Rogers Furniture Sales, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 4, 1974

213 N.L.R.B. 834 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

834 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rogers Furniture Sales, Inc. and Willie Gandy and
Willie Keith . Cases 7-CA-10057 and 7-CA-10111
October 4, 1974
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY , AND PENELLO
On May 31, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
George L. Powell issued the attached Supplemental
Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Supplemental Decision in light of the excep-
tions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings,
findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge only to the extent consistent herewith.
The Administrative Law Judge found that discrimi-
natee Willie Gandy was entitled to backpay from No-
vember 1, 1972, the date of his discriminatory
discharge, until Respondent reinstated him on May
29, 1973, and that discriminatee Willie Keith was enti-
tled to backpay from November 1, 1972, the date of
his discriminatory discharge, until April 20, 1973,
when he obtained other equivalent employment and
abandoned his employment with Respondent. Re-
spondent does not contest the propriety of the formu-
la that was used to compute the gross backpay figure
or the finding that backpay was due both claimants
from November 1, 1972, through December 31, 1972.'
However, Respondent contends that Gandy was not
reasonably diligent in his search for work from Janu-
ary 1 to May 29, 1973, and therefore is not entitled to
backpay for that period. Respondent further contends
that due to street construction which blocked the nor-
mal ingress to its premises (a retail furniture store)
Respondent's business underwent a substantial slump
which, had Keith and Gandy not been discriminatori-
ly discharged, would have resulted in their being laid
off from January 1 to May 29, 1973. We agree with
Respondent as to the first contention and we find a
degree of merit to the second.
We start with the basic premise that:
[W]hile the general burden of proof is upon the
General Counsel to establish the damage which
has resulted from Respondent's established dis-
1 At the hearing, Respondent stipulated that backpay was due both claim-
ants from November 1, 1972, to December 31, 1972.
criminatory discharge, i.e., the gross backpay
over the backpay period, the burden of proof is
upon the Respondent as to diminution of dam-
ages, whether from the willful loss of earnings by
the failure to either look for or keep a substantial-
ly equivalent job or from the unavailability of a
job at Respondent's plant for some reason un-
connected with the discrimination.. . . 2
Thus, the burden has passed to Respondent to estab-
lish that the gross backpay should be diminished due
to a willful loss of earnings by the discriminatees or
to the unavailability of work. The Administrative Law
Judge found that Respondent did not meet this bur-
den in that Gandy had been available for work, had
never rejected employment, and had made a reason-
able effort to obtain suitable interim employment'
We disagree.
In determining the reasonableness of a search for
interim employment, we examine, inter alia, the skill,
background, and experience of the claimant, and the
area in which the search is being made. For instance,
in The Madison Courier, Inc.,4 registration with the
state employment agency and utilization of the union
"grapevine" were found to be sufficient evidence of a
reasonable search for suitable work. There the claim-
ants had worked for many years for a rural newspa-
per, they were highly skilled in their trade, and the
scarcity of jobs in the local printing industry made the
availability of such a jo3b a fact that would have been
known to the local state employment office. In addi-
tion, the claimants utilized the union "grapevine,"
which, due to the "country shop" nature of the local
printing industry, was deemed to be an effective aid
in seeking a job in the industry. Two clerical employ-
ees who had limited printing background, experience,
and skill, however, were denied backpay even though
they also had registered with the state employment
agency and had utilized the union "grapevine." We
found that, unlike printing jobs, there were a number
of clerical jobs available in the area and that registra-
tion with the state employment agency and utilization
of the union's job information did not constitute for
those two employees a reasonable effort to obtain
suitable interim work.
In the instant case, the record reveals that Gandy
was hired approximately 3 months prior to his dis-
criminatory discharge and during that time was en-
gaged in general warehouse and display work. At the
backpay hearing, Respondent's attorney questioned
Gandy as to his search for other employment. Gandy
testified:
2 Mastro Plastics Corporation, 136 NLRB 1342, 1346 (1962), enid. 345 F.2d
170 (C.A. 2, 1965) cert. denied 384 U.S. 972 (1966).
3 There is no contention that Keith failed dutifully to look for work.
4 202 NLRB 808 (1973).
213 NLRB No. 115
ROGERS FURNITURE SALES, INC. 835
Q. Mr. Gandy did you seek out employment?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Where did you go?
A. Park and Temple.
Q. In other words you registered for employ-
ment?
