IUE, Local Union 12

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 9, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 956 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
Union No. 12 (Ledford Bros. ) and Thomas Connol-
ly. Case 21-CB-2671
October 9, 1970
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
On June 14, 1967, the National Labor Relations
Board issued its Decision and Order in this case,'
finding that the Respondent had discriminated against
employee Thomas Connolly in violation of Section
8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended. The Board found that the Respond-
ent had caused Ledford Bros. to discharge Connolly
on January 5, 1966, because of his lack of membership
in the Respondent. Additionally, the Board found
that the Respondent had previously refused Connolly
union membership and that the Respondent's asserted
ground that it was enforcing a lawful hiring hall
provision of its contract with Ledford Bros. was
a pretext. Accordingly, the Board ordered, inter alia,
that the Respondent make Connolly whole for any
loss of pay suffered because of the discrimination
practiced against him, and that the Respondent's
backpay liability shall terminate 5 days after it notifies
Ledford Bros. and Connolly, in writing, that it has
no objection to the employment of Connolly "without
regard to his membership or nonmembership" in the
Union.
On July 7, 1969, following a petition by the Board
for enforcement of its Order, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down its
opinion herein in which it granted enforcement of
the Board's Order.2
On January 15, 1970, the Board's Regional Director
for Region 21 issued and served upon the parties
a backpay specification and notice of hearing, and
on January 22, 1970, the Respondent filed an answer
thereto in which it denied the allegations of the
specification. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held
before Trial Examiner Benjamin B. Lipton on March
17, 1970, for the purpose of determining the amounts
of backpay due. On May 14, 1970, the Trial
Examiner issued his attached Supplemental Decision
finding inter alia, that (1) the Respondent did not,
until September 25, 1968, reasonably conform with
the terms of the enforced order of the Board so as to
curtail further backpay liability, (2) the hourly rate
for Connolly at the time of discharge of $4.31 is
applicable for the entire backpay period, and (3) the
165 NLRB 358
413F2d705(CA 9)
number of hours worked each week by Connolly's
replacement is the proper measure of the number of
hours each week Connolly would have worked,
absent the discrimination, together with the contract
bids for overtime pay. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Supplemental Decision and a brief in support thereof.
The General Counsel filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection
with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the
Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. They are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the entire record
in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Supple-
mental Decision, and the exceptions and briefs, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing Supplemental Decision
and the entire record in this case, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local
Union No. 12, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall pay to the employee involved in this proceeding,
as net backpay herein determined to be due, the
amount set forth in the Conclusions and Recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner, with interest at the
rate of 6 percent per annum computed on the basis
of quarterly amounts of net backpay due, less any
tax withholding required by law.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
BENJAMIN B. LIPTON, Trial Examiner. This supplemental
proceeding was instituted for the sole purpose of determining
the amount of backpay due Thomas Connolly under the
terms of the Board's Order, as enforced by the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.' On March 17, 1970, a hearing
was held before me in Los Angeles, California. All parties
participated and were afforded a full opportunity to present
relevant evidence. Upon consideration of the entire record,
including briefs filed by General Counsel and Respondent,
I make the following findings and conclusions
A. The Remedial Order Relating to Backpay
Respondent Union was found to have violated Section
8(b)(2) and (1)(A) by causing Ledford Bros. to discharge
Connolly on January 5, 1966. Respondent's asserted ground
that it was enforcing a lawful hiring hall provision of
its contract with Ledford Bros. was held as merely a
pretext. Rather, it was decided that the true motive for
' 165 NLRB 358, enfd . 413 F 2d 705 (C A 9)
185 NLRB No. 131
IUE, LOCAL UNION 12
Respondent's conduct was Connolly's lack of membership
in the Union, particularly as Connolly had repeatedly been
denied such membership for invalid reasons under the
Act. It was ordered, inter alia, that Respondent make
Connolly whole for any loss of pay suffered because of
the discrimination practiced against him, and that Respond-
ent's backpay liability shall terminate 5 days after it notifies
Ledford Bros. and Connolly, in writing, that it has no
objection to the employment of Connolly "without regard
to his membership or nonmembership" in the Union
B. Backpay Period; Questions of Compliance
General Counsel's Specification alleges a backpay period
from January 6, 1966, through October 1, 1968,-i.e., 5
days after Respondent had "validly" sent the nonobjection
notices required by the Board's Order. Respondent argues
that the backpay period was effectively terminated on various
alternate dates prior to October 1, 1968.
