Mansion House Center Management Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 24, 1974

208 N.L.R.B. 684 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mansion House Center Management Corporation and
its successor, Remsco Management Corporation,
Inc. and Central Parking System of St . Louis, Inc.
and Charles Dickens, Jr. Case 14-CA-46052
January 24, 1974
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On March 15, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
John M. Dyer issued the attached Supplemental
Decision in this proceeding . Thereafter, Respondent
Remsco Management Corporation, Inc., filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National ' Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three -member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Supplemental Decision in light of the
exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the
rulings, findings ,' and conclusions of the Adminis-
trative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended
Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondents, Mansion House
Center Management Corporation and its successor,
Remsco Management Corporation , Inc., and Central
Parking Systems of St. Louis, Inc., St. Louis,
Missouri, their officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order.
I
In overruling the exceptions of Respondent Remsco , we further find
that the Supplemental Decision of the Administrative Law Judge , which we
affirm here, is supported by the recent decision of the United States
Supreme Court in Golden State Bottling Company, Inc., d/b/a Pepsi-Cola
Bottling Company, 414 U.S. 168 (Dec. 5, 1973), 84 LRRM 2839.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JoHN M. DYER, Administrative Law Judge : On January
1, 1972 , the National Labor Relations Board issued its
Decision and Order in case 195 NLRB 797 which found
that Mansion House Center Management Corporation,
herein called Respondent Mansion House Management,
and Central Parking System of St . Louis, Inc., herein called
Respondent Central Parking, had violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended.
The Board directed that Respondent Mansion House
Management and Respondent Central Parking, which had
jointly violated the Act by discharging Respondent Central
Parking's employees Norman Adams, Fred Hahn, Herbert
Cavitt, and Paul Mintner, reinstate them and make them
whole and that Respondent Mansion House Management
reinstate and make whole it's discriminatorily .discharged
employees, William Bassett, Robert Farr, and K. D.
Hollifield . This Decision and Order was enforced by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on
May 23, 1972.
Paul Mintner returned to work at Respondent Central
Parking a little over 3 weeks after his discharge and there
are no issues concerning his reinstatement or backpay.
Respondent Central Parking offered reinstatement to
Adams, Hahn , and Cavitt on February 25, 1972, and
Respondent Mansion House Management offered reins-
tatement to Bassett , Farr, and Hollifield on April 8, 1972.
There is no question concerning reinstatement of the
discriminatees.
Respondent Mansion House Management was the
management agent for the Mansion House Center complex
at all times material herein , until August 1, 1972, when
Remsco Management Corporation, herein called Respon-
dent Remsco, took over its duties and has since managed
the complex which consists of apartments, offices, stores,
and a parking garage located near the Mississippi River in
St. Louis.
The parties to this proceeding were not able to reach
agreement as to the amounts of backpay due the seven
individuals and therefore the Board's Regional Director of
Region 14 issued a backpay specification and notice of
hearing on October 18,, 1972, setting forth backpay
computations including admissions of interim earnings of
the discriminatees.
On October 26, 1972 , Respondent Mansion House
Management submitted an answer and a motion to dismiss
it from the backpay proceeding . The answer stated that it's
operation of the complex had been terminated and it
lacked knowledge of the allegations concerning backpay.
The motion stated that on or about August 1 , 1972, it had
turned over control of the Mansion House Center complex
to Respondent Remsco and while it continued as a legal
entity , it had no assets , real, or personal, and suggested that
any further proceedings concerning it should be considered
moot.
General Counsel filed in opposition to Respondent
Mansion House Management's motion to dismiss and
further moved to strike its answer.
On November 27, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
Authur Leff denied Respondent Mansion House Manage-
ment's motion and on December II he granted General
Counsel's motion to strike Respondent Mansion House
Management's answer . Specifically Judge Leff noted that
there had been no response to General Counsel 's motion
208 NLRB No. 104
MANSION HOUSE CENTER MANAGEMENT CORP.
from Respondent Mansion House Management , following
a notice to show cause order issued December 1, 1972, and
he thereafter ordered that the allegations of the backpay
specification be deemed admitted by Respondent Mansion
House Management in accordance with Section 102.54 (c)
of the Board's Rules and Regulations, and he further
ordered that Respondent Mansion House Management be
precluded from _introducing any evidence at the hearing
controverting the allegations of the backpay specification
insofar as they related to it and its liability.
On October 27, 1972, Respondent Central Parking filed a
motion for a more definite statement which was opposed
by the General Counsel on November 2, 1972. Respondent
Remsco, filed a motion for a more definite statement on
November 3, 1972, which was opposed by the General
Counsel on November 8, 1972.
Administrative Law Judge Authur Leff denied the
motions of Respondent Remsco and Respondent Central
Parking on November 27, 1972.
Respondent Central Parking filed its answer on Decem-
ber 8, 1972, which in effect said it had insufficient
information to respond regarding the interim earnings of
the discrimmatees. The answer admitted the basis of some
of the computations but denied liability in the amounts
claimed except for Paul Mintner, whom it agreed was owed
net backpay in tie claimed sum of $409.60. The answer
claimed that on February 20, 1971, Respondent Mansion
House Management had ordered it to reduce the guard
force from five to three and that two of the four
discriminatees would have been laid off on that date.
Respondent Remsco filed an answer on December 6,
1972, admitting that Respondent Mansion House Manage-
ment had ceased to operate the Mansion House Center
complex on or after August 1, 1972, and that it operated
the complex thereafter. Respondent Remsco denied that it
was a successor employer to Respondent Mansion House
Management or that it was jointly and severally liable to
remedy the unfair labor practices of its claimed predeces-
sor as pled in the supplemental backpay specification.
Respondent Remsco's answer admitted the propriety of the
computation methods but said it was without knowledge of
the allegations concerning the individual discriminatees.
As to Cavitt, Farr, Hahn, and Hollifield, it pled that they
had more interim earnings than those reported and that
they were not available for work at all times, and
specifically that Hollifield and Cavitt did not make an
active search for work.
On November 2, 1972, the Regional Director of Region
14 issued an amendment to the backpay specification
admitting that discriminatee Cavitt was unavailable for
employment from February 21 through March 13, 1971,
while he was attending school and further was unavailable
for work from January 1 through February 25, 1972.
This supplemental hearing was held on December 18, 19,
and 20, 1972, in S. Louis, Missouri. All parties were given
full opportunity to appear, to examine and cross-examine
the witnesses, and to argue orally. Briefs have been
received from Respondent Remsco and Respondent
685
Central Parking and the General Counsel, and have been
carefully considered.
Upon the entire record in this case including my
evaluation of the reliability of the witnesses, based both on
the evidence received and my observation of their
demeanor, I make the findings and conclusions set forth
below:
1. ALLOCATION OF BACKPAY RESPONSIBILITY
As stated above, Respondent Mansion House Manage-
ment is deemed to have admitted the pleadings in the
backpay specification. It made no appearance in this
hearing although it was aware of it. Under the terms of the
order mentioned above and without any appearance by it,
I conclude and find that Respondent Mansion House
Management is jointly and severally liable for the amounts
of backpay specifically found hereafter for the employees
of Respondent Central Parking and is liable for the
amounts of backpay hereafter found to be due its former
employees.
It was stipulated by the parties that in February 1971,
Respondent Mansion House Management instructed
Respondent Central Parking to reduce its guard force by
two men and that such reduction was accomplished on
February 18, 1971, and remained at the lowered level
throughout the backpay period. It was further stipulated
that such a reduction would have been made on the basis
of seniority which would have meant that Adams and
Cavitt would have been laid off on that date.
Respondent Central Parking is therefore jointly and
severally liable for the backpay of Hahn and Mintner
throughout the entire backpay period and is jointly and
severally liable for Adams and Cavitt only until February
18, 1971, with Respondent Mansion House Management
being solely liable for them after that date while being
jointly and severally responsible for them prior thereto and
being similarly liable for Hahn and Mintner.
11. RESPONDENT REMSCO'S POSITION AND
RESPONSIBILITY
Regarding Respondent Remsco, the backpay specifica-
tion stated:
Since on or about August 1, 1972, Remsco has been,
and is a successor employer to Mansion House Center
Management Corporation and, as such , is jointly and
severally liable fully to remedy the unfair labor
practices committed by its predecessor.
In answering this allegation Respondent Remsco said
only "It denies the allegations of paragraph I (e)."
In its brief Respondent Remsco stated that when it took
over management of the complex , all of the discriminatees
who desired reinstatement had been reinstated and
thereafter worked for it and that the only remaining item is
backpay, for which, it states , it is not responsible.
Respondent Remsco's brief maintains that it is not a
successor to Respondent Mansion House Management. Its
brief urges for the first time, that it was not proven that it
686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was a successor with knowledge of the unfair labor
practices so it contends it should not be required to remedy
the backpay obligation.
As to successorship, the General Counsel adduced
testimony which established that Respondent Remsco is
engaged in exactly the same business as Respondent
Mansion House Management, i.e., the management of the
Mansion House Center complex. Insofar as the affected
employees are concerned, the guards continued their
employment with no hiatus, in the same positions, with the
same responsibilities, receiving the same pay and other
benefits and with the same minor supervision. There were
no changes as far as the employees are concerned except
for upper supervision and a new name on the paychecks.
The only possible conclusion is that Respondent Remsco
is a successor employer to Respondent Mansion House
Management since it took over management of the same
premises with the same employees receiving the same pay
and under the same working conditions. I so conclude and
find.
The question of Respondent Remsco's knowledge of the
unfair labor practices of its predecessor at the time it took
over (August 1, 1972) was not raised by its answer nor did
it raise such during the trial of this case.
The Board's Rules and Regulations, Section 102.54 (b)
provides:
Denials shall fairly meet the substance of the
allegations of the specification denied. When a respon-
dent intends to deny only a part of an allegation, the
respondent shall specify so much of it as is true and
shall deny only the remainder. As to all matters within
the knowledge of the respondent, including but not
limited to the various factors entering into the
computation of gross backpay, a general denial shall
not suffice. As to such matters, if the respondent
disputes either the accuracy of the figures in the
specification or the premises on which they are based,
he shall specifically state the basis for his disagreement,
setting forth in detail his position as to the applicable
premises and furnishing the appropriate supporting
figures.
Respondent Remsco's answer did not raise lack of "prior
knowledge" as a basis for its position concerning its
liability, though such an issue would certainly have been
uniquely within its knowledge.
In Perma Vinyl Corporation, 164 NLRB 968. the Board at
969 after discussing the appropriateness of a successor
employer remedying the unfair labor practices of its
predecessor, said the following:
if the unfair labor practice has been the discrimina-
tory discharge of employees, this responsibility should
include the reinstatement of the discriminatees without
loss of pay. Of course, no such adjudication of liability
can be made without affording the bona fide purchaser
a full opportunity at a hearing, after adequate notice, to
present evidence on the question of whether it is a
successor which is responsible for remedying a prede-
cessor's unfair labor practices. The successor would
also be entitled, of course, to be heard against the
enforcement of any order issued against it.
Respondent Remsco had the responsibility to establish
that it was not a successor employer (if it was not) and that
when it took over it was without notice of the unfair labor
practices of its predecessor. Its present claim that such has
not been proven is an attempt to put the burden of proof
other than where the Board said it rests. It did not raise it
as an issue in its answer while under a clear burden to do
so if indeed it was an issue. Respondent Remsco further
did not avail itself of the opportunity to produce any such
evidence at the trial of this case and it can not now escape
liability by claiming that such was not proven.
General Counsel's voluntary production of testimony
concerning interim earnings and the criteria of successor-
ship does not mean that he should have undertaken to
prove the question of "prior knowledge," which was not
placed in issue by Respondent Remsco.
I conclude and find that the issue of the successor's prior
knowledge of the predecessor's unfair labor practices is a
matter of defense to be raised by the alleged successor and
that in the absence of any such notice or offer of evidence
by Respondent Remsco, it is too late to raise the issue in its
brief. I find that such issue is not a matter of affirmative
proof to be borne by the General Counsel.
I therefore find and conclude that Respondent Remsco
is a successor of Respondent Mansion House Management
with knowledge of its predecessor's unfair labor practices
and having the consequent responsibility to rectify the
unfair labor practices of its predecessor. Since the backpay
due the discnminatees is the sole remaining item to be
remedied, I conclude and find that Respondent Remsco
stands with and in the place of Respondent Mansion
House Management and is jointly and severally liable and
solely liable in those areas where its predecessor is, and
must fulfill the backpay obligations spelled out in this
decision where its predecessor is unable to do so.
III. THE BACKPAY CLAIMS
A. Norman L Adams
The backpay specification alleges that Adams' backpay
runs from the first quarter of 1971 thru the first quarter of
1972 when Adams was offered reinstatement. Adams was a
part-time employee at Respondent Central Parking, and
the specification lists no interim earnings, travel, or
expensives and concludes that the amount of net backpay
due equals the amount of gross backpay. At Respondent
Central Parking Adams worked from 6 p.m. to 12 midnight
on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday and had as
his main position a full time job at Wagner Electric
Company, where from late 1970 through 1972, he was
working 10 hours a day. He admitted that after being laid
off at Respondent Central Parking, twice prior to February
MANSION HOUSE CENTER MANAGEMENT CORP.
26, 1971, he was offered his job there and refused on each
occasion because , as he put it, they had no decent
communications between the men and the head of
Respondent Central Parking . Further Adams admitted he
did not look for work partly because he was working so
much overtime at Wagner Electric . During the backpay
period Whalen Security contacted him saying they would
like to hire him but he did not go there to apply for work.
He stated he had one communication with another security
agency but didn't bother to follow it up since he was
working so much overtime.
During the hearing Adams stated that he had not been
advised that he had to look for work following his layoff
and in essence admitted he did not do so.
In summary , Adams had a principal job which was
supplying him witha lot of overtime work . He refused job
offers at ,Respondent Central Parking because he wanted
to return there only on terms which he felt were proper and
which amounted to some form of agreement between the
employees and Respondent Central Parking , or at the very
least what Adams termed better communications between
employees and the Company . Adams not only did not seek
other employment but did not pursue a promising lead of
other employment.
I conclude and find that Adams withdrew from the part-
time labor market when he was laid off until he accepted
reinstatement and pursued only his main job. I therefore
conclude and find that there is no backpay due Norman L.
Adams.
B. William Bassett
Bassett 's primary job was with the A. O. Smith
Company, where, during January 1971, he was working
from 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. He worked for Respondent
'Mansion House Management on the 4 p.m. to 12 midnight
shift on Saturday, Sunday, Mondays, and Tuesdays prior
to his layoff. Shortly thereafter Bassett moved to the
second shift at A. O. Smith but was uncertain whether this
move was due to a partial layoff or because he requested it.
In any event he worked on the second shift receiving a pay
differential until just after he was reinstated by Respon-
dent Mansion House Management.
His testimony is uncontradicted that within the first 2
weeks of his layoff, he applied for work at three security
agencies and filed employment applications with them. He
testified that during that period he visited one of them
(Whalen) at least twice more after hearing rumors of a new
contract and that they would be hiring.
Bassett testified that he contacted these three agencies
once or twice a week during his layoff, called the other
security agencies listed in the phone book on various
occasions during that period, and answered newspaper ads
for guards. During his phone contacts he would explain
that he had a regular full-time job and wanted a part-time
job that could range up to 40 hours a week, but was never
offered a job. He stated he understood a number of the
security agencies looked with disfavor on employees
working for them as a second job.
687
Respondent Remsco indicated it felt Bassett 's transfer to
the second shift at A. O. Smith cast doubt on whether he
was really seeking a job. Bassett testified that he could
have worked a day shift for a security agency as. he did
when he first returned to the Mansion House complex
before transferring back to the first shift at A . O. Smith so
he could work the second shift at the Mansion House
complex.
Respondent Remsco offered no testimony that Bassett at
any time withdrew from the part-time job market or that
he failed to search for work. The testimony demonstrates
he continually sought work throughout the backpay period
although such search was unsuccessful.
The only testimony offered in this area by Respondents
was a witness called by Respondent Central Parking who
was a director of personnel for the Wells Fargo Security
agency and had held this position since March or April
1972 until the date of the hearing. He testified in general
that his company has a large percentage of turn-over in
guards each month and that he is continuously advertising
for and hiring people for full-time and part-time jobs.
The specific undenied testimony of Bassett concerning
his search for work far outweighs this general testimony
which is not even contemporary as to the time when work
was sought by Bassett and the other discriminatees.
I find and conclude that William Bassett throughout the
backpay period was in, and remained in, the market for
part-time employment in the same manner in which he had
been employed by Respondent Mansion House Manage-
ment and that his search for work was adequate. I
therefore conclude and find that Bassett is due, backpay in
the net amount of $4,422.40 plus interest as more
specifically set forth in Appendix A, attached to this
decision.
C. Herbert Lee Cavitt
Cavitt testified that when he first went to work for
Respondent Central Parking at the Mansion House
complex, his primary job was with a grocery warehouse as
a warehouseman . This warehouse closed around October
10, 1971, and thereafter his sole job was at the Mansion
House complex until he was laid off in January 1971. He
then sought work with several security agencies and sought
guard work with a number of the large companies in St.
Louis such as General Motors, Chrysler, Wagner, Emer-
son, and McDonnell Aircraft. He also sought work at
various grocery warehouses in the area , and sought a
warehouseman's job through the Teamsters hiring hall but
was unsuccessful.
For a number of months prior to his layoff Cavitt was
taking a home study course with an "over-the-road truck-
driver" training school, and took a three week "behind-the-
wheel" course at the school from February 21 through
March 13, 1971. This period was deleted by the amend-
ment to the backpay specification as a time when Cavitt
was unavailable for work. When he returned from the
school, Cavitt sought work as a truckdriver , which would
ordinarily pay more than a guard position. During the first
688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
part of April 1971, he found such a job and from then on
his intenm earnings exceeded his gross backpay.
Respondents offered no direct testimony regarding
Cavitt's search for work but merely cross -examined him in
that regard.
I conclude and find that Cavitt was in the employment
market for the period of time set forth in the backpay
specification as amended , and made an adequate search
for employment . I conclude and find that Herbert Cavitt is
due backpay in the net amount of $572 plus interest as
more specifically set forth in Appendix B, attached to this
Decision.
D. Robert Farr
Robert Farr testified his job at the Mansion House
complex was his only job and after being laid off he
immediately began calling other security agencies for work
and got a job with Patton Security Inc. around January 25,
1971. He continued to be employed by Patton until the
beginning of October 1971, when he quit because of a
changed job assignment . Farr , who is 59 years old testified
that he was switched from a job he enjoyed at the
Washington Hotel, which required him to patrol the eight
floors of the building and the outside parking lot , to a job
at an insurance building downtown . The new job , which he
remained on only a short while , required patrol of 12 floors
of one side of the building and eight floors (mostly
warehouse space) on the other side within an hour. Farr
protested that there was not enough time to do the job and
asked to be transferred . He was told that the only available
other jobs would pay less than what he was getting, which
was the same amount he had received from Respondent
Mansion House Management . Farr said he could not live
on less and quit and sought other employment.
Within 2 or 3 weeks Farr secured a job with Sentry
Security Agency, Inc., to patrol the exterior of three
companies, Tennessee-North Carolina Truck Line, South-
west Body , and Churchill Truck Line . He testified that he
lived about eight blocks from the location of the three
companies and drove his car there and sometimes patrolled
the area on foot, and at other times drove his car around
the area . While so employed his car quit running and he
quit the job because he felt too much walking would be
involved . This would have been all outside work during the
winter . In contrast his job at the Mansion House complex
involved an hour's patrol of the complex which would have
been partly outside and partly inside the four -block-long
and two-block-wide structure.
In about 1 week Farr got a job with Security Forces, Inc.,
where he worked from November or December 1971 to the
first part of January 1972. He testified that this Company
promised him full-time work but the amount was reduced
until he was working only 2 or 3 days a week. When the
Company did not give him full-time employment , he quit
to seek a full-time job and shortly got a job as the security
man for the George Washington Hotel where he had
previously worked for Patton Security Inc. He remained at
the George Washington Hotel until he was offered and
accepted reinstatement by Respondent Mansion House
Management.
Respondent Remsco takes the position that Farr 's job at
Patton Security was somewhat comparable to his employ-
ment at the Mansion House complex and that he should have
kept such job and that backpay should be limited to the
intenm amount he lost before securing that job . Respon-
dent Remsco asserts that Fan quit several other jobs after
that without having any job waiting for him and that
backpay over and above the first quarter should be denied.
There is nothing in the record to indicate how long this job
at the insurance building would have lasted.
There is no contention by Respondent Remsco that Farr
did not diligently seek work during the periods he was out
of work or that he left the job market . It appears from the
testimony that the amount of patrolling to be done at the
insurance company building of 12 floors on one side and 8
on another within an hour is considerably in excess of the
duties Farr had at the Mansion House complex or at the
George Washington Hotel and that he had sufficient
grounds to leave Patton 's employ when they refused to
transfer him to another job at the same pay rate.
Farr left the employ of Sentry Security because his car
broke down and he did not want to continue patrolling the
exterior of the three companies on foot without the
convenience of his car. Despite the seeming imprudence of
not continuing his job until he could effect repairs on his
car, we must consider that in order to get to this job Farr
would have had to walk eight blocks there, patrolled the
exterior of the three locations for 8 hours and then walked
back home . This would have meant that during the winter
of 1971-72, Farr a 59 -year-old man of slight stature, would
have been exposed to the elements for some 9 or 10 hours
each day with no chance of getting in his car to get warm
or relieve his feet . Farr worked at this job as long as he had
a minimum of personal comfort in that he was able to get
out of the weather by using his car despite not being
compensated for its use . Under these circumstances I
consider his reasons for quitting , while not the most
judicious , at least reasonable, and I would not penalize him
in any manner for leaving this job and seeking another
position.
Farr's next employment was with Security Forces, Inc.,
which promised him a full-time , 40-hour-week position.
When he found he was only working 2 or 3 days a week, he
left and apparently within a few days secured work at the
George Washington Hotel at a rate roughly equivalent to
that which he had been making at the Mansion House
complex.
Having determined that Farr had sufficient reason to
leave each of these three interim jobs , I will not penalize
him for so doing by cutting off any part of his backpay
period . I therefore conclude and find that Robert Farr is
due backpay in the net amount of $1,547 . 10 plus interest,
as more fully set out in Appendix C, attached to this
decision.
MANSION HOUSE CENTER MANAGEMENT CORP. 689
E. Fred Hahn
Mrs. Lenora Hahn testified that her husband , who died
November 5, 1972, immediately began searching for work
after being laid off on January 14, 1971, by telephoning
security agencies such as Gateway, Security, and Whelan.
His job at the Mansion House complex was his only job.
She stated he made numerous phone calls in answering
newspaper ads for guards which she brought to his
attention . He got a temporary guard job with Gateway for
the month of February 1971. Mrs . Hahn named a number
of places where Mr. Hahn continued to look for work. She
said he continued to answer newspaper ads and secured a
job with Whelan Security beginning in April. In either the
last part of the third quarter or at the beginning of the
fourth quarter of 1971, Mr. Hahn became physically
unable to work.
Respondent Remsco said it was satisfied that Hahn
made an adequate search for work , but Respondent
Central Parking said it felt Hahn did not "diligently search
out available work in a timely fashion " basing this
statement on its conclusion that Hahn would have found
work sooner if he had read the daily newspapers. It next
claims that Hahn did not seek out work but rather waited
for Whelan Security to give him work . Its conclusions are
contrary to Mrs . Hahn's uncontradicted testimony and
have no factual basis.
I conclude and find that Fred Hahn made a diligent
search for work , and did not remove himself from the labor
market until his illness . I further conclude and find that
backpay in the net amount of $965. 14 plus interest is due
the estate of Fred Hahn, as more fully set out in Appendix
D, attached hereto.
F. King Davis Hollifield
Hollifield was first employed by Whelan Security in 1968
for a guard job with TWA and when TWA moved its
offices to one of the tower buildings at the Mansion House
complex, Hollifield worked there from 9 p.m. until 6 a.m. 5
days a week . After a while, he began working for
Respondent Mansion House Management 2 days a week
and testified, rather confusedly , that this grew from 2 to 5
days a week so that while working a full shift for TWA, he
also worked for Respondent Mansion House Management
from 12 p .m. until 8 a .m. so that there was overlapping
time at least 3 days a week . Hollifield testified that when
his assigned hours overlapped he would get someone to
take his place on the TWA job for the overlapping hours.
He also testified that during 1970-71 he had a third job
which was cleaning up the interior of a fried chicken
restaurant. When he was off, Hollifield said , he would
trade work time with other guards and sometimes would be
sent to the telephone company or other locations by
Whelan Security . Sometimes he paid other guards to cover
his shift. It appears from his testimony that Hollifield
worked a great number of hours each week.
When he was laid off by Respondent Mansion House
Management in 1971 , Hollifield stated he continually
sought employment both with security agencies-and with
various manufacturers such as Scullin Steel Co. where he
had been employed until 1965 as a coremaker . He filed an
application there and continued to seek a job there
throughout the backpay period.
Hollifield testified..,that from the start of his layoff until
he was offered reinstatement he kept notes of the places
where he either applied for work in person or where he
telephoned seeking work. When he was first questioned by
an NLRB agent regarding computation of his backpay, he
gave the agent the name of only six or seven places where
he had sought work . Several months later he took the
shoebox full of notes and copied it into a single list which
was offered in evidence . This list consists of some 15 pages
of dates, company names, addresses, and telephone
numbers, some of which have a notation that he called but
others have no notation . Hollifield testified that on the
dates listed, he either telephoned or personally visited the
listed company , seeking employment.
Hollifield further testified that during the time he was
laid off he was unable to find any other employment
although he sought it including asking for extra employ-
ment during the day from Whelan Security.
From the description of Hollifield's activities while he
was employed by Respondent Mansion House Manage-
ment, it is clear that replacing that job would be most
difficult since he was then working a great number of hours
each week. Hollifield 's demeanor did not inspire great
confidence that the list of job applications which he
presented was an accurate reflection of what he had done.
However , his past work history indicating that he worked
two or three jobs would seem to demonstrate that he was
an ambitious man who sought a lot of work.
In the absence of any evidence to show that Hollifield
did not make an adequate search for work or that he took
himself out of the job market , I credit his testimony and
find that Hollifield remained in the labor market and made
an adequate search for employment . I therefore conclude
and find that K. D. Hollifield is due net backpay in the
amount $5 ,395.20 plus interest as more fully set out in
Appendix E, attached hereto.
G. Paul Mintner
As noted heretofore, the parties are in agreement that
Paul Mintner made an adequate search for employment
and did not remove himself from the labor market and that
the backpay specification is correct.
I conclude and find that Paul Mintner is due net
backpay in the amount of $409.60 plus interest as more
fully set out in Appendix F, attached hereto.
RECOMMENDED ORDER 1
On the basis of the findings and conclusions set forth
above it is hereby ordered that Respondent Central
I In the event no e4ceptions are filed as provided by Sec . 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
I
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Parking, Respondent Mansion House Management and
Respondent Remsco, their officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, pay the discriminatees listed below the amounts set
opposite their names, plus interest as prescribed, as
backpay, making normal deductions for income tax and
social security benefits.
Norman L. Adams
William Bassett
Herbert Cavitt
Robert Farr
Fred Hahn
K. D. Hollifield
Paul Mintner
-0-
$4422.40
$ 572.00
$1547.10
$ 965.14
$5395.20
$ 409.60
MANSION HOUSE CENTER MANAGEMENT CORP 691
APPENDIX A
NAME BASSETT, WILLIAM
SOCIAL SECURITY NO. 490-26-8701
A. CALENDAR WEEKS AND GROSS NET INTERIM NET
QUARTER PAY RATE BACKPAY EARNINGS BACKPAY
1971-1 11 @ $69.10 $760.10 NONE $760.10
1971-2 13@ 69.10 898.30 NONE 898.30
1971-3 13@ 69.10 898.30 NONE 898.30
1971-4 13@ 69.10 898.30 NONE 898.30
1972-1 13@ 69.10 898.30 NONE 898.30
1972-2 1@ 69.10 69.10 NONE $69.10
Total Net
backpay
$4,422.40
B. CALENDAR INTERIM GROSS TRAVEL AND NET INTERIII
QUARTER EMPLOYER EARNINGS EXPENSES EARNINGS
NO INTERIM EMPLOYMENT
APPENDIX B
NAME CAVITY, HERBERT
SOCIAL SECURITY NO. 494-36-3073
A. CALENDAR
QUARTER
1971-1
1971-2
1971-3
1971-4
1972-1
WEEKS AND
PAY RATE
8@ $71.50
13 @ 71.50
13 @ 71.50
13 @ 71.50
GROSS NET INTERIM
BACKPAY EARNINGS
NET
BACKPAY
$572.00 NONE
929.50 $1,205.79
929.50 1,444.51
929.50 1,444.51
NOT AVAILABLE FOR EMPLOYMENT
Total Net Backpay
$572.00
NONE
NONE
NONE
$572.00
692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
B. CALENDAR
QUARTER
INTERIM
EMPLOYER
GROSS
EARNINGS
TRAVEL AND -
EXPENSES
NET INTERIM
EARNINGS
1971-2 J. S. Alberici
Constr. Co.
St. Louis, Mo. $1,205.79 NONE $1,205.79
1971-3 Schwerman
Trucking Co. 1,444.51 NONE 1,444.51
1971-4 SAME 1,444.51 NONE 1,444.51
APPENDIX C
NAME FARR, ROBERT
SOCIAL SECURITY NO. 490-14-5584
A. CALENDAR
QUARTER
WEEKS AND GROSS
PAY RATE BACKPAY
NET INTERIM
EARNINGS
NET
BACKPAY
1971-1 11 @ $84.71 $ 931.81 $ 533.OU $398.81
1971-2 13 @ 84.71 1,101.23 1,116.00 NONE
1,101.23
1971-3 13 @ 84.71 1,101.23 956.00 145.23
1971-4 13 @ 84.71 1,101.23 383.00 717.83
1972-1 13 @ 84.71 1,101.23 816.00 285.23
1972-2 1 @ 84.71 84.71 352.00
Total Net Backpay $1,547.10
B. CALENDAR
QUARTER
INTERIM G
EMPLOYER E
ROSS TRAVEL AND
ARNINGS EXPENSES
NET INTERIM
EARNINGS
1971-1 Patton Security,
St. Louis, Mo. $ 533.00 NONE $ 533.00
1971-2 SAME 1,116.00 NONE 1,116.00
1971-3 SAME 956.00 NONE 956.00
1971-4 Sentry Security,
St. Louis , Ho
Security Forces,
2511.40
St. Louis , Mo. 132.00 NONE 383.40
MANSION HOUSE CENTER MANAGEMENT CORP. 693
1972- 1 Security Forces $176 .00 NONE
George Wash .
Hotel
640.00 NONE $816.00
1972-2 SAME 352.00 NONE 352.00
APPENDIX D
NAIE HAHN, FRED
SOCIAL SECURITY NO. 494-03-6366
A. CALENDAR WEEKS AND GROSS NET INTERIM NET
QUARTER PAY RATE BACKPAY EARNINGS BACKPAY
1971-1 11 @ $106 . 82 $1,175 . 02 $587 . 20 $587.82
1971-2 13 @ 106.82 1,388.66 1,084 . 00 304.66
1971-3 13 @ 106.82 1,388.66 1,316.00 72.66
1971-4 UNAVAILABLE FOR EMPLOYMENT
1972-1 UNAVAILABLE FOR E14PLOYIIMT
Total Net Backpay $965.14
B. CALENDAR INTERIM GROSS TRAVEL AND NET INTERIM
QUARTER EMPLOYER EARNINGS EXPENSES EARNINGS
1971 - 1 Gateway Security,
St. Louis , Ho. $403.20
Whelan Agency,
St. Louis , .40. 184.00 NONE $587.20
1971-2 Whelan Agency 1,084 . 00 NONE 1,084.00
1971-3 SAME 1,316.00 NONE 1,316.00
694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX E
N :-iE FIOLLIFIELD, K. D.
SOCIAL SECURITY NO. 426-44-7728
A. CALENDAR
QUARTER
WEEKS AND
PAY PATE
GROSS
BACKPAY
NET INTERIM
EARNINGS
NET
BACKPAY
1971 - 1 11 @ $84.30 $927.30 NONE $927.30
1971-2 13 @ 84.30 1,095 . 90 NONE 1,095.90
1971-3 13 @ 84.30 1,095.90 NONE 1,095.90
1971-4 13 @ 84.30 1,095 . 90 NONE 1,095.90
1972-1 13 @ 34.30 1,095.90 NONE 1,095.90
1972-2 1 C 34.30 $84.30 NONE 84.30
Total Net Backpay $5,395.20
B. CALENDAR
QUARTER
INTERIM
EMPLOYER
GROSS
EARNINGS
TRAVEL AND
EXPENSES
NET INTERIM
EARNINGS
NO INTERLI E:1PLOYIENT
APPENDIX F
NAME MINTER, PAUL
SOCIAL SECURITY NO. 479-09-8094
A. CALENDAR
QUARTER
WEEKS AND
PAY RATE
GROSS
BACKPAY
NET INTERIM
EARNINGS
NET
BACKPAY
1971-1 3 . 2 @ $128 $409.60 NONE 409.60
TOTAL NET BACKPAY $409.60
B. CALENDAR
QUARTER
INTERIM
EMPLOYER
GROSS
EARNINGS
TRAVEL AND
EXPENSES
NET INTERIM
EARNINGS
NO INTERIM EMPLOYMENT