A. Yes. That's the Michigan Employment Of-
fice.
Q. When was that?
A. Right after we were discharged.
Q. In other words, November of ['72]?
A. Yes.
Q. Where else did you go?
A. I only looked at the Employment Office
because of the type of work I would be doing.
Q. You mean Park and Temple?
A. Yes.
Q. That's the only place you went?
A. Yes, they sent me to one more, 8600 Wood-
ward Avenue.
Q. You said they sent you some place.
A. 8600 Woodward. That was much later be-
cause they open up a new employment office.
(sic)
Q. That's how you sought employment?
A. You see I was drawing employment from
the Michigan Avenue Employment Office. So by
drawing employment you have to take and seek
for work. So I had to come to Park and Temple
to seek for work.
Q. That's it.
Yes, Sir.
This testimony indicates that Gandy's only attempt
to seek other employment was registration with the
Michigan state employment office. In the circum-
stances of this case , where the claimant's skills consist
of general warehouse work and the search is being
made in a large metropolitan area, we find that such
registration alone did not constitute a reasonably dili-
gent search for suitable interim employment.' Ac-
cordingly, we strike from the backpay specification
the sums of money allegedly due Gandy for the period
of January 1, 1973, to May 29, 1973.
As indicated, Respondent also argues that due to a
business slowdown both of the discriminatees would
have been laid off as of January 1, 1973, and therefore
no backpay is due after that date. In support of this
contention, Respondent offered business records in-
dicating a substantial decline in sales .6 In support of
its contention that the decline in sales substantially
reduced the availability of work, Respondent estab-
lished that after January I the claimants' job slots
remained unfilled? and that the remaining warehouse
employees did not work any overtime. In that Keith
and Gandy, respectively, were the least senior mem-
bers of Respondent's work force, we find that Re-
spondent has met its burden of proof of establishing,
prima facie, the unavailability of work for them from
January to May 1973.1 However, Respondent made
repeated offers of reinstatement to Gandy in January
and February.'
Thus, although Respondent 's sales figures appear
to support its contention that there was no work avail-
able for the two claimants during January and Febru-
ary, these statistics do not express an exact correlation
as to the amount of work actually available. We can-
not but take Respondent's repeated offers of work to
Gandy as evidence that there was work available for
the months of January and February. Since Keith, but
not Gandy, as we have found, remained eligible for
backpay after January 1, 1973, we find that Keith is
due backpay for January and February. As to March
and April (Keith obtained new employment on April
20, 1973), we find that Respondent has met its burden
6 A summary is set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's Decision.
t In October 1972, Respondent's warehouse work force was comprised of
seven employees and a working foreman . Keith and Gandy were discharged
on November 1. From January 1 to May 29 , 1973, Respondent had only four
employees and a working foreman . In addition to the two job slots left vacant
by Keith's and Gandy's discriminatory discharge , another employee who
became ill had quit in December and was not replaced.
9 Unlike the Administrative Law Judge , we do not find that the credited
testimony of Supervisor Gould and employee Bridges shows that there was
work available for the claimants after January 1, 1973. The fact that a
working supervisor in charge of a reduced staff may have helped out during
certain intermittent periods of peak demand, as testified to by Gould, is not
indicative that work existed for the claimants. Similarly , we do not find
persuasive the conclusionary statement by employee Bridges that only
"some" of the work got done . That isolated statement does not constitute
probative evidence that work was available for Keith and Gandy . We do not
think the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the claimants' work func-
tions were absorbed by the remaining employees compels a different conclu-
sion . All of the warehouse employees performed similar and interchangeable
tasks, and it is undenied that the more senior employees who were retained
absorbed work formerly performed by Keith and Gandy.'Finally , we note
that , although in the unfair labor practice decision (207 NLRB 68 (1973) )
we adopted Administrative Law Judge Ross' finding that Respondent 's fail-
ure to replace the claimants reflected a continued effort to conceal the real
reason for their discharge , that finding is not conclusive as to the entire
backpay period . The availability of work during the entire backpay period
was not, of course , litigated in the earlier proceeding.
