Upholding the Board's application of a back pay remedy different from that previously imposed in similar cases, despite no announcement of new remedial rule in rulemaking proceeding
In N.L.R.B. v. Brown Root, Inc., 311 F.2d 447, 454 (C.A. 8), it is said that "in a back pay proceeding the burden is upon the General Counsel to show the gross amounts of back pay due.
Holding that NLRB acts in public capacity and “[t]he fact that these proceedings operate to confer an incidental benefit on private persons does not detract from this public purpose”
Permitting "non-deduction of supplemental earnings . . . where an employee who had spare-time earnings prior to discharge from his regular job continued in the same spare-time job during his period of discharge," and further holding that as long as employee was "moonlighting before his unlawful discharge," amounts earned in any "spare time employment" should not be used to reduce back-pay award