The contention is rejected that backpay liability ended
on May 7, 1966, when Ledford Bros hired Melvin R.
Soiset as a replacement for Connolly in the single available
job of heavy-duty repairman. Respondent's reasoning is
based entirely upon conjecture that Ledford Bros. would
not have considered discharging Soiset in order to rehire
Connolly It is clear that Respondent at such time made
no effort to withdraw its objection to Connolly's employ-
ment.
The Trial Examiner's Decision in the complaint case
issued on November 3, 1966; the Board's decision was
rendered on June 14, 1967, and the court's opinion was
handed down July 7, 1969. On November 14, 1966, Respond-
ent's attorney wrote to Ledford Bros. and Connolly, as
follows-
Gentlemen:
As you are no doubt aware, the Trial Examiner's
Decision of November 3, 1966, in the above matter
finds that Mr. Connolly's discharge by Ledford Bros.
was requested by Local 12 because Mr. Connolly was
not a member of Local 12 in good standing We
intend filing exceptions to that finding, inter alia, by
the Trial Examiner.
However, without prejudice to our position that
Mr Connolly's discharge on January 5, 1966 was
required because of his and Ledford Bros undisputed
failure to comply with the lawful, nondiscriminatory
hiring regulations of the Master Labor Agreement,
this is to advise you that Local 12 has no objection-
as, indeed, it never has-to the employment of Thomas
Connolly "without regard to his membership or non-
membership" in Local 12. That is, whether or not
Mr Connolly reinstates his membership in Local 12,
there is no objection by Local 12 to his employment,
providing that such employment-if on work covered
by the Master Labor Agreement-is in accordance
with the hiring regulations and all other provisions
of the collective bargaining agreeement
In that connection, you will recall that at the hearing
in this matter on May 31, 1966, I stated Local 12's
readiness to register Mr. Connolly on its out-of-work
list in the same manner in which all other registrants
957
are registered (Transcript, P 110). Once registered,
his eligibility for dispatch to Ledford Bros., or to
any other employer will, similarly, be determined exclu-
sively by reference to the hiring regulations.
After the Board's decision, Respondent's attorney engaged
in a series of correspondence in 1967 with the Regional
Office and the General Counsel's office in Washington,
D.C 2 Respondent explained that, because of statements
made in its November 14 letter, it was "not clear" whether
this letter would be construed as constituting compliance
with the Board's Order. It persisted in the position that
the employment of Connolly was still subject to the hiring
regulations of the contract, and that since his originally
obtained employment with Ledford Bros in 1962 was in
violation of the contract, such employment may not be
used to qualify him for the "A" priority status under
the hiring hall provisions. In addition, Respondent now
argued that the Board's finding-that Respondent's past
refusal to reinstate Connolly prevented him from qualifying
for the "A" priority list and thus for continued employment
with Ledford Bros.-was "contrary to fact " In substance,
Respondent was advised, in response to its informal inquir-
ies, that the November 14 letter did not satisfy the nonobjec-
tion notice requirement of the Board's Order.
On October 4, 1967, Respondent's attorney again wrote
jointly to Ledford Bros and Connolly a lengthy letter,
with a copy to the Regional Director. It now contends
that this letter operated to toll backpay liability. In pertinent
part, the letter quotes the nonobjection language of the
Board's Order, and then continues-
. . as of this communication you are hereby advised
that so far as Local 12 is concerned, the following
is the case:
(2) If Ledford Bros. has, or should, offer reinstatement
to Connolly, and Connolly should reject such offer,
then this is because-as Connolly hitherto indicat-
ed-Connolly would prefer not to be a member
of Local 12, or even to be a "free-rider," employed
contrary to and in violation of Local 12's collective
bargaining agreement with Ledford Bros.
*
. . what liabilities you (plural) may sustain if you
(plural) persist in violations of Local 12's agreement,
etc.-as to these matters, we offer no advice or predic-
tions, one way or the other
The Regional Director promptly advised Respondent that
the October 4 letter did not comply with the Board's
Order, and that enforcement proceedings would be institut-
i For example, in its letter of September 6, 1967, to the General
Counsel's office, with copies to Ledford Bros and Connolly, it is stated,
inter aka "In agreeing to comply with the Board's Order, Local 12
does not agree, should Ledford Bros reinstate Connolly to make
an exception in Connolly's case to the non-discriminatory hiring regula-
tions "
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ed. On September 25, 1968, the law firm representing
Respondent briefly notified Ledford Bros. and Connolly-
Local 12 unqualifiedly withdraws any objections to
the employment by Ledford Bros. of Thomas Connolly.
In the foregoing circumstances, I agree with the General
Counsel that Respondent did not, until September 25, 1968,
reasonably conform with the terms of the enforced order
of the Board so as to curtail further backpay liability
Aware that its earlier notices were equivocal and unclear,
Respondent sought the informal opinions of the Regional
Office in the form of argumentative and complex questions.
It was plainly advised that it had failed to comply with
the remedial order. Nevertheless, Respondent adhered to
its conditional and qualified position, as described in its
letters preceding that on September 25, 1968. Respondent's
complaint that the Board rested upon an erroneous finding
of fact should have been, and presumably was, addressed
to the Court of Appeals, which, however, affirmed the
Board. In its brief, Respondent explained that in its letters
of November 14, 1966 and October 4, 1967, it elaborated
beyond the language of the nonobjection notice provided
in the Board's Order because it believed such language
"could be confusing, and misleading to its recipients."
I find Respondent's purpose in these letters was not that
of clarification; and in any case, it already had its opportuni-
ty before the Board and the Court to question the terms
of the prescribed remedy In substantial effect, Respondent
was continuing by these letters to assert the same alleged
right to remove Connally from the job that was rejected
in the complaint litigation.' Ledford Bros. and Connolly
could reasonably construe these notices from Respondent
as an intention or threat promptly to cause Connolly's
discharge again , if he should be rehired. In consequence,
rehiring was frustrated and rendered futile Indeed, such
might well have been the result desired by Respondent-
i.e, to cut off backpay liability while maintaining Connolly's
ouster.' This could scarcely remedy the violation or consti-
tute compliance with the Board's Order.'
C. Gross Backpay Formula
It is long settled that the General Counsel bears the
burden of showing the gross amounts of backpay due
The formula selected by the General Counsel is subject
only to the broad test that it "cannot be declared to
be arbitrary or unreasonable in the circumstances involved."
After the gross backpay has been shown, it rests with
Respondent "to establish facts which would negative the
existence of liability to a given employee or which would
mitigate that liability."6
' Cf Portage Plastics Company, 163 NLRB 753
4 See, e g, Federal Dairy Company, Inc, 142 NLRB 133, 138 (Ralph
Regine)
' Westwood Plumbers, 131 NLRB 562, and M. Eskin & Son, 148
NLRB 1022, relied on by Respondent, are plainly distinguishable (1)
as to the nature of the violation to be remedied, (2) as to the form
and language used by the union in purporting to withdraw the objections
to the employment of the discnminatee , and (3) as to the timing of
the notice of nonobjection in relation to the Board's Order
' U.S. Air Conditioning Corporation, 141 NLRB 1278, 1280, and court
cases cited therein.
Connolly was employed by Ledford Bros. from January
1962 until his discharge on January 5, 1966 For about
4 months after the discharge, Ledford Bros. operated without
a heavy duty repairman, and contracted out the necessary
repair of its equipment. Since May 3, 1966, Soiset has
been employed in the position of heavy duty repairman
performing the same work as did Connolly.' It was stipulated
that at all material times under Respondent's contract
with Ledford Bros. the bargaining unit specifically included
heavy duty repairman, and that the rates of pay for this
classification were as follows:
As of Contract Date Hourly Wage Ratea Fringeb
June 1,1961 $4 31 None
June 15, 1962 4 435 .15
June 1, 1963 4 56 10
June 1, 1964 4.81 .15
July 1, 1965 5.16 30
July 1, 1967 5.31 .30
July 1, 1968 5.46 .30
Specific contract provisions set forth conditions for regular overtime,
double time, and premium triple time rates of pay
Employer contributions into various funds for health and welfare,
pension, and vacation-holiday From July 1, 1965, the amounts indicat-
ed reflect only contributions into the vacation-holiday fund
When Connolly was hired in January 1962 by Arthur
Ledford, partner, he was paid at the hourly rate of $4.31,
then consistent with the contract. Throughout the 4 subse-
quent years of employment with Ledford Bros., he received
this same rate of $4.31, despite substantial yearly increases
in the contract.' As stipulated, Connolly earned in 1965
average weekly wages of $231.55. Soiset, during his employ-
ment with Ledford Bros., received full payment of the
wages and fringe benefits provided in the contract.
General Counsel alleges in the Specification, and Respond-
ent does not dispute, that the appropriate measure of the
gross backpay Connolly would have earned from January
6 through May 2, 1966, by calendar quarters, is his average
weekly earnings during the year 1965. For the remainder
of the backpay period, ending October 1, 1968, General
Counsel alleges the earnings of Soiset, including fringe
payments made into the vacation-holiday fund.' Respondent
takes issue with the gross backpay formula covering the
period of Soiset's employment as unreasonable and arbitrary.
Connolly was initially hired at the equivalent of the
contract rate. His classification was specifically within the
unit and coverage of the contract. However, during the
entire time that he worked for Ledford Bros., he was
paid the same fixed hourly rate of $4.31. Unquestionably,
Connolly and Ledford Bros. were fully aware that for
a period of almost 4 years of such employment, Connolly
was being paid substantially below the applicable contract
rates. It is thus evident that, as to wages, Connolly and
Ledford Bros. had an understanding dehors the contract
In 1962, Ledford Bros had 35-40 pieces of equipment and about
40 employees , in 1969 , it had about 150 pieces and 150 employees,
including at this time 2 heavy duty repairmen
However, it does appear that Connolly was accorded the benefit
of the overtime provisions of the contract
General Counsel indicated that he waives any claim for any additional
contributions into the health and welfare and pension funds
IUE, LOCAL UNION 12
to which only they were privy. In no sense on this record,
can such departure from the contract wage rates be attribut-
ed to any conduct of Respondent.10
Connolly's testimony was unclear It was not his under-
standing that his employment with Ledford Bros. was to
be in accordance with the Union's contract. Asked under
what contract or what arrangement he was employed, Con-
nolly replied, "Under the Machinists' contract. I belonged
to the Machinists." He testified he was "working as a
machinist, not as an operator" (i.e., operating engineer);
that was what he was "hired at"; he was drawing "top
wages for machinist"-more than the Machinist Union
was paying." Later recalled to the stand by the Trial
Examiner to clarify his earlier testimony, Connolly indicated
that he had meant to say that the $4 31 hourly wage,
which Arthur Ledford had agreed to pay him, was higher
than the prevailing rate of pay under the Machinists' con-
tracts"
As of the hearing date, Arthur Ledford was deceased.
His brother, John Ledford, current president, stated, but
"could not swear," that Connolly was paid the contract
union scale "all the way through." The stipulated evidence
shows this was plainly in error "
In the backpay formula proposed by General Counsel,
he applies the contract rate of pay for Connolly starting
with the date Soiset was employed by Ledford Bros, on
May 3, 1966, but not for the preceding portion of the
backpay period, from January 6 to May 2, 1966 And
General Counsel contends that the uncertainty as to when
Connolly "would have, in fact, been raised to the then
existing contract rate" must be resolved against Respondent
as the wrongdoer. Such a formula is not supportable on
the present record. Thus, where, under a special arrangement
at variance with the contract, Connolly was paid a fixed
wage rate of $4 31 for all of the 4 years of his employment,
and indeed General Counsel accepts this rate for an addition-
al 4 months after Connolly's discharge, I find the strong
probability is that Connolly would have continued on the
same basis for the subsequent 2 1/2 years of the backpay
period General Counsel, while having the burden of showing
gross backpay, "may use as close an approximation as
possible."" But the formula selected in the Specification
must have a reasonable relation to the established facts.
"As a basis for a reasoned conclusion" for the purposes
of backpay, it cannot be said that Connolly would have
been given the same wage rate that Ledford Bros was
willing to compensate his replacement, Soiset. No other
10 On this issue, General Counsel states in his brief that it was Respond-
ent's refusal to allow Connolly to join the Union in 1962 which precluded
him from being covered under the contract originally This argument
is not based on established fact and appears , in any event, a non sequitur
" Connolly had continuous interim employment with two firms under
contract with the Machinists With Smith & Thorpe, in 1968, his hourly
wage rate was $3 30. Theretofore, with Chesley Transportation Co , his
rate was about $4 20
" This was obviously based on Connolly's own belief or information
Ledford Bros did not have any contract with the Machinists
" John Ledford was avowedly unaware of Arthur Ledford's arrangement
with Connolly
" NLR.B. v. Brown & Root, Inc, 311 F 2d 447, 452 (C.A 8),
Mastro Plastics Corporation, 136 NLRB 1342, 1346, enfd 354 F 2d
170 (C A 2), cert denied 384 U S 972.
959
formula having been submitted by General Counsel, I con-
clude on the present state of the evidence that the hourly
wage rate of $4.31 is directly applicable for the entire
backpay period. However, Soiset's employment provides
the proper measure of the number of hours each week
which Connolly would have worked, absent the discrimina-
tion, together with the contract basis for overtime pay."
D. Diminution of Gross Liability
In the specification, the interim earnings of Connolly
are deducted from the gross backpay Following his dis-
charge on January 5, 1966, Connolly obtained employment
about one month later with Chesley, where he worked
until he was laid off January 21, 1968; and from about
February 7, 1968, he worked for Smith & Thorpe until
October 1, 1968, the end of the backpay period. Respondent
contends that further deductions should be made as follows:
(a) The number of hours Connolly worked less than
40 hours in any week at both Chesley and Smith & Thorpe.16
(b) Vacation or time off without pay for I week in June
1966, and 2 weeks in June and July 1967, while Connolly
was employed with Chesley (c) The interval from Connolly's
termination at Ledford Bros until his employment at Ches-
ley
As earlier noted, it is the burden of Respondent to
show facts which would appropriately operate to reduce
its gross backpay liability. In addition to interim earnings,
it is proper to deduct all time during which the claimant
voluntarily or constructively removed himself from the
labor market, including illnesses and absences during interim
employment." The social security records and all other
data gathered by General Counsel in his investigation were
made available to Respondent
In support of the computations in the Specification, Gen-
eral Counsel relies on the analysis that Soiset had substantial
amounts of time off without pay which fully offset such
amounts as were taken by Connolly. This theory is main-
tained even though General Counsel, in one instance,
includes in the gross backpay the projected average earnings
of Soiset for a period of about 4 weeks in December
1966 during which he was absent from work because of
illness. General Counsel's position appears substantially
borne out in the evidence. If, as contended, deductions
were made for such short workweeks by Connolly in
Respondent's favor, then the same considerations would
properly apply to Soiset in Connolly's favor 18 Indeed, if
General Counsel had proceeded in the Specification on
the basis of precise calculations as to such absences on
the part of both Connolly and Soiset, Respondent would
clearly have been at a comparative disadvantage in the
" The appropriate computations are attached as Appendix A
16 Connolly testified that he was always offered at least 40 hours
of work per week at Chesley Substantial amounts of overtime hours
are reflected throughout Connolly's interim employment and as well
as in the measure of backpay hours of Soiset's employment
" See, e g, American Manufacturing Company of Texas, 167 NLRB
No. 71; MooneyAircraft, Inc, 164 NLRB 1102
" I would find the element of work availability as essentially equatable
for both Connolly and Soiset
960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
resulting amount of net backpay " Accordingly, I find
General Counsel's treatment of the absence factor is reason-
able and equitable under all the circumstances 20
While on the stand as Respondent's witness, Connolly
provided records of certain absences from work for the
purpose of medical appointments. Respondent did not offer
these documents in evidence. Arguing that Connolly's mem-
ory and records were incomplete, it claims deductions "for
at least the fourteen weeks" in which Connolly worked
less than 40 hours for Smith & Thorpe This contention
is rejected 21
Respondent also seeks a deduction for 4 weeks, or $842.22,
comprising the interval between Connolly's discharge from
Ledford Bros. and his start of interim employment with
Chesley. This claim is based on Respondent' s examination
of Connolly, viz:
Q. Did you seek employment elsewhere?
A. I went right to work for Chesley.
Q. You mean the day after your termination?
A. Oh, no. A couple of days later, a week or so
in my opinion establish that he failed to make a timely
and diligent search therefor.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire
record, it is concluded that Thomas Connolly is entitled
to backpay in the amount of $4,964 82, with interest at
6 percent per annum on each of the quarterly sums found
due herein '21 less the tax withholding required by Federal
and State laws
It is recommended that the Board adopt these findings
and conclusions and order the Respondent, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, to pay the sum indicated
" Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716, Local 138, International
Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, 151 NLRB 972
APPENDIX A
GROSS BACKPAY
later It wasn't long after.
our dischar or beforeQ Well immediatel after e
From January 6, 1966 through May 2, 1966
g, y ,y
you went to work for Chesley, did you seek employment 1966-1 At hourly rate of $4 31, or
elsewhere?
A. No
$231.55 per average week -- $2,568.71
we have to define ourTRIAL EXAMINER: Now 1966-2 At hourly rate of $4 31, or,
terms. Does the witness know what you mean by
$231 55 per average week - - 926 42
"immediately"? Why don't you state just when you
if you know specifically?did seek work From May 3, 1966 through October 1, 1968,
THE WITNESS- Well, I can't remember the exact (Soiset's Employment)
date when I went to work for them, but it was only
about a month or so when I went to work for Chesley
TRIAL EXAMINER ' When did you start looking for
work?
THE WITNESS' Don't remember.
Q. (By Mr. Mathews) You don't recall looking for
work prior to going to work for Chesley?