9 In the original unfair labor practice proceeding , the Administrative Law
Judge found , and we affirmed , that Respondent ' s offer of reinstatement
5 We have long held that registration with a government employment contingent on Gandy's signing a petition to get "the union out" violated Sec.
office is not conclusive evidence that a search for interim employment is in 8(a)(1) and (3). It was also found that Respondent 's recall and immediate
fact reasonably diligent , and that registration is only one factor to be given subsequent layoff of Gandy in February were motivated by the hope that
greater or lesser weight depending on all the circumstances of the case . Gandy would not respond to the recall offer , thus terminating Respondent's
Southern Silk Mills, Inc., 116 NLRB 769 (1956). backpay liability to him.
836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of establishing the unavailability of work, and there-
fore backpay is not due for that period.10
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that Respondent, Rogers
Furniture Sales, Inc., Detroit, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall pay to Willie
Keith and Willie Gandy as net backpay the sums of
$1,875.81 and $1,017.81, respectively, together with
interest thereon at 6 percent per annum, less any tax
withholdings required by Federal and state law.
10 Member Jenkins would affirm the Administrative Law Judge in award-
ing Keith backpay for March and April , for the reasons the Administrative
Law Judge expressed in holding Respondent had not established that work
was unavailable for Keith.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
GEORGE L. POWELL, Administrative Law Judge: The issue
in this case is to determine the amount of backpay Respon-
dent must pay unfair labor practice discriminatees Willie
Gandy and Willie Keith in order to make them whole for
any loss of earnings they may have suffered as the result of
the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in
the section of the Board's Decision and Order (207 NLRB
68, 1973) entitled "The Remedy."
The Regional Director for Region 7 of the National La-
bor Relations Board, herein called Board, issued a Backpay
Specification and Notice of Hearing on March 1, 1974,
containing a stipulation by the Respondent as Appendix A,
a computation of average hours of work as Appendix B, and
a table of net backpay as Appendix C.
Respondent, Rogers Furniture Sales, Inc., contests the
validity of the backpay computation.
With Respondent and General Counsel represented by
counsel the case came on for hearing before me in the
courtroom of Region 7 in Detroit, Michigan, on April 16,
1974.
Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and Respondent
on May 6 and 8, 1974, respectively.
Upon the entire record including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs of the parties, I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Administrative Law Judge Samuel Ross issued Decision
JD-438-73 on June 29 , 1973, affirmed by the Board on
November 8, 1973, in 207 NLRB 68, in which he found
Respondent in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by the
discriminatory termination of employment of Willie Keith
and Willie Gandy. Accordingly the Board's decision pro-
vided a remedy of reinstatement of employment of both
Keith and Gandy to their former positions or, if they no
longer existed, to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges,
and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them
by the payment to them of a sum of money equal to the
amount they normally would have earned from the date of
their termination to the date of reinstatement, less their net
earnings during said period, with such backpay computed
on a quarterly basis with interest at the rate of 6 percent per
annum . (F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289; Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.)
Backpay due under the Board's order was computed by
the Regional Director of Region 7 of the Board and set out
as follows:
1. The gross backpay due the discriminatees Gandy and
Keith is the amount of earnings that each would have had
but for the discrimination against them.
2. (a) The backpay period for discriminatee Gandy com-
menced on November 1, 1972, when Respondent discrimi-
natorily discharged him and continued to May 29, 1973,
when Respondent reinstated him to his former or substan-
tially equivalent position of employment.
(b) The backpay period for discriminatee Keith com-
menced on November 1, 1972, when Respondent discrimi-
natorily discharged him and continued to April 20, 1973,
when he obtained other and equivalent employment and
abandoned his employment with Respondent.
3. Gross backpay for discriminatees Gandy and Keith
was computed on the basis of multiplying, by calendar
quarters, the average weekly hours worked by a representa-
tive group of warehouse employees , the discriminatees' em-
ployment category, (see Appendix B) by the applicable and
prevailing wage rate of $3 an hour.
4. (a) Appropriate measure of gross backpay for discri-
minatee Gandy for the backpay period beginning Novem-
ber 1, 1972, and ending May 29, 1973, is the average weekly
hours worked by warehouse employees Chris Baker, Ber-
nard Bridges and Henry Rush, each of whom had job posi-
tions comparable to that of Gandy during this period and
who each continued to be employed by the Respondent
throughout the backpay period (see Appendix B) multiplied
by the applicable and prevailing wage rate (see Appendix
C).
(b) An appropriate measure of gross backpay for discri-
minatee Keith for the backpay period beginning November
1, 1972, and ending April 20, 1973, is the average weekly
hours worked by warehouse employees Chris Baker, Ber-
nard Bridges and Henry Rush, each of whom had job posi-
tions comparable to that of Keith during this period and
who each continued to be employed by the Respondent
throughout the backpay period (see Appendix B) multiplied
by the applicable and prevailing wage rate (see Appendix
C).
5. Neither discriminatee Gandy nor Keith had any inter-
im earnings during their above specified backpay periods
and expenses incurred in seeking employment are not
claimed.
6. Respondent's obligation to make Willie Gandy whole
(net backpay) is the difference by calendar quarters between
what he would have earned during the above backpay peri-
od (gross backpay) and what he actually earned during this
ROGERS FURNITURE SALES, INC.
period less expenses (net interim earnings) and represents
by calendar quarters the total net backpay due this discrimi-
natee computed up to May 29, 1973, in accordance with the
formula described above (see Appendix Q.
7. Respondent's obligation to make Willie Keith whole
(net backpay) is the difference by calendar quarters between
what he would have earned during the above backpay peri-
od (gross backpay) and what he actually earned during this
period less expenses (net interim earnings) and represents
by calendar quarters the total net backpay due this discrimi-
natee computed up to April 20, 1973, in accordance with the
formula described above (see Appendix Q.
8. Summarizing the facts and figures above,
Respondent's obligation to make whole the discriminatees
herein under the Board's Order will be discharged by pay-
ment to them of the sum set forth opposite their respective
names, together with interest at the rate of 6 percent per
annum commencing on the last day of each calendar quar-
ter of the backpay period on the amount due and owing for
said quarterly period, continuing until full compliance with
the Board's Order is achieved, less any tax withholding as
required by Federal, State, and municipal law:
Willie Gandy $3,280.59
Willie Keith 2,651.34
Total $5,931.93
There is no controversy that backpay is due and owing to
discriminatees Gandy and Keith for that portion of their
alleged respective backpay periods commencing November
1, 1972, and ending December 31, 1972, Respondent having
conceded by stipulation the amounts owing to each for that
period.
The General Counsel adduced testimony from Regional
Compliance Officer Basso which proved that the backpay
formula and computation used in computing the backpay
due Gandy and Keith was a reasonable one. Respondent's
counsel admitted the validity of the measure of backpay as
set forth in the backpay specification as regards the repre-
sentative grouping used, their comparable job positions
with those of the discriminatees, and the applicable wage
rates involved in backpay computation.
Respondent did not present an alternate formula nor re-
but the reasonableness of the above computation. Accord-
ingly, I find the General Counsel met his burden of proof
and the above formula is reasonable and the gross amounts
of backpay are accurately stated. The burden of proof then
shifts to Respondent to establish any lesser amount due
either discriminatee because of willful loss of earnings, fail-
ure to diligently seek employment, lack of work or any
other affirmative defense it might have.
Respondent argued, but put on no evidence in substantia-
tion that Gandy's backpay should be reduced to the extent
that his post backpay period work was below normal. Ac-
cordingly, this theory is not considered.
Respondent attempted to establish a lack of work in the
controverted period from January 1 to May 29, 1973, for
Gandy and January 1 to April 20, 1973, for Keith by show-
ing pictures of how the street in front of the showroom was
torn up (same pictures were involved in the case before
Judge Ross), and by stipulating gross sales figures based on
Michigan Sales Tax Returns as follows:
1972 1973
Jan. $116 ,577.38 $ 63,279.19
Feb. 128 ,079.98 91,632.76
Mar. 180,416.20 93,873.43
Apr. 179,258.40 132,898.80
May 124,040.23 144,157.52
June 181,291.97 206,466.12
July 128, 880.46
Aug. 124,398.46
Sept . 91,044.08
Oct. 130,423.00
Nov. 141,015.86
Dec. 203,418.87
837
The theory of the torn up street was that customers would
not be crossing it to buy, and the work of Gandy and Keith
would be cut down, if not needed at all. Also that the gross
sales indicates a lack of work for the two discriminatees. It
is true that the yearly average gross sales are down approxi-
mately II percent for the first 5 months of 1973 (Gross sales
total $525,841.70-yearly average totals $105,168.35) com-
pared to the 4-month period of their employment of July
through October (Gross sales total $474,746-yearly aver-
age totals $118,686.05), but this in and of itself does not
prove a lack of work for Gandy and Keith. I have no way
of knowing what effect the work done by Gandy and Keith
has on gross sales . If measurable at all it might not be
reflected in the same time period.
The total record evidence as a whole proves that Gandy
and Keith's job functions were not eliminated or abolished
but remained in existence , and their duties were divided
among, spread out, and assumed by other warehouse em-
ployees. This fact is best illustrated by the testimony of
Respondent 's warehouse supervisor Rich Gould, who both
on direct and cross-examination, testified that the discrimi-
natees not only engaged in display and warehouse work, but
that their work functions were still in existence throughout
the backpay period and this work was assumed by the re-
maining warehouse employees. Also Gould testified that
although he was a supervisor whose primary duties were
record keeping, he himself had to pitch in and help perform
the furniture display and other functions previously per-
formed by Gandy and Keith. Gould also testified that but
for Gandy and Keith's unlawful discharges he would not
have had to be engaged in such display, storage and ware-
house functions.
Not only did Gandy and Keith do display and warehouse
functions, they also loaded trucks during the tenure of their
employment. Gould also testified that this work likewise
remained in existence throughout the backpay period and
the conclusion is inescapable that it too was available work
for the discriminatees.
Gould's testimony as to the remaining availability of
work is corroborated by the testimony of warehouse em-
ployee Bernard Bridges , who testified that he not only had
838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to perform Gandy and Keith's furniture display work after
their termination, but their discharges caused him to per-
form more time engaging in those functions than he did
when Gandy and Keith were employed. Bridges' testimony
also reveals that there was sufficient work available, not all
of which got done, because of Respondent's restriction on
overtime. This testimony was unrebutted and uncontrovert-
ed.
In Barberton Plastics Products, Inc., 146 NLRB 393, 394
(1964), the Board found the discriminatee was entitled to
backpay where the evidence showed that the work the dis-
criminatee had engaged in still remained to be done in the
plant, and was being performed by other employees The
Board held because of those facts, the employer had not
sustained his burden of proof. For similar reasons the Board
held the Respondent-Employer's argument that he could
operate with fewer employees insufficient to negate back-
pay. New England Tank Industries, Inc., 147 NLRB 598,
600-602 (1964). The Board in Flora Construction Company
and Argus Construction Company d/b/a Flora and Argus
Construction Company, 149 NLRB 583, 585-586 (1964), held
that the General Counsel had made a prima facie case for
backpay, where facts revealed that work remained to be
done in the classification to which the discriminatee had
been assigned.
Respondent pleaded that as no employees were hired
(January through April 1973) to fill Gandy's and Keith's
positions, this tends to prove there was no work for them to
do. Again, absence of replacements has been found to be
immaterial by the Board Interurban Gas Corporation, 149
NLRB 576, 578 (1964). Additionally, Judge Ross had found
that Respondent's failure to replace Gandy and Keith was
motivated by its desire to conceal its unfair labor practices.
For the above reasons, I find that Respondent, on the
basis of the record evidence as a whole and applicable
Board precedent, has not sustained its burden of proving
lack of work by a preponderance of the evidence. And this
is a defense and burden of proof to be pleaded and proved
by Respondent. New England Tank Lines, Maestro Plastics
and other cases cited, supra. Also see J. L. Holtzendorff
Detective Agency, Inc., 206 NLRB 483 (1973).
Lastly, Respondent contended that Gandy only regis-
tered for unemployment compensation and did nothing else
to seek employment
The testimony is unrebutted that the discnminatees ful-
filled their duty to mitigate Respondent's backpay liability
by registering for available employment,' and dutifully
looking for work. Neither Gandy nor Keith ever rejected
employment nor were they ever unavailable for work.
The Respondent has failed to adduce any evidence to the
contrary.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The General Counsel has met all his burden of proof
to establish the net amount of money necessary to make
discriminatees Gandy and Keith whole.
2. Respondent has not established by a preponderance of
the evidence that the amount of net backpay due to make
each discriminatee whole should be other than established
by the General Counsel.
3. The amount of backpay necessary to remedy the un-
fair labor practice of Respondent is based upon the backpay
specification prepared by the General Counsel and is set out
in Appendix C, attached hereto.
THE REMEDY
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record, and in order to make whole
dfscrimmatees Willie Gandy and Willie Keith under the
Board's Order, supra, I hereby issue the following:
ORDER2
Respondent, Rogers Furniture Sales, Inc., its successors
and assigns, shall pay Willie Gandy and Willie Keith the
sum of money set forth opposite their respective names,
together with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum
commencing on the last day of each calendar quarter of the
backpay period in the amount due and owing for said quar-
terly period as set forth in Appendix C attached hereto,
continuing until full compliance with the Board's Order is
achieved, less any tax withholding as required by Federal,
State, and municipal law:
Willie Gandy $3,280.59
Willie Keith 2,651.34
i Registration with governmental agencies for available employment has
long been held by the Board to constitute evidence of search for work. East
Texas Steel Castings Co, 116 NLRB 1336, The Madison Courier, Inc, supra,
citing Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, 180 NLRB 142, 148
2 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions, recommendations, 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
APPENDIX A
STIPULATION
The following matters are stipulated by Respondent:
1. Respondent has no objection to the Board's Order of
November 8, 1973, on the decided issues of the discrimina-
tory terminations of Willie Gandy and Willie Keith;
2. Respondent had not been able to reach agreement
with the Regional Director as to the amount of backpay due
Willie Keith and Willie Gandy under the terms of said
Order;
3. The Regional Director for the Seventh Region may
issue an order setting a date for hearing before an Adminis-
trative Law Judge to determine the amount of backpay due
in this case;
4. Following the report of the Administrative Law Judge
issued after such hearing, the matter will be subject to re-
view in due course by the Board. In the event judicial pro-
ceedings are thereafter necessary to enforce or review the
Board's backpay determination, the only issue before the
Court will be the validity of the backpay computation as
Respondent concedes that in all other respects the Board's
ROGERS FURNITURE SALES, INC. 839
Order of November 8, 1973, is valid and proper on the issues Dated at Detroit, Michigan, this 15th day of February,
of the discriminatory termination of Willie Gandy and Wil- 1973.
lie Keith heard and decided.
ROGERS FURNITURE SALES, INC
Year
and
Weekly
Payroll
APPENDIX B
Hours
Rep.
No. in*
Rep. Average
quarter Ending Group Group Hrs.
1972 - 4 11/2 104.00 3 34.67
11/9 102 .50 3 34.17
11/16 113.00 3 37.67
11/23 115.50 3 38.50
11/30 108.50 3 36.17
12/7 115.00 3 38.34
12/14 136.26 3 45.42
12/21 111.00 3 37.00
12/28 112.00 3 37.33
339.27
1973 - 1 1/4 -0-
1/11 J 108.00 3 36.00
1/18 98 .00 3 32.67
1/25 112.50 3 37.50
2/1 93.25 3 31.08
2/8 117.50 3 39.17
2/15 108.50 3 36.16
2/22 100.25 3 34.42
3/1 117.00 3 39.00
3/8 105.50 3 35.17
3/15 108.00 3 36.00
3/22 120.00 3 40.00
3/29 119.00 3 39.67
436.84
1973 - 2 4/5 98.00 3 32.67
4/12 108 .50 3 36.17
4/19 116.50 3 38.83
4/26 80.00 3 26.67
5/3 118.50 3 39.50
5/10 109.50 3 36.50
5/17 108.00 3 36.00
5/24 108.00 3 36.00
5/31 105.25 3 35.08
317.42
TOTAL AVERAGE HOURS - 1093.53
* Chris Baker, Bernard Bridges , & Henry Rush
jj Bridges, used in representative group, had 40 hours vacation at $3
per hour paid in lieu of vacation.
840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX C
WILLIE KEITH (Backpay period: November 1, 1972, to April 20, 1973)
Year &
Quarter
Average
Hours Rate
Gross
Backpay
Interim
Earnings
Net
Backpay
1972 - 4
1973 - 1
339.27
436.84
$3.00
$3.00
$1,017.81 -0-
1,310.52 -0-
$1,017.81
1,310.52
1973 - 2 107.67 3.00 323.01 -0- 323.01
TOTAL $2,651.34
WILLIE GANDY (Backpay period: November 1, 1972, to May 29, 1973)
1972 - 4 339.27 $3.00 $1,017.81 -0- $1,017.81
1973 - 1 436.84 $3.00 1,310.52 -0- 1,310.52
1973 - 2 317.42 $3.00 952.26 -0- 952.26
TOTAL $3,280.59