay for the first quarter of 2011 should be $9,011.21 (rather than $10,780.40). (Br. at 2.) This argument is persuasive; the Specification failed to ac- count for Mack earning $44,000 per year in salary during this quarter. This matter was not addressed by the GC’s brief. Mack’s interim earnings for the first quarter of 2011 should, thus, be elevated from $9230.75 to $10,999.95, and his net back- pay for this quarter should be reduced accordingly. c. Interim Earnings: Second Quarter of 2011 G4S failed to show that the Specification’s second quarter in- terim earnings for 2011 are unreasonable. It G4S asserted that: Mack was terminated from Rent A Wheel in “about the mid- dle” of June 2011. (Tr. at 35.) Assuming that … [he] was ter- minated no earlier than June 17, then he was making … $846.15 per week from the start of the third quarter of 2011 until June 17, which is … eleven weeks. That results in total interim earnings for that quarter of $9,307.65 (rather than $8,557.60). As such, the net backpay for the second quarter of 2011 should be $10,703.51 (rather than $11,453.56). (Br at 2–3.) 10 “Brief” refers to G4S’ postcompliance hearing brief dated July 9, 2018. Given that the record is unclear on the exact firing date, and Mack vaguely set it as, “probably about the middle” of June, G4S failed to show that the GC setting this date as occurring earlier in June was unreasonable. (Tr. 35.) G4S was consistently able to address this ambiguity by subpoenaing Mack’s records from Rent-A-Wheel, which was never done. This omission estopped it from challenging the Specification’s reasonableness for this quarter. d. Effect of the Rent-A-Wheel Firing on Interim Earnings G4S failed to show that Mack’s Rent-A-Wheel firing should toll backpay. The Board has held that a discharge, in isolation, is insufficient to establish a willful loss of employment that tolls backpay. The employer has the burden of showing that a discrim- inatee “engaged in deliberate or gross misconduct” that warrants the tolling of backpay. See, e.g., P*I*E. Nationwide, 297 NLRB 454, 454–455 (1989); Cassis Management Corp., 336 NLRB 961, 966–967 (2001) (“deliberate courting of discharge”). The Board has, consequently, found that a firing based upon poor performance is not a willful job loss. Barberton Plastics Prod- ucts, Inc., 146 NLRB 393, 396 (1964), enf. denied on other grounds 354 F.2d 66 (6th Cir. 1965). G4S failed to meet its burden of showing that Mack “deliber- ately courted” his firing. He was fired for placing funds in an incorrect account. He did not attempt to steal, was never charged with theft by a local law enforcement agency, and never placed the funds in his name. He provided unrebutted testimony that a former supervisor told him to handle transactions in the manner that got him fired. In sum, G4S failed to show a deliberate loss of employment.11 2. Search-for-Work Efforts: December 2011 G4S failed to show that Mack was unavailable for employ- ment in December 2011 and that his backpay should be tolled for this period. The Board has held that short delays in beginning a job search should not to be held against an employee, and that one’s efforts during the entire backpay period are relevant. Col- orado Forge Corp., 285 NLRB 530, 538 (1987). Moreover, backpay is not precluded solely because a discriminatee stopped filing applications for a quarter. Cornwell Co., 171 NLRB 342, 343 (1968). The Board, instead, reviews “the entire backpay pe- riod . . . to determine whether . . . in light of all circumstances, a reasonable continuing search” occurred. Id. G4S failed to show that Mack was unavailable for employ- ment in December 2011. First, when Mack was asked at the hearing whether he searched for work in December 2011, he re- plied, “it was the holidays, so I can’t recall to the best of my knowledge.” (Tr. 50–51.) This lack of recall from 7 years ago is not an expression of an unwillingness to work. Second, the record contrarily shows that Mack was willing to work during this period, as demonstrated by the quantity of job applications he filed shortly before December 2011. (Tr. 42–50.) Third, even assuming arguendo that he temporarily stopped applying for work during the holiday season, this temporary cessation of 11 Mack, at worst, lost his job through negligence, and, at best, was unjustly fired for doing what he had been told. Neither option is a willful employment loss. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC. 5 application filing is insufficient to toll backpay. Cornwell, supra. Finally, a review of Mack’s entire backpay period demonstrates an individual, who consistently sought work and remained em- ployed to the best of his ability. 3. Interim Earnings: USPS Retirement Benefits G4S failed to show that Mack’s vested TSP retirement benefit from the USPS should be deducted from interim earnings. G4S contended that: [T]he USPS made contributions to a retirement plan . . . [of] $5,000.00, . . . which he was 100% vested at the time of his separation. . . . Since this was a substantial benefit . . .he would not have been entitled had he been employed by Respondent . . . , total net backpay calculation should be reduced by $5,000. (Br. at 10.) G4S’ contention is invalid. First, fringe benefit contributions paid by an interim employer generally do not offset gross wages. Tualatin Electric, Inc., 331 NLRB 36, 42–43 (2000), enfd. 253 F.3d 714 (D.C. Cir. 2001); NLRB Casehandling Manual, Part 3, Compliance Proceedings, §10552.4 (“contributions to a retire- ment fund are not normally treated as interim earnings and offset against gross backpay.”). Second, even assuming arguendo that the TSP is an offset, G4S failed to meet its burden of proof on this issue. Specifically, although the record reveals that Mack was vested in a TSP account valued at around $5000, the record does not indicate what percentage of this vested TSP benefit was paid by him directly and deducted from his wages, or whether he might also be subject to extensive early withdrawal penalties, if the vested TSP balance were withdrawn and treated as interim earnings. Given these evidentiary lapses on a subject where G4S held the burden of proof, it would be unreasonable to treat the TSP as interim earnings.12 United Enviro Systems, 323 NLRB 83 (1997). 4. Working Less than 50 Hours Per Week for Interim Employers G4S failed to show that Mack working for interim employers for less than the 50 hours per week he worked for G4S should result in a deduction from his backpay. The Board has specifi- cally rejected this contention. See, e.g., United Supermarkets, Inc., 287 NLRB 394, 398 (1987) (discriminatee should not be penalized for accepting part-time employment rather than wait- ing for a full-time offer); Lundy Packing Co., 286 NLRB 141, 144 (1987) (same); Be-Lo Stores, 336 NLRB 950, 955 (2001) (no off-set where record failed to show that discriminatee was offered or refused to accept additional employment to make up for lost hours); F. E. Hazard, Ltd., 303 NLRB 839 (1991) (no duty to continue to search for a more lucrative job or search for the most lucrative interim employment); Fugazy Continental Corp., 276 NLRB 1334, 1338 (1985), enfd. 817 F.2d 979 (2d Cir. 1987) (same). 5. Search-for-Work: February 2010 to August 2010, and June 12 For example, treating monies that Mack deducted from his wages and deposited into his TSP as interim earnings would be double-counting interim earnings (i.e., counting wages once, and TSP deductions twice). 2011 to February 2012 G4S failed to show that Mack’s efforts to find interim employ- ment from February 2010 to August 2010, and from June 2011 to February 2012 were insufficient, and warrant reducing his net backpay. It avers that security jobs were plentiful during these periods and that his efforts to secure employment were deficient because he applied to several jobs electronically and did not ap- ply in-person unless invited to interview. See (Tr. at 107–111) (Seltzer testimony). The Board has held that a discriminatee is entitled to backpay, as long as they make a “reasonably diligent effort to obtain sub- stantially equivalent employment.” Moran Printing, 330 NLRB 376 (1999). A “good faith” job search effort is: [C]onduct consistent with an inclination to work and to be self- supporting and that such inclination is best evidenced not by a purely mechanical examination of the number or kind of appli- cations for work which have been made, but rather by the sin- cerity and reasonableness of the efforts made by an individual in his circumstances to relieve his unemployment. Flannery Motors, Inc., 330 NLRB 994, 996 (2000). Valid miti- gation does not require success; it only requires an honest, good faith effort. Fabi Fashions, 291 NLRB 586, 587 (1988). Job search efforts are evaluated in light of all of the circumstances, and are measured over the complete backpay period, as opposed to isolated portions. First Transit Inc., 350 NLRB 825 fn. 8 (2007). Any doubt or uncertainty is resolved in favor of the in- nocent employee claimant, and not the respondent wrong- doer. NLRB v. NHE/Freeway, Inc., 545 F.2d 592, 594 (7th Cir. 1976); NLRB v. Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 360 F.2d 569, 572–573 (5th Cir. 1966). In sum, an employer does not meet its burden of showing an inadequate job search by showing lack of employee success in obtaining interim employment or low in- terim earnings. United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1357, 301 NLRB 617 (1991). Mack’s made a “reasonably diligent effort to obtain substan- tially equivalent employment.” He submitted volumes of appli- cations, worked for three different employers outside his area of expertise, worked during the vast majority of his backpay period, received promotions from two of his three employers, and even continued to search for higher-paying work at the USPS while employed at RAC. In reviewing his backpay period as a whole, it becomes readily apparent that he made an honest effort to find work and remain employed. Although G4S’ expert witness Selt- zer opined that he could have been even more successful in his pursuit of interim employment, this contention does not undercut his strong overall commitment to remaining employed during his backpay period. Thus, I find that his limited inability to procure interim employment between 2010 and 2012 does not warrant a backpay reduction. 6. Summary Mack shall receive backpay in accordance with the following table, which incorporates corrected interim earnings for the first 6 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD quarter of 2011 and a ministerial correction:13 Quarter Gross Backpay Interim Earnings Net Backpay 1 $12,211.21 $0.00 $12,211.21 2 $19,843.22 $0.00 $19,843.22 3 $19,843.22 $901.94 $18,941.28 4 $19,843.22 $11,157.58 $8,685.64 1 $20,011.16 $10,999.95 $9,011.21 2 $20,011.16 $8,557.60 $11,453.56 3 $20,011.16 $0.00 $20,011.16 4 $21,550.48 $0.00 $21,550.48 1 $20,214.97 $4,178.58 $16,036.39 2 $20,214.97 $8,174.52 $12,040.45 3 $20,214.97 $8,623.02 $11,591.95 4 $20,214.97 $8,958.13 $11,256.84 1 $22,303.37 $11,609.59 $10,693.78 2 $22,303.37 $10,367.15 $11,936.22 3 $22,303.37 $7,993.18 $14,310.19 4 $22,303.37 $7,993.18 $14,310.19 1 $22,159.28 $10,879.96 $11,279.32 2 $22,159.28 $10,879.96 $11,279.32 3 $22,159.28 $10,879.96 $11,279.32 4 $22,159.28 $10,879.96 $11,279.32 1 $20,679.81 $12,074.66 $8,605.15 2 $20,679.81 $12,074.66 $8,605.15 3 $20,679.81 $12,550.54 $8,129.27 4 $20,679.81 $13,574.06 $7,105.75 1 $22,698.13 $13,400.18 $9,297.95 2 $22,698.13 $13,684.80 $9,013.33 3 $22,698.13 $11,847.16 $10,850.97 4 $24,444.14 $13,068.57 $11,375.57 1 $21,247.31 $12,972.05 $8,275.26 2 $21,247.31 $12,972.05 $8,275.26 3 $4,903.23 $2,993.55 $1,909.68 $360,434.39 13 Gross backpay for the first quarter of 2016 has been corrected from $22,688.13 to $22,698.13. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC. 7 CONCLUSION Based upon the findings and analysis set forth above, and on the record as a whole, I issue the following recommended sup- plemental.14 ORDER The Respondent, G4S Regulated Solutions, a Division of G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., West Palm Beach, Florida, its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall consistent with the Specification as modified by the foregoing findings, satisfy its obligation to make whole Cecil Mack by paying him backpay in the amount of $360,434.39 in accordance with F.W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), that is compounded daily as set forth in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010), plus compensation for the adverse tax consequences of receiving a lump-sum backpay award in accordance with Don Chavas LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB 101 (2014), minus tax withholdings required by Federal and State laws. It shall also file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay to the appropriate calendar quarters. Dated, Washington, D.C. December 20, 2018 14 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes,