Marlene Industries Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1970

183 N.L.R.B. 50 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Marlene Industries Corporation ; Decaturville Sports-
wear Co., Inc .; Trousdale Manufacturing Co.,
Inc.; Westmoreland Manufacturing Corporation;
Frisco Sportswear Co., Inc .; Aynor Manufactur-
ing Company , Inc.; Loris Manufacturing Com-
pany , Inc.; Charles Meltzer , Individually and as
President of Marlene Industries Corporation;
Samuel Meltzer , Individually and as Treasurer of
Marlene Industries Corporation ; Abraham Dan-
sky, Individually and as Vice President of Marlene
Industries Corporation ; Ray Rindone ; Daniel
Beitsch ; L. E. Broyles ; C. M. Jones; Victor Mar-
tin; Lloyd Eppersimons ; W. J. Schwartz and
Aynor Development Corporation and Interna-
tional Ladies' Garment Workers ' Union,
AFL-CIO. Cases 26-CA-2158, 26-CA-2216,
26-CA-2216-2, and 26-CA-2276
June 8, 1970
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS MCCULLOCH, BROWN , AND JENKINS
On July 3, 1967, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-en-
titled case, finding that the Respondents had dis-
criminated against certain named employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.' The Board's
Order directed, inter alia , that the Respondents
offer immediate and full reinstatement to 17 em-
ployees and make them whole for any loss of pay
suffered by virtue of Respondents' discrimination
against them.
On January 29, 1969, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit enforced the rein-
statement and backpay provisions of the Board's
Order. On August 14, 1969, the Regional Director
for Region 26 issued and served upon the parties a
backpay specification and notice of hearing. The
Respondents filed an answer thereto on September
13, 1969. Upon appropriate notice issued by the
Regional Director, a hearing was held before
George A. Downing, Trial Examiner, for the pur-
pose of determining the amounts of backpay due
the claimants.
On January 13, 1970, the Trial Examiner issued
his attached Supplemental Decision in which he
found that the claimants were entitled to specific
amounts of backpay. Thereafter, the Respondents
and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Supplemental Decision and sup-
porting briefs.
' 166 NLRB 703, enfd 406 F 2d 886 (C A 6)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connec-
tion with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Supplemental Decision and the entire record in the
case, including the exceptions and briefs, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified
herein.
The Trial Examiner found that Letha Tyler
Miller, who had no interim earnings , did not make
a reasonable effort to obtain employment during
the backpay period, that she incurred a willful loss
of earnings, and that she was thus not entitled to
backpay. The General Counsel excepts to this find-
ing and we find merit in the exception.
It appears from the record that Miller reported to
the South Carolina State Employment Service of-
fice every week for 22 weeks and was referred by it
to only one employer, who did not hire her. There
is no indication that the office found her job seek-
ing inadequate and she continued to receive unem-
ployment benefits for the maximum allowable
period. In addition to her unsuccessful personal ap-
plication, she applied by telephone to two local em-
ployers who declared they were not hiring.
Thereafter, Miller traveled from 60 to 115 miles
from her home in search of work. In company with
another discriminatee she drove 60 miles to Lake
City, South Carolina, where they were informed
that jobs were available if they lived in Lake City.
After searching for a place to live during the
remainder of the day they were unable to find hous-
ing accommodations and did not, therefore, report
for work.
On another occasion, Miller drove 115 miles to
Charleston where she was denied employment
because of a rule requiring a year's residence in
Charleston. In our opinion the Respondent has
failed to sustain the burden of establishing that
Miller willfully incurred a loss of interim earnings.
We shall, therefore, reverse the Trial Examiner's
Decision insofar as it relates to Miller and direct
that she be granted the amount of backpay claimed
in the General Counsel's specification.
ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing Supplemental Deci-
sion and the entire record in this case , the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
183 NLRB No. 3
MARLENE INDUSTRIES CORP.
Respondents , Marlene Industries Corporation;
Decaturville Sportswear Co., Inc .; Trousdale Manu-
facturing Co., Inc.; Westmoreland Manufacturing
Corporation ; Frisco Sportswear Co., Inc.; Aynor
Manufacturing Company , Inc.; Loris Manufactur-
ing Company , Inc.; Charles Meltzer , Individually
and as President of Marlene Industries Corporation;
Samuel Meltzer , Individually and as Treasurer of
Marlene Industries Corporation ; Abraham Dansky,
Individually and as Vice President of Marlene In-
dustries Corporation ; Ray Rindone ; Daniel Beitsch;
L. E. Broyles ; C. M. Jones ; Victor Martin; Lloyd
Eppersimons ; W. J. Schwartz and Aynor Develop-
ment Corporation , Aynor and Loris, South
Carolina , their officers , agents , successors , and as-
signs, shall pay to the employees involved in this
proceeding , as net backpay herein determined to be
due the amounts set forth opposite their names in
the recommendations of the Trial Examiner and
shall, in addition , pay to Letha Tyler Miller, as net
backpay , the amount of $3,265, with interest at the
rate of 6 percent per annum computed on the basis
of the quarterly amounts of net backpay due, less
any tax withholding required by law.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
GEORGE A. DOWNING, Trial Examiner: This is a
proceeding on a backpay specification issued by the
Regional Director on August 14, 1969, pursuant to
Section 102.52, et seq., of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, for the purpose
of determining the amounts of backpay which will
make whole 17 employees (Stanford Roberts, Mary
Roberts, Geneva (Allen) Edge, Margaret Dell Jor-
dan, Harry D. Rabon, Minnie Bourne Lane, Letha
(Tyler) Miller, Ruth Gerrald, Edna Alford Gerrald,
Barbara (Smith) Johnson, Pauline Strickland, Nan-
nie Martin, Christine Sellers, Drunella Lewis, John
G. Disher, Joe D. Doyle, Jr., and Eugene D.
Skipper) in the manner directed by the Board in its
Decision and Order, 166 NLRB 703, enfd. 406
F.2d 886 (C.A. 6). The hearing was held herein at
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, on October 7 and 8,
1969, pursuant to due notice. Briefs have been filed
by the General Counsel and by Respondents.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. INTRODUCTION AND ISSUES
The backpay specification, pursuant to Board
regulations, contained computations of the gross
' Aerovox Corporation, Johnson Manufacturing Co , Carolina Strand
Co , Wolverine (Franklin) Brass Works, Mullins Textile Mills, Southern
Packaging & Storage Co , and Aberdeen Mfg Co (variously referred to in
51
backpay, the interim earnings, the claimed expen-
ses, and net backpay due in each calendar quarter
for each of the 17 discriminatees except Eugene D.
Skipper, whose interim earnings exceeded his
backpay in each quarter. Respondents by answer
admitted that the gross backpay was correctly com-
puted for each employee but contested in each case
the accuracy of the interim earnings set out in the
specification, charging that each employee had in-
curred a willful loss of earnings in certain quarters
by refusing to accept substantially equivalent em-
ployment at comparable plants located in Mullins,
Conway, and Myrtle Beach, by failing diligently to
search for work, and (in some cases) by voluntarily
terminating their alternative employment for no
valid reason.
The burden of proof was upon the General Coun-
sel, of course, "to establish the damage which has
resulted from Respondents' established discrimina-
tory discharge, i.e., the gross backpay over the
backpay period." Mastro Plastics Corporation, 136
NLRB 1346, enfd. 354 F.2d 170 (C.A. 2), cert. de-
nied 384 U.S. 972. As Respondents conceded the
correctness of the computations of the gross
backpay, the only issues herein concerned the in-
terim earnings and the diminution of damages, and
on those the burden was on Respondents, "whether
from the willful loss of earnings by the failure to
either look for or keep a substantially equivalent
job or from the unavailability of a job at Respon-
dents' plant for some reason unconnected with the
discrimination." Id., and cases there cited at foot-
note 11.
Though Respondents' admissions made it un-
necessary for the General Counsel to offer proof on
his part of the case, he made available to Respon-
dents each of the discriminatees for examination
concerning their efforts to obtain interim employ-
ment. Respondents also called the office manager
of the South Carolina State Employment Service
(Employment Office herein) at Conway and
representatives of some seven employing concerns'
in the general area of Aynor and Loris (where
Respondents' plants were located), the latter of
whom testified concerning the general opportuni-
ties for employment at their plants and, in some
cases, concerning the absence of applications from
the discriminatees involved herein.
As an understanding of local geography is neces-
sary in evaluating the efforts which the dis-
criminatees made to seek employment, it will be
helpful to note the location of the various towns
and communities and of the various plants which
are mentioned in the record.
Both Aynor and Loris are in Horry County, in
which most of the communities were located, in-
cluding the towns of Conway (the county seat) and
Myrtle Beach, a beach resort on the Atlantic
the record as Conway Textiles, Carolina Textiles, and the "curtain facto-
ry")
427-258 O-LT - 74 - 5
52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ocean. All of the discriminatees lived in Horry
County, mostly within a few miles of either Aynor
or Loris but a number lived in more remote rural
areas on RFD routes. Aynor is some 15 miles from
Conway on Road 501 and Loris is some 19 miles
from Conway on Road 701. Myrtle Beach is 15
miles from Conway in an opposite direction.
Marion and Mullins were in the adjoining county of
Marion and were approximately 20 miles northwest
of Aynor. Tabor City, although only 6 miles from
Loris, was in North Carolina, and "Ihiteville was
some 23 miles beyond Loris. Other more distant
points at which some of the discriminatees sought
employment were Lake City, around 50 miles west
of Conway; Florence, some 50-odd miles west of
Conway; Charleston, some 110 miles south of Con-
way, and Laurinburg, North Carolina, some 75
miles northwest of Conway.
Aerovox was located at Myrtle Beach; Wolverine
Brass was about halfway between Myrtle Beach and
Conway on Road 501; Johnson Manufacturing and
Carolina Strand were on the same highway, coming
into Conway; and the curtain factory was in Con-
way. Mullins Textile and Southern Packaging were
in Mullins.
We shall begin with the evidence concerning the
employment situation generally and the functioning
of the Employment Office and shall then turn to the
testimony of the individual discriminatees regarding
their efforts to find work.
H. THE STATE EMPLOYMENT OFFICE; EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES GENERALLY
Respondents called Brantley Richardson, office
manager of the Employment Office in Conway, but
did not call other representatives of that office in
denial of statements attributed to them by Stanford
Roberts and Christine Sellers, two of the dis-
criminatees, concerning the futility of referring
them to employers in the area. See section III, infra.
Richardson testified that the Conway office has
jurisdiction over Horry County and that a separate
office has jurisdiction over Marion County, in
which Marion and Mullins are located. Unem-
ployed claimants are interviewed and are required
to file a written claim for unemployment compensa-
tion as well as an application for work which is filed
according to the type of work in which the appli-
cant is experienced or interested. Claimants are
required to come personally each week to the of-
fice to receive compensation benefits and are inter-
viewed again concerning their efforts to find work.
Applicants are sometimes given tests (for certain
employers) for finger dexterity and mechanical ap-
titude.
The office receives from employers in the county
requests or "orders" for employees and thereupon
reviews the applications to determine whether there
are qualified applicants. Such applicants are inter-
viewed again for suitability for the job openings and
are then referred to the employers. Applications
are not considered to be current after 60 days, and
they are thereafter placed in the inactive file, which
is not examined unless they have been renewed. In
making referrals the office considers the normal
commuting distance to work to be 20 miles, and
Aynor and Loris were within that distance from
Conway.
Richardson estimated that a majority of the fac-
tory employers in the county requested referrals
from his office and that 30 percent of the total
requests were for factory jobs. The Conway area
furnished the greatest number of jobs on a year-
round basis , though on a seasonal basis there were
more jobs at Myrtle Beach and the adjoining beach
areas.2
Information is sometimes exchanged with the
.Marion office if one or the other is unable to fill all
employer orders. Though information may also be
exchanged with offices in North Carolina, Richard-
son could recall no requests for employees at Tabor
City or Whiteville and testified the only referrals
which he could recall to North Carolina were for
agricultural work. As for the Air Force Base near
Myrtle Beach, no requests were received from the
U.S. Government for workers and most of those
employees were under Civil Service.
To be eligible to receive unemployment benefits
claimants were required to show a continuing
search for work and a continuing ability to work.
The maximum for which benefits could be drawn
during any 12-month period was 22 weeks, though
applications might thereafter be renewed if the clai-
mants were still unsuccessful in finding work.
Turning now to the employer representatives
called by Respondents, we begin with Bobby L.
Edgar, of Aerovox, who went with the company on
December 19, 1966, and whose testimony was
based on personnel records.
Edgar testified that the company manufactures
ceramics capacitators in the operation of which
certain manual dexterity is necessary. The Employ-
ment Office gives tests for such aptitudes in con-
nection with referring applicants and written appli-
cations are taken only from employees who bring in
a card showing that they have passed the test. Even
then applications are not taken unless there are
openings or unless the Company is aware of an
early need for more employees. Applications are
kept on file only 3 months except for those who are
employed.
Edgar produced the application of Mary Roberts
who was hired January 18, 1966, and who left on
August 16, 1966. Geneva Allen Edge filed an appli-
cation dated July 2, 1965, was hired on August 4,
There was no evidence, however, that the Conway office referred any
one of the discrimmatees to a seasonaljob at Myrtle Beach or to any other
employer there save Aerovox
MARLENE INDUSTRIES CORP 53
and quit voluntarily on November 12, 1965. Joe
Doyle, Jr., filed an application dated March 29,
1966, was hired on March 30, and worked only 1
day when he was laid off because of a cutback in
the number of employees. There was no record
covering Christine Sellers
Albert Whitehead, of Wolverine (Franklin) Brass
Works, testified that the company was new in the
area and its operations (manufacturing plumbing
fixtures), being rather difficult, resulted in a high
turnover of employees. Some 45 of its 250 em-
ployees were women who worked in assembling
and packaging the finished product. Personnel files
were periodically cleaned out and Whitehead, who
went with the company in November 1966, found
no applications on file from the discriminatees ex-
cept for Nannie Martin, who was hired on June 13,
1966, after filing two applications, one in October
1965 and one on June 1, 1966.
Gerald Render, of Carolina Strand Company,
testified that the company manufactured uphol-
stered chairs, that it used sewing machines , and that
approximately one-third of its 65 employees were
women. Applicants were usually referred by
present employees but some referrals are made by
the Employment Office. Formal applications were
not always required but hirings were made after
oral interviews, usually by Render, who hired 90
'percent of the employees. Applications were
destroyed after 6 months and Render testified he
would ordinarily remember only employees who
were still working for the company and that other-
wise he remembered a few names (of the dis-
criminatees ) because he had just gone over them.
As to whether each of the discriminatees had ever
applied for work at the plant Render testified he
was not aware that any of them had done so. Dur-
ing the backpay period the company hired a total of
41 employees.
J. Grier Johnson, president of Johnson Manufac-
turing Company, testified that his company manu-
factured upholstered lounges, employing some 100
employees of whom some 18 or 20 were women
operators of sewing machines. Hirings were
generally made on oral interviews as applicants
came in , the women being interviewed by Johnson's
wife. Some referrals were made by the Employment
Office. Johnson estimated his hiring from May
1965 through the end of the year at 15 to 20 and in
1966 through August 4 at 25.
Stanford Roberts, Mary Roberts, and John G.
Disher did not make application to Johnson's
knowledge, nor to his recollection did Joe Doyle,
Jr., ever come to the plant. Johnson was aware that
under child labor laws 18 was the youngest age at
which employees could work where machinery was
involved.
Concerning Harry Rabon, Johnson's testimony
was ultimately to the effect that Rabon worked 3
consecutive days to February 28, 1966, and did not
return to work thereafter. Rabon was discharged as
of March 8 for failure to report to work, and John-
son informed him when he returned for his check
that the reason was "irregular work habits."
Though Johnson admitted that Rabon told him at
that time he had to be a witness at the Air Force
Base for the Union at Aynor Manufacturing Com-
pany, Johnson was not aware prior to the discharge
that Rabon was a witness in the Board hearing.
Myrtle Gause of Aberdeen Manufacturing Com-
pany (the curtain factory) testified that the com-
pany employed sewing machine operators and
other employees in allied services. Gause could not
recall whether the company advertised for em-
ployees during the backpay period, in which it
hired from 250 to 300 employees, but testified that
it did take referrals from the Employment Office.
Based on her notebook in which she had listed the
names of applicants, Gause testified ultimately that
none of the 16 discriminatees filed a written appli-
cation. Though Gause testified initially that she had
applications for Margaret Dell Jordan and Harry
Rabon, she testified when recalled that she found
none from either. Her testimony reflected con-
siderable confusion regarding Jordan, however
(there were at least three Margaret Jordans in the
county, one presently in Aberdeen's employ), and
Gause admitted that at one time she directed her
secretary to call Margaret Jordan to work but did
not specify Margaret Dell Jordan.
Hilliard S. Dura of Mullins Textile Mills testified
that the company employed sewing machine opera-
tors and other employees in allied services. It had
around 560 employees and a labor turnover of
about 25 percent per annum. It hired 168 new em-
ployees from May 1 to December 31, 1965, and
183 from January 1 through August 31, 1966.
John G. Disher filed an application on March 5,
1966, was hired on March 7, and voluntarily quit
on May 14, 1966. Pauline Strickland filed an appli-
cation on February 15, 1966, was hired on Februa-
ry 21 as a collarette operator, and quit the same
day.'
James Snowden, of Southern Packaging Storage
Company, testified that the. company packages O-
rations for the Armed Forces and does some
storage It works on a contract basis and may be
shut down for as much as a month or so at a time.
Dexterity tests are given applicants by the Employ-
ment Office and he takes employees who are
referred by it. The company employs around 500
employees, with a turnover of 10 to 15 percent per
year.
Snowden produced the application of Ruth Ger-
rald apparently dated in November 1966, and an
' General Counsel's objection was sustained to Dura's assumption that
Strickland quit because she could not do the work, though Strickland's
later testimony was precisely to that effect (see sec 111, infra )
54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
earnings record showing earnings from January 12
through June 22 , 1966, and from August 9 to
December 20, 1966 . Snowden admitted , contrary
to counsel 's assumption , that there were no
earnings from July 1 through August 4 ; and the
earnings record otherwise appears to accord with
the figures in the specification.
III. THE TESTIMONY OF THE DISCRIMINATEES
A. Stanford Roberts
Stanford Roberts was employed as an electrician
and maintenance man at the Aynor plant . Though
Respondents concede that the manner of comput-
ing Roberts ' backpay accords with the Board's for-
mula approved by the Supreme Court in N . L.R.B.
v. Seven - Up Bottling Company, 344 U . S. 344, his
testimony throws considerable light on the difficul-
ties which he and the other discriminatees faced in
finding work in the area.
Roberts testified that when first interviewed at
the Employment Office he was informed by a Mr.
Sessions that there would be no trouble finding him
a job because Aerovox ( at Myrtle Beach) was look-
ing for an electrician . When Roberts returned the
following week , however , Sessions told him that
because he had been fired at Aynor , Aerovox
would not hire him because " they wasn 't hunting
no union organizers." On a subsequent occasion
after Roberts was laid off during an interim employ-
ment at Lord Electric Company, he returned to the
Employment Office to apply for unemployment
compensation and was interviewed by a Mrs . Ricks.
Mrs. Ricks informed him that he would be able to
receive benefits because the office had been unable
to find him a job before and that this was due to the
fact that all of the discriminatees had been fired on
account of the Union.
Though Respondents contend that backpay
would be tolled for a few weeks in the spring of
1966 when Roberts was temporarily laid off by
Lord Electric Company, Roberts testified he was
permitted to draw unemployment compensation
after Mrs. Ricks informed him why the office could
not find him a job . He was also informed that other
plants in the area had all the electricians they
needed . As for self-employment , Roberts testified
he was without the tools and equipment necessary
to set himself up again in the house wiring business
in which he once engaged.
B. Christine Sellers
Christine Sellers, who registered for unemploy-
ment shortly after her discharge on August 2,
testified she sought work every day except Satur-
days and Sundays . In addition to applying to the
seven concerns whose representatives testified
herein , Sellers sought work from employers in
Marion ( Herbert Mills) and Mullins (Glenn 's Sport-
swear and Rickeys ) and through the Employment
Office in Marion . At Florence , some 52 miles away,
she applied to Electric Motors and to the papermill.
She also went with Letha Tyler Miller to Lake City
(some 45 miles from her home ) where they ob-
tained a job on condition they get a place to live in
Lake City , but being unable to find a place to stay
they did not report to work . In a number of cases
Sellers listed Aynor Manufacturing on her applica-
tion as a prior employer and was informed in all
such cases that the employer was not hiring. She
did not go to Tabor City or to Whiteville, North
Carolina , testifying she had never been to either
town.
Sellers testified the Employment Office referred
her to only two employers , Aerovox and the curtain
factory . On her first application to Aerovox , Sellers
listed Aynor as a prior employer and was informed
that the Company did not need any help . Sellers
returned sometime later , however , and filed
another application under her maiden name , Smith,
was hired under that name , but was discharged
after 2 days by a letter which informed her she was
no longer needed.
Sellers also testified to a conversation with Mrs.
Ricks at the Employment Office in Conway con-
cerning a posted notice which listed openings for
sewing machine operators . After making a phone
call, Ricks informed Sellers that " they " could not
use her because she had been " mixed up in that
union stuff ... at Aynor." Sellers testified to a
similar conversation with Ricks in August 1966,
subsequent to the reinstatement date.
C. Drunella Lewis
Respondents make no real attack on the interim
earnings of Drunella Lewis but point to her as an
example of what an industrious individual could do
who wanted to work . One phase of Lewis'
testimony , however , should be noted as corroborat-
ing Letha Tyler Miller that the basis of the latter's
rejection by Manhattan Shirt Company of Char-
leston was a company rule requiring a 1-year re-
sidence in Charleston . Lewis testified the rule ex-
isted but was waived in her case because an excep-
tion was permitted where there was an old em-
ployee who would vouch for the applicant . Lewis'
sister-in-law had worked for the company some 10
years.
D. Geneva Allen Edge
The specification eliminated from the backpay
period in the case of Geneva Allen Edge the period
from November 12, 1965, to April 16, 1966, and
the further period from April 20 to May 3, 1966.
Of the remaining periods for which backpay is
claimed , Respondents question Edge's interim
earnings only in the second quarter of 1965, follow-
ing her discharge on May 19, contending that Edge
did not seek work before she applied to Aerovox on
July 2 . Respondents otherwise cite Edge as a sig-
MARLENE INDUSTRIES CORP.
nificant example of how one could obtain work in
Horry County if he actively sought it.
Though Edge testified concerning her attempts to
obtain work with such employers as Conway Tex-
tile and either Johnson Manufacturing or Carolina
Strand and also with various retail stores and the
Conway hospital, she was unable to fix the time of
those attempts and finally admitted that she could
not say "truthfully" whether she applied to any
concern before she filed her written application
with Aerovox. On the basis of that testimony and
Edge's admitted failure to register with the Employ-
ment Office, I find that she made no reasonable ef-
fort to obtain work before July 1, 1965.
E. Ruth Gerrald
Ruth Gerrald lived some 14 miles from Aynor at
the time of her discharge and some 25 or 30 miles
from Conway. She registered for unemployment
benefits at the Conway office and drew compensa-
tion until Christmas. Though Gerrald went to Con-
way each week to get her check she did not seek
employment there because (she testified) it was too
far from her home and she also denied that the of-
fice referred her to any prospective employers.
Sometime later, however, Gerrald's records were
transferred to the Marion County office from which
she was referred to Southern Packaging, at which
she obtained employment on January 12, 1966.
Though Gerrald had once worked for Mullins Tex-
tile she did not apply there for she considered the
work to be too hard. Gerrald has also formerly
worked at Herbert Mills in Marion but did not
apply there either though she did go to some de-
partment stores in Mullins.
F. Letha Tyler Miller
Letha Tyler Miller had no interim earnings dur-
ing the backpay period. She lived with her parents,
who not only supported her but made the payments
on her car and paid for its upkeep and operation.
Miller registered for unemployment compensation
and drew benefits for the maximum of 22 weeks.
The Employment Office suggested only one place
of employment, Aerovox, and Miller applied, listing
Aynor Manufacturing Company as a prior em-
ployer. She was not hired. Miller also called on the
telephone to Franklin Brass and to Nye's Pharmacy
but was told they were not hiring.
In company with Christine Sellers, Miller drove
to Lake City, some 60 miles from her home, and
was informed that they could have jobs on condi-
tion they live in Lake City. They were unable to
find a place to live after searching the remainder of
the day and did not report to work on the job.
Miller was also refused a job by Manhattan Shirt
55
Company at Charleston (some 115 miles away)4
because of a rule requiring a year's residence in
Charleston. See Drunella Lewis, supra.
Miller did not apply to Conway Textiles because,
she testified, she was allergic to fiberglass of which
she understood the curtains were made. She did not
apply to Carolina Strand Company and, as for
Johnson Manufacturing, she did not know exactly
where it was and did not know that it used sewing
machines in making upholstered furniture.
G. Minnie Bourne Lane
Minnie Bourne Lane had extensive experience in
operating various types of sewing machines in the
garment industry but had no experience on other
work. Lane had no interim earnings after her
discharge until she began working for Aerovox on
July 19, 1966 (on a job for which she had to be
trained). However, the specification eliminated the
entire period from February 16 to August 4, 1966,
because of pregnancy.
Under Lane's testimony she registered with the
Employment Office and also actively sought em-
ployment at a number of concerns. She first went to
Aerovox shortly after her discharge, to the curtain
factory, to Johnson Manufacturing Company, and
to Wolverine Brass Company, asking for any job
she could do. She also filed an application with
Respondents' plant at Loris and was informed by a
Mrs. Medlin that she would be called if there were
an opening. Lane did not apply to Mullins Textile
because the distance (40 miles) was farther than
she wished to commute. In general her applications
were made to plants and factories in the line of
work in which she was experienced, and she did not
apply to such concerns as motels, restaurants,
stores, or gift shops because she was without ex-
perience in those lines of work. The Employment
Office referred her to only two places, Conway
Textile and Respondents' plant at Loris, and she
applied to both without success.
H. Margaret Dell Jordan
Margaret Dell Jordan had no interim earnings
during the period prior to the offer of reinstatement
on August 4, 1966. Backpay was disclaimed, how-
ever, during the period from July 1 to 14, 1965,
because of illness and consequent unavailability for
work and again from November 10, 1965, to May
11, 1966, because of pregnancy.
Under Jordan's testimony she actively sought
work in the area from numerous manufacturing
concerns and retail establishments. On August 13,
1965, however, the Employment Office issued a
determination finding that Jordan had not been
available for work within the meaning of the South
Carolina Statute because:
Miller testified that she was also accompanied on that trip by Christine
Sellers but Sellers denied she went to Charleston I conclude that Miller
was mistaken in identifying Sellers as the person who accompanied her
56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The claimant is not making an active per-
sonal search for work . In the past few weeks
she has not applied to any employer for work.
Further , she thinks she is pregnant and she is
not interested in working at this time . In order
to be eligible for benefits a person must be
able, available and actively seeking regular full
time work without limitation or restriction.
The General Counsel represented that Jordan
was in fact in the first stages of pregnancy during
the 2 weeks of illness first eliminated from the
specification and that the pregnancy continued into
the period beginning November 10. The terminal
date of that period , May 11, 1966 , was 3 months
subsequent to the birth of the child.
Jordan testified that a few days after her
discharge she applied to the Employment Office
and that she drew compensation benefits both be-
fore and after her baby was born . She denied that
after she knew she was pregnant she made no real
efforts to find a job.
I. Pauline Strickland
Pauline Strickland had no employment prior to
her job at the Aynor plant where she operated a
machine doing " tagging ." Strickland registered for
unemployment at the Conway office and was
referred by it to only one employer, the curtain fac-
tory, which permitted her to file an application but
never called her in to work.
Strickland lived on RFD out of Galivant 's Ferry,
some 7 miles from Aynor , some 22 miles from Con-
way, and around 22 miles from Mullins. Her only
employment during the backpay period was for I
hour at Mullins Textile Company on February 21,
1966, and although the specification listed her
earnings at $1.15, Strickland testified she did not
receive even that sum, for she walked off the job
without notice to the employer because she was
unable to do the work . ( See fn . 3, supra).
Strickland testified she looked for employment
"off and on" after her discharge and, in addition to
Mullins Textile and the curtain factory, she applied
to Aerovox , Johnson Manufacturing, and Franklin
Brass, noting her prior employment at Aynor. She
filed an application at Franklin Brass and was told
she would be called if needed, but she was not
called. She was informed similarly at Johnson
Manufacturing that she would be called if needed
and on a subsequent call that statement was re-
peated . She also called the Aynor plant and asked
for her job back and she filed an application at
Loris plant 2, but was told nothing.
Except for riding with other employees or
neighbors Strickland was without transporation
after she lost her car in September 1965. Strickland
testified , however , that she drove with her sister to
Laurinberg , North Carolina ( 52 miles ), and sought
work at some four cotton mills, the towel factory,
and the watch plant . If successful in obtaining work
there, she intended to move her family.
Strickland , who was a widow with several chil-
dren , was examined sharply concerning her ability
to support her family in the face of the fact she was
without income . Strickland explained that her chil-
dren received through their father $200 a month
from social security payments on which the family
subsisted , and though she suggested that a boy
friend might have given her $ 10 or $25 , she denied
he in fact had done so.
J. Edna A . Gerrald
The testimony of Edna Gerrald showed that her
opportunities for employment were drastically
limited . She and her husband ( a farmer ) lived on
RFD out of Galivant 's Ferry some 10 or 12 miles
from the Aynor plant to which Gerrald had usually
commuted by hitchhiking with other employees.
She lived some 20 to 22 miles from Mullins and
about the same distance from Marion . Conway was
further away in an opposite direction.
Gerrald registered with the Employment Office
in Marion County and was referred by it to Mullins
Textile. On September 27, 1965 , the office issued a
determination upholding her refusal of work there
because the job was 20 miles from her home,
required some overtime work , and Gerrald could
not arrange suitable transportation.
Gerrald also sought work at Herbert Mills at
Marion , explaining that she could arrange transpor-
tation there , but she was informed that it was not
hiring anyone . She made calls to the Loris and
Aynor plants but was informed there were no job
openings and they were not taking applications.
Gerrald also filed an application at the Employ-
ment Office for work at Southern Packaging, stat-
ing she would take any job she could get in a facto-
ry. She made no attempt to seek work in Conway
or that area because she was unable to obtain trans-
portation to and from work. Gerrald made no at-
tempt to obtain employment as clerk or cashier in
any restaurant , motel, department store, or drug-
store testifying the compensation was to her
knowledge too little ($20 a week) to justify trans-
portation expenses.
Aside from occasional use of her husband's
truck , Gerrald had no means of transportation and
she was able to get to Mullins to pick up her checks
only by riding with another employee.
K. Barbara Smith Johnson
Barbara Smith Johnson, age 22 , a single girl prior
to her marriage in February 1967, lived with her
parents and paid no board or rent. She rode to and
from the Aynor plant , some mile or so from her
home, with another employee. Following her
discharge Johnson 's parents took care of all her
financial needs, including food , clothing, and trans-
portation.
Johnson registered for unemployment at Conway
and received benefit payments from that office. Her
MARLENE INDUSTRIES CORP.
only interim earnings were in the second and third
quarters of 1966 when she received $160.20 from a
five and ten cent store in Conway and $26.40 from
Burger Chef.5
Johnson testified that after registering for unem-
ployment she immediately started to look for work,
knowing that she had to do so. She went first to
Aerovox, took the test at the Employment Office,
and passed it. Though Aerovox informed her it did
not need anyone, Johnson nevertheless returned
three or four times altogether. Johnson also went to
Franklin Brass on two or three occasions and ap-
plied to a number of stores in Conway who used
sales clerks, such as Jerry Cox' Department Store,
Jones' Dime Store, Nye's Drugstore, Edwards Dime
Store, and Conway Bakery. Johnson also applied to
the curtain factory every 2 or 3 months without
success. She did not go to Johnson Manufacturing
for she assumed it hired only men and she did not
go to Conway Textiles. Though the Employment
Office referred her to the Loris plant, she did not
apply for she considered it useless to do so.'
Johnson was driven by her father in the course of
the foregoing searches for work and he also drove
her to and from the job she later worked at. She
sought no jobs in any of the stores at Myrtle Beach
(some 30 miles away) because the transportation
expense was out of proportion to the earnings on
such jobs. Employment at Conway, however, was
feasible because her mother worked there.
L. Nannie Martin
Nannie Martin had no prior employment before
going through a training program at the Aynor
plant to learn the operation of a sewing machine.
She lived some 7 miles from Aynor in the direction
of Conway and rode to work with Minnie Bourne
Lane. Martin's husband worked at Myrtle Beach
and used his own car for transportation to his job,
passing by Franklin Brass at Conway and Aerovox
at Myrtle Beach.
When Martin registered with the Employment
Office on August 4, she did not specify any particu-
lar job but simply stated that she needed a job. She
drew compensation benefits until December 30,
and on her final visit to sign for her last check she
was referred to the curtain factory, to which she
had previously applied. Though she procured a
health card as required and returned on three more
occasions, she was not hired.
Martin also applied to Franklin Brass on two or
three occasions before her compensation ended
and to Aerovox and was finally hired by Franklin
Brass in the second quarter of 1966. She commuted
to that job by riding with another employee.
'The employment at Burger Chef was developed during Johnson's
testimony at the hearing and pursuant to stipulation of the parties, received
after the hearing, the specification is hereby amended to reflect those,
earnings and the consequent diminution of net backpay from $227 to $201
in the third quarter of 1966
57
Though knowing of Johnson Manufacturing and
Carolina Strand, Martin did not apply to them,
being unaware that they used sewing machines in
the manufacture of furniture. She did not seek a job
in any restaurant or retail or grocery store at Myrtle
Beach or Conway, testifying she did not know
anything about that kind of job.
M. Mary Roberts
Mary Roberts (wife of Stanford) applied to the
Employment Office for unemployment compensa-
tion shortly after her discharge and also sought
work unsuccessfully at a food store in Aynor, at
the curtain factory, and at Herbert Mills in Marion.
In January 1966 she obtained employment at
Aerovox in Myrtle Beach where she had previously
worked in 1950.
Roberts testified that the Employment Office
gave her the names of no employing concerns
where she might obtain work and there is no
testimony to the contrary. Roberts knew that John-
son Manufacturing Company and Wolverine
(Franklin) Brass were in Conway but did not apply
to them. She did not know of Carolina Strand.
N. John G. Disher
John G. Disher, presently in the Armed Forces,
was underage, not only when he worked at the
Loris plant but during the backpay period, and the
Employment Office informed him that because of
that it would be difficult to find work for him.
Disher testified, however, that he sought work at
various places such as service stations, grocery
stores, the furniture plant at Mullins, and a plant at
Marion. He did not apply, however, to Carolina
Strand and he never heard of Johnson Manufactur-
ing Company. Neither did Disher apply to Southern
Packaging in Mullins across the street from Mullins
Textile where he worked in the first and second
quarters of 1966.
During Disher's testimony it developed that he
also worked for Siding, Inc., in the fourth quarter of
1965 with net earnings of $337.50 and the specifi-
cation was amended accordingly on motion of the
General Counsel. Disher testified he was discharged
from that job for being underage (17 ).
Disher voluntarily quit his job at Mullins Textile
on May 14, 1966 (following his grandmother's
death), and went back to live with his mother at her
request. Though Disher claimed continuing efforts
to obtain work after that he was able to recall only
a single application, to Electrosystems, sometime in
June 1966.
s
That conclusion seems patently justified since none of the dis-
cnmmatees obtained reinstatement either at Loris or Aynor at any time
prior to August 4, 1966 See also the testimony of Stanford Roberts and
Christine Sellers
58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
0. Joe D. Doyle, Jr.
Joe D. Doyle, Jr., who lived some 12 to 14 miles
out of Conway, was employed at Loris plant 1. His
only earnings during the backpay period were
$8.76 in the first quarter of 1966 and $21.66 in the
second quarter. Though Doyle was married and had
one child, the family was supported by the earnings
of his wife, who was employed during the entire
backpay period at the Loris plant.
Doyle testified he registered for unemployment
at Conway just after his discharge and first applied
for work at a Firestone recapping plant at Tabor
City, after stopping at a few service stations on the
way, and he also went to Loris plant 2 on one or
two occasions. The Employment Office required
him to fill in a sheet each week listing the places he
looked for work and on his weekly trips to that of-
fice he sought work at service stations and at Car-
roll Motors (the Ford Dealer). Doyle also went to
Aerovox and a couple of service stations at Myrtle
Beach, using his wife's car after he dropped her off
from work. The Employment Office referred him to
a part-time job at the steam plant where he helped
to unload a boxcar for a few hours. He was later
hired at Aerovox on a cleanup job but was laid off
in 2 or 3 days. Doyle later went back to Aerovox
after taking a test at the Employment Office but
was not hired. Doyle could commute 'to Aerovox
because his brother worked there and he could
have accepted work at Tabor City because he could
have dropped his wife off on the way through Loris.
Otherwise Doyle was limited in transportation to
riding with neighbors and relatives.
Though Doyle had done sanding for a furniture
company in a prior employment he did not know of
such a place as Johnson's Manufacturing Company
or Carolina Strand. Neither did Doyle apply at the
curtain factory because he was allergic to
fiberglass, knowing through a sister-in-law em-
ployed there that the product was used in making
curtains. Though knowing of Franklin Brass he did
not go there because friends who worked there in-
formed him it was "an awful job" and dangerous.
Finally Doyle testified he went to Laurinberg,
North Carolina, where he applied to Parr Gas Com-
pany, to several service stations, and to Prince's
Chevrolet.
P. Harry D. Rabon
Harry D. Rabon, discharged on June 28, 1955,
registered for unemployment benefits on July 2 and
drew benefits for 22 weeks. Rabon testified he went
everywhere he knew to seek employment, including
Johnson Manufacturing Company, Jerry Cox Com-
pany, Wolverine Brass , the curtain factory,
Aerovox, Stilley Plywood Company, Goodson Con-
r Confusion between the testimony of Rabon and of J Grier Johnson
(see sec 11) concerning the days on which Rabon worked was resolved by
Rabon 's timecards which showed that he worked on 4 consecutive work-
struction Company at Aynor, and several service
stations around Conway. He also applied to
Carolina Strand and to Southern Packaging in Mul-
lins but he did not know that Mullins Textile was
also there.
Rabon was hired at Johnson Manufacturing
Company in late February 1966 but was discharged
after a few days.? During that employment he was
subpenaed to testify in the unfair labor practice
case in this proceeding and he showed the subpena
to Johnson's daughter-in-law, who informed him it
was okay to be off. However, after he returned to
work the following Monday morning, Johnson told
him he was being laid off because his job had run
out. Rabon showed his subpena to Johnson, who
looked at it but did not revoke the layoff.
The specification also listed subsequent employ-
ments at Schoolfield Industries, Mullins, and at
Nye's Pharmacy, Conway, though Rabon testified
he believed the Schoolfield employment was prior
to that at Johnson Manufacturing. Rabon was
similarly under the impression that he had worked
at Conway Fence Products in 1965 but subsequent
production of a W-2 form established that that em-
ployment was in 1967.
Further confusion concerning the dates of
Rabon's visits to the Employment Office in 1965
resulted from production of a booklet in which the
dates of certain visits were noted. Following careful
examination of the booklet, however, the Trial Ex-
aminer suggested to the parties that the entries
therein related to the year 1968, and that was stipu-
lated to be correct.
IV. CONCLUDING FINDINGS
We begin by noting that in order to establish a
willful loss of earnings Respondents are faced with
the necessity of overcoming the testimony of the
discriminatees, who were called to testify concern-
ing their efforts to obtain employment, and that
with few exceptions there was no direct refutation
of the latter testimony by representatives of em-
ploying concerns in the area. Furthermore,
Richardson's testimony concerning the routines of
the Employment Office itself added support to the
testimony of the discriminatees (all of whom re-
gistered with it except Geneva Allen Edge) since
eligibility to continue receiving unemployment
benefits was made contingent upon a weekly show-
ing to the office of reasonable efforts to obtain
work.
Of prime significance also was the undenied
testimony of Stanford Roberts and Christine Sellers
concerning statements of Sessions and Ricks at the
Employment Office regarding the futility of refer-
ring applicants known to have been discharged by
Respondents for union activities. In addition,
days, i e , Wednesday and Thursday at the end of 1 workweek, and Friday
and Monday at the beginning of the next
MARLENE INDUSTRIES CORP.
testimony by a number of other discriminatees
showed that in a substantial number of cases
prospective employers lost interest where the appli-
cations listed, or the applicants mentioned, prior
employment at Aynor or Loris. Sellers' testimony
furnished a graphic example. When first referred to
Aerovox, she listed Aynor as a prior employer and
was informed that no help was needed. She was
hired on a subsequent application, however, when
she resorted to the subterfuge of giving her maiden
name and omitted mention of her employment at
Aynor.
It is also to be noted that Respondents made no
showing that any discriminatee failed to apply for
work to any employer to whom the Employment
Office referred him. The absence of written appli-
cations in the files of the employing concerns was
not of significance for two reasons: first, the per-
sonnel files were periodically cleaned out, and
second, testimony by the discriminatees showed
that in many cases oral applications were summari-
ly rejected and no written applications were taken.
In the face of the foregoing, the general
testimony by representatives of the employing con-
cerns regarding the number of hires and the rate of
turnover during the backpay period was of little sig-
nificance. Indeed the evidence strongly suggests
that for the most part there was little interest in the
employing community in taking on employees who
had been discharged at Aynor and Loris, a fact
which was explicitly recognized by two representa-
tives of the Employment Office.
It is in the light of the foregoing that final conclu-
sions are made on Respondents' contentions that
the discriminatees removed themselves from the
labor market or suffered a willful loss of earnings.
Stanford Roberts: As I have found without sub-
stantial basis Respondents' contentions concerning
Roberts' interim earnings, I adopt the computations
set forth in the specification and find that Roberts
is due the total sum of $1,093. See Appendix A.s
Christine Sellers: Respondents' contentions that
Sellers showed a lack of diligence in seeking work
and that she should not be rewarded for her in-
dolence can be viewed only as the extravagant
hyperbole of an advocate, for Sellers' testimony
showed her to be probably the most active of all of
the discriminatees in seeking work. She had a car
and she used it day after day looking for a job. The
failure to take a job at Lake City represented no
willful loss of earnings because she was unable to
meet the condition that she find a place to live
there.
I therefore adopt the computations set forth in
the specification and I find that Sellers is due the
total sum of $2,466. See Appendix A.
Drunella Lewis: Since Respondents' brief does
not question Lewis' interim earnings, I adopt the
computations contained in the specification and
" In the interest of brevity the Appendix has been condensed to a quar-
terly summary of gross backpay , net interim earnings, and net backpay,
59
find that Lewis is due the total sum of $465. See
Appendix A.
Geneva Allen Edge: As I have upheld Respon-
dents' contention that Edge made no effort to ob-
tain employment prior to July 1, 1 find that she was
not entitled to backpay in the second quarter of
1965, computed at $285. Adopting the remainder
of the computations, I find that Edge is due a total
sum of $353 ($638 less $285). See Appendix A.
Ruth Gerrald: Gerrald's testimony showed that
she sought no employment in the Conway area
though she went there each week until Christmas
1965 to pick up her compensation check. Neither
did she seek work at Mullins Textile or Herbert
Mills, though she had formerly worked at both
plants. It was not until Gerrald's compensation
benefits ended that she sought and obtained work
at Southern Packaging at Mullins on referral by the
employment office of Marion County.
I therefore conclude and find that Gerrald made
no reasonable search for work during the last two
quarters of 1965, that she incurred a willful loss of
earnings , and that she is entitled to no backpay in
those quarters. Adopting the computations for the
quarters in 1966, I conclude and find that Gerrald
is due the total sum of $553. See Appendix A.
Letha Tyler Miller: Miller's testimony showed
that over a total period of nearly 14 months she
made personal application for only one job in
Horry County (Aerovox) and two by telephone
(Franklin Brass and• Nye's Pharmacy). Two other
applications were made at distant points. Since the
ownership of a car removed all transportation
problems, the record suggests no reason why
Miller, having nothing else to do, should not have
made frequent and repeated searches for work. Cf.
Christine Sellers, supra. I conclude and find in view
of Miller's situation that her limited searches for
work did not constitute a reasonable effort to ob-
tain employment, that Miller incurred a willful loss
of earnings, and that she is not entitled to any
backpay.
Minnie Bourne Lane: Respondents' contentions
that Lane suffered a willful loss of earnings is based
mainly on the view that employment was available
in such quantities that she could have obtained
work had she exercised reasonable diligence and in-
itiative. At the beginning of this section I have out-
lined at length the reasons why the apparent oppor-
tunities for work available to the discriminatees
herein were far from real, to the knowledge of
representatives of the Employment Office. Lane re-
gistered with that office and, in addition to applying
to employers to whom it referred her, she actively
sought work at a number of other concerns.
I conclude and find that Respondent failed to
establish that Lane suffered a willful loss of
earnings and, adopting the computations contained
there being no issues herein on such matters as transportation expenses,
etc
60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the specification, I find that Lane is entitled to
the total sum of $1,891. See Appendix A.
Margaret Dell Jordan: The Employment Office
found in its determination of August 13, 1965, that
Jordan had made no active personal search for
work for several weeks and was not interested in
working at the time. As the General Counsel made
no attempt to establish that the office revoked that
determination at any time prior to November 10, 1
therefore reject the backpay claimed for the third
quarter (i.e., from July 14 through September 30)
in the sum of $535, and for the fourth quarter (i.e.,
from October 1 through November 10) in the sum
of $262.
The evidence, however, does not support
Respondent's contention that Jordon also incurred
a willful loss of earnings in the period prior to July
1 , 1965, and subsequent to May 1 1, 1966, since
Jordan's testimony shows she applied for work at
numerous establishments in the area during those
periods, and that she received compensation
benefits prior to August 13. 1 therefore find that
Jordan is due the total sum of $869. See Appendix
A.
Pauline Strickland: Strickland 's efforts to obtain
work are to be measured in the light of her oppor-
tunities for seeking work in the labor market which
was available to her. In contrast to the situation of
Sellers and Miller, Strickland was practically
without means of transportation following the loss
of her car in September 1965. She lived in a rural
area some 22 miles from both Conway and Mullins
and was forced to rely on such rides as she could
obtain from neighbors, some of whom were also
seeking employment. I conclude and find in view of
the circumstances of her situation that Strickland
made reasonable efforts to obtain work and did not
voluntarily remove herself from the labor market.
Indeed, there was very little market available to her
within the distance which the Employment Office
considered to be a normal one for commuting to
and from work.
Strickland's failure to remain at work at Mullins
Textile did not constitute such a voluntary rejection
of work as to disqualify her for backpay thereafter.
The job was a new one for her which she found she
was wholly unable to perform (she could not even
thread the needle). If Strickland had, with
knowledge of those facts, simply rejected the job
offer, her refusal of the employment plainly would
not have disqualified her for backpay.
Adopting the computations set forth in the
specification, I conclude and find that Strickland is
entitled to a total sum of $2,830. See Appendix A.
Edna A. Gerrald. Gerrald's situation as regarded
the location of her home and the absence of trans-
portation closely resembled Pauline Strickland's,
supra. Her failure to accept work at Mullins (closer
than Conway) was upheld by the Employment Of-
fice of Marion County because she was unable to
arrange transportation. Though employment in the
town of Marion was feasible because Gerrald could
have ridden with other employees , she was unsuc-
cessful in her applications to Herbert Mills and
Southern Packaging . Though transportation was
also available to Aynor and Loris , Gerrald 's calls to
Respondents ' plants there proved fruitless.
I therefore conclude-and find that Gerrald made
reasonable efforts to obtain work in the area of
availability and that she did not incur a willful loss
of earnings or withdraw from the labor market. In-
deed , as in Strickland 's case there was very little of
the market which was available to Gerrald.
I therefore adopt the computations set forth in
the specification and find that Edna Gerrald is enti-
tled to the total sum of $2 , 562. See Appendix A.
Barbara Smith Johnson : Johnson was another sin-
gle employee who lived with and was supported by
her parents and, though she had no car of her own
(as Letha Tyler Miller had ), she was driven wher-
ever she wanted to go by her father. Also unlike
Miller, Johnson actively sought employment at nu-
merous establishments during the backpay period.
I conclude and find that Johnson made reasona-
ble efforts to obtain work and that she incurred no
willful loss of earnings . Adopting the computation
set forth in the specification , as amended ( see fn. 5,
supra ), I find that Johnson is due a total sum of
$ 2,376 . See Appendix A.
Nannie Martin : The evidence does not support
Respondents ' contention that Martin waited until
the end of her compensation benefits before seek-
ing employment . Her testimony to the contrary also
received inferential support from the Employment
Office routines under which claimants were
required to make weekly showing of active searches
and of availability for work.
I therefore conclude and find that Respondents
failed to establish that Martin incurred a willful loss
of earnings and, adopting the computation con-
tained in the specification , I find that Martin is due
the total sum of $2,243 . See Appendix A.
Mary Roberts: Though Roberts had previously
worked for Aerovox , she did not apply there until
January 1966 , when she obtained employment
which lasted through the end of the backpay
period. No explanation was made why Roberts
failed sooner to go to Aerovox , and her searches el-
sewhere were few in number, omitting such con-
cerns as Johnson Manufacturing , Franklin Brass,
and Carolina Strand . The inference is plainly war-
ranted from the evidence that Roberts was content
to stay home and do housekeeping until the ter-
mination of her unemployment benefits. When
those ended , she experienced no difficulty in going
back to her former employer.
I therefore conclude and find that Roberts made
no reasonable effort to obtain work until January
1966, and that she incurred a willful loss of
earnings during the quarters in 1965 . Adopting the
computations for the quarters in 1966, I find that
Roberts is due a total sum of $269. See Appendix
A.
MARLENE INDUSTRIES CORP.
John G. Disher: Disher was severly handicapped
in obtaining employment because of his age, an im-
pediment recognized by the Employment Office.
Despite that, Disher's testimony showed that he
made an active search for work down to the time
he quit Mullins Textile Mills on May 19, 1966.
After voluntarily quitting that job, however, Disher
made only a single attempt to find work, at Elec-
trosystems. He did not work and sought no work el-
sewhere , but simply remained at home pursuant to
his mother's wish that he be with her. I therefore
conclude and find Disher voluntarily withdrew from
the labor market when he quit his job at Mullins
Textile, and that he is entitled to no backpay
thereafter.
As the quit occurred almost precisely in the mid-
dle of the second quarter I find that Disher's gross
backpay ($720), when reduced by half ($360), is
less than his interim earnings with Mullins Textile
in that quarter ($372). I therefore find that Disher
is entitled to no backpay in the second and third
quarters ($348 and $349, respectively). Further-
more, pursuant to amendment of the specification
at the hearing, Disher's backpay for the fourth
quarter of 1965 is reduced by the amount of his
earnings at Siding, Inc. ($337.50); i.e., from $711
to $373.
Adopting the computations for the remaining
quarters , I conclude and find that Disher is due a
total sum of $1,308. See Appendix A.
Joe D. Doyle, Jr.: Though many of Doyle's
searches of work were made at service stations, his
testimony showed that he also sought employment
at industrial plants such as Aerovox, Firestone, Parr
Gas Company, and the Loris plant, as well as at
auto dealers. Doyle also obtained brief part-time
employment on referrals by the Employment Office
but he was not rehired at Aerovox despite taking
the required test. I conclude and find that Respon-
dents' other evidence was insufficient to overcome
Doyle's testimony concerning his attempts to find
work and did not establish that Doyle removed
himself from the labor market or that he incurred a
willful loss of earnings. Adopting the computations
contained in the designation, I therefore find that
Doyle is due backpay in the total sum of $3,046.
See Appendix A.
Harry D. Rabon: Rabon's testimony showed that
he actively sought employment and I find that
61
Respondent failed to establish that he suffered a
willful loss of earnings . Much of the confusion
reflected in the testimony was due to Rabon's un-
certainty and errors regarding dates. The circum-
stances of his discharge at Johnson 's Manufacturing
did not reflect a voluntary quitting of employment.
Certainly there was nothing irregular about his
work habits, the reason to which Johnson testified,
for Rabon had worked 4 consecutive days before
being subpenaed to the Board hearing . But what-
ever Johnson's reasons were, the evidence does not
establish that the termination represented a volun-
tary giving up of employment on Rabon's part.
Adopting the computations set out in the specifi-
cation, I conclude and find that Rabon is due the
total sum of $2,224. See Appendix A.
Summarizing the above findings, I find that the
discriminatees are due the amount set opposite
their names as listed below, plus interest to the date
of payment as provided in the Board's decision, 166
NLRB 703:
Stanford Roberts $1,093.00
Christine Sellers 2 ,466.00
Drunella Lewis 465.00
Geneva Allen Edge 353.00
Ruth Gerrald 553.00
Letha Tyler Miller 0.00
Minnie Bourne Lane 1,891.00
Margaret Dell 869.00
Jordan
Pauline Strickland 2,830.00
Edna A. Gerrald 2,562.00
Barbara Smith 2,376.00
Johnson
Nannie Martin 2,243.00
Mary Roberts 269.00
John G. Disher 1,308.00
Joe D. Doyle, Jr. 3,046.00
Harry D. Rabon 2,224 00
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings and con-
clusions it is ordered that Respondents, their of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, pay to the
employees the amounts set opposite their names as
listed above, plus interest as prescribed.
62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
Stanford Roberts
Calendar
Quarter
Cross
Backpav
Net Interim
Earnings
Net
Backpav
1965-2 $ 496.60 $ -0- $ 497.00
(5/17-6/30)
3 1071.96 593.00 479.00
4 1066.67 2037.25 -0-
1966-1 1080.01 2345.25 -0-
2 998. 31 881 .38 117.00
3 429.17 715.56 -0-
(7/1-8/4) $1,093.00
1965-3
Christine Sellers
(8/3-9/30) $ 432.76 -0- $ 443.00
4 568.09 -0- 568.00
1961-1 638.51 30.00 609.00
2 627.18 -0- 627.00
3
(7/1-8/4) 228.67 -0- 229.00
$2,466.00
1965-3
Drunella Lewis
(8/16-9/30) $ 345.42 28.00 $ 317.00
4 590.63 695.17 -0-
1966-1 663.85 563.27 101.00
2 652.06 604.96 47.00
3
(7/1-8/4) 237.73 278.18 -0-
$ 465.00
Geneva (Allen) Edge
1965-2
(5/19-6/30) $ -0- $ -0- $ -0-
3 618.59 347.05 272.00
4
(10/1-11 / 12) 280 .79 425.11 -0-
1966-1 -0- -0- -0-
2
(4/15-4/20) 463.58 474.08 -0-
(5/3-6/30)
3
(7/1-8/4) 226.96 146.26 81.00
$ 353.00
MARLENE INDUSTRIES CORP.
Calendar Gross Net Interim
Quarter Backpay Earnings
63
Net
Backpav
Ruth Cerrald
1965-3
(7/16-9/30) $ -0- $ -0- $ -0-
4 -0- -0- -0-
1966-1 633.00 453.13 181.00
2 621.97 476.92 145.00
3
(7/1-8/4) 226.96 -0- 227.00
$ 533.00
Letha Tyler Miller
This employee is due no backpay
Minnie Bourne Lane
1965-2
(6/16-6/30) $ 110.40 $ -0- $ 110.00
3 732.39 -0- 732.00
4 667.25 -0- 667.00
1966-1
(1/1-2/16) 382.41 -0- 382.00
2 -0- -0- -0-
3
(7/1-8/4) -0- -0- -0-
$1,891.00
Margaret Dell Jordan
1965-2
(5/19-6/30) $ 285.00 $ -0- $ 285.00
3
(7/14-9/30) -0- -0- -0-
4
(10/4-11/10) -0- -0- -0-
1966-1 -0- -0- -0-
2 356.86 -0- 357.00
3
(7/1-8/4) 226.96 -0- 227.00
$ 869.00
Pauline Strickland
1965-3
(7/23-9/30) $ 505.63 -0- $ 506.00
4 674.64 -0- 675.00
1966-1 708.01 1.15 707.00
2 688 .69 -0- 689.00
3
(7/1-8/4) 252.54 -0- 253.00
$2,830.00
- ii -
64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Calendar
Quarter
Gross
Backpav
Net Interim
Earning
Net
Backpav
Edna Alford rerrald
1965-3
(7/16-9/30) $ 514.84 $ $ 515.00
4 563.60 -0- 564.00
1966-1 633.72 634.00
622 002 621/97 .
3
(7/1-8/4) 226.96 -0- 227.00
$2,562.00
Barbara Smith Johnson
1965-3
(7/16-9/30) $ 514.84 $ -0- $ 515.00
4 563.00 -0- 565.00
1966-1 633.72 -0- 634.00
2 621.97 160.20 462.00
3
(7/1-8/4) 226.96 26.40 201.00
$2,376.00
Nannie Martin
1965-3
(7/22-9/30) $ 447.59 $ -0- $ 478.00
4 563.60 -0- 564.00
1966-1 633.72 -0- 634.00
2 621.97 55.27 567.00
3
(7/1-8/4) 226.97 390.05 -0-
$2,243.00
Mary Roberts
1965-2
(4/28-6/30) $ -0- -0- $ -0-
3 -0- -0- -0-
4 -0- -0- -0-
1966-1 708.01 454.16 254.00
2 688.69 673.36 115.00
3
(7/1-8/4) 252.54 429.35 -0-
269.00
John G. Disher
1965-3
(8/26-9/30) $ 293.61 $ -0- $ 294.00
4 710.59 337.50 373.00
- iii -
MARLENE INDUSTRIES CORP. 65
Calendar
Quarter
cross
Backpay
Net Interim
Earnings
Net
Backpay
1966-1 $ 740.23 $ 98.75 $ 294.00
2 360 . 00 371.88 -0-
3
(7/1-8/4 ) -0- -0- -0-
$1,308.00
1965-3
Joe D . Doyle, Jr.
(8/4-9/30 ) $ 457.99 $ -0- $ 458.00
4 739 . 05 -0- 739.00
1966 -1 769 . 86 8.76 761.00
2 747 . 75 21.56 726.00
3
(7/1-8/4) 361.62 -0- 362.00
$3,046.00
1965-2
Harry Rabon
(6/28-6 / 30) $ 19 . 96 $ -0- $ 20.00
3 660 . 18 -0- 660.00
4 639.69 -0- 640.00
1966-1 707 . 65 38 . 13 670.00
2 652 . 87 470.00 183.00
3
(7/1-8/4 ) 332.52 282 . 00 51.00
$2,224.00
- iv -