A I don't think I was off long enough to think
about it I took a little time off
Respondent relies on the last assertion of Connolly, that
he "took a little time off." The questioning was pursued
no further Considering the full context of his testimony
in this instance , and generally in the record, I find that
Connolly, after the passage of 4 years, did not recall his
timing or his efforts to find employment. It is a reasonable
assumption that he needed some time to seek new employ-
ment, and he did succeed within a relatively short period,
about 1 month. His testimony, quoted above, does not
" Covering the entire backpay period, the total of all the hours
under 40 hours per week, including vacation without pay,-for Soiset
is 352, and for Connolly 262 5 The figure for Connolly includes 75 1
hours while employed at Smith & Thorpe where he was offered work
only as available , with no guaranteed workweek
'o E g , Barberton Plastics Products, Inc, 146 NLRB 393
" About 75 1 hours are involved, as already shown These hours
are included in the comparative figures, above , indicating offsetting time
off taken by Soiset Furthermore, Connolly was Respondent 's witness,
though adverse, and he testified at one point that he did not think
he lost any time because he was visiting a doctor. I would find, in
any event, that the large bulk of the 75 1 hours is attributable to shorter
workweeks assigned by Smith & Thorpe and that any such uncertainty
as to the amount of hours must be resolved against Respondent
Hours Rate Totals
1966-2
RT 341 x 4.31 $1,469.41
OT 83 at 1.5 x 4 . 31 535.54
DT 8 at 2 x 4.31 68.82
$2,073 77 $2,073.77
1966-3
RT 408 x 4 31 $1,755 48
OT 87 at 1 .5 x 4 31 562.35
DT -
$2,317.83
1966-4
RT 356 x 4.31 $1,534.36
OT 69 at 1 . 5 x 4.31 446.08
DT -
$1 980.44
844.4623
$2,824 90
As prevwush described herein Soiset had .t prolonged absence Irom
work due to illness for about 4 weeks between December I and December
28 1966 and the Speulication appropriately takes into account this period
of absence on a protected basis as time during which Connolh would
normallc have worked for I edlord Bros absent the discrnninatum The
amount of regular time lost h\ reason of such absence teas 148 hours Also
in the entire calendar quarter Soiset worked 69 hours of otertime and it is
reasonable to add for the period of Soiset s ahsenve a prorated average
amount of overtime or 3'- hours at time and .t hall \ccurdinel\ it is
computed that ConnolR would hate, had additional gross earnings in
December 1966 of 5637 i8 for regular time and S 206 88 for 0)ertune or a
total of $844 46
IUE, LOCAL UNION 12 961
(Appendix A-cont'd) 1968-3
1967-1 RT 456 x 4.31 $1,965.36
RT 508 x 4 31 $2,189.48 OT
DT
70 at 1.5 x 4 31 452.55
OT 88 at 1.5 x 4 31 518.92
DT 11 at 2 x 4.31 94 82 $2,417 91
$2,803.22
1967-2
RT 504 x 4 31 $2,172 24
OT 82 at 1.5 x 4.31 530 13 NET BACKPAY
DT -
$2,702 37
1967 -3 Calender Gross Net Interim Net
RT 392 x 4.31 $ 1,689 .52 Quarters Backpay Earnings Backpay
OT 44 at 1.5 x 4.31 284.46
DT 2 at 2 x 4.31 17.24
$1,991 .22 1966 -1 $2,568 . 71 $1,490.80 $1,077.91
1966-2 926 42
1967-4 2 ,073.77
RT 480 x 4.31 $ 2,068 .80 3,000.19 2,859 . 10 141.09
OT 65 at 1 5 x 4.31 420.22
DT - 1966 - 3 2,317 .83 2,708 .53 None
$2,489 .02 1966 -4 1,980.44
844.46
1968 -1 2,824 90 2 , 364.10 460.80
RT 488 x 4 31 $2 , 103.28
OT 58 at 1 . 5 x 4 31 374.97 1967 -1 2,803 22 2 ,411.58 391 64
DT - 1967 -2 2,702 . 37 1,989 . 14 713 23
$2,478 . 25 1967 -3 1,991 . 22 2,5 35 .90 None
1967 -4 2,48902 2 , 261.87 227.15
1968-2 1968 -1 2,478 25 1,906 .64 571.61
RT 504 x 4.31 $ 2,172 . 24 1968 -2 2,491 . 18 1,691 .42 799.76
OT 48 at 1 .5 x 4.31 310 . 32 1968 -3 2,417.91 1,836 . 28 581 63
DT 1 at 2 x 4 31 8 .62 1968-4 None 24.85 None
$2,491 . 18 Final Total $4,964.82