Southern Illinois Builders Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1980

252 N.L.R.B. 750 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 90, Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons'
International Association of the United States
and Canada, AFL-CIO (Southern Illinois Build-
ers Association) and Steve Bovinett. Case 14-
CB-3391
September 30, 1980
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MI'.MBERS
JENKINS AND PlNIt:I.O
On November 9, 1977, Administrative Law
Judge Jerry B. Stone issued a Decision in this pro-
ceeding in which he concluded that Respondent
had violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, by refusing to
refer Steve Bovinett, one of its members, through
its exclusive hiring hall. The Administrative Law
Judge recommended, in part, that Steve Bovinett
be made whole for any losses suffered by reason of
the discrimination against him. Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging
Party filed an answering brief. Thereafter, pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, on May 25, 1978, the Board
issued a Decision and Order' adopting the findings
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge,
and ordered that Respondent take the action pre-
scribed in the recommended Order of the Adminis-
trative Law Judge, as modified by the Board.
On October 5, 1979, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its judg-
ment 2 enforcing the Board's Order. On January 29,
1980, the Regional Director for Region 14 issued
and served on all parties a backpay specification
and notice of hearing. Respondent filed an answer
on February 11, 1980.
On February 27, 1980, a hearing was held before
Administrative Law Judge Hutton S. Brandon for
the purpose of determining the disputed issues and
the amount of money due to the Charging Party
under the backpay specification. On June 18, 1980,
Administrative Law Judge Brandon issued the at-
tached Supplemental Decision fixing the amount of
backpay due Steve Bovinett. The Charging Party
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 ex-
ceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the
236 NLRB 329
2 Docket No. 78 2071
rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Adminis-
trative Law Judge only to the extent consistent
herewith and to issue an order remanding this pro-
ceeding to the Regional Director for determination
whether Steve Bovinett has incurred medical ex-
penses includable in the backpay award.
We adopt the computation contained in the Sup-
plemental Decision of the Administrative Law
Judge and conclude that Respondent owes Steve
Bovinett at least $4,267.41. The only issues we are
required to resolve concern the exclusion from the
backpay specification of medical expenses which
Steve Bovinett may have incurred and for which,
because of Respondent's discrimination against him,
he may not have been appropriately compensated.
With respect to Steve Bovinett's entitlement to
insurance coverage, we agree with the Administra-
tive Law Judge's characterization of the facts. The
Administrative Law Judge found that, had Re-
spondent not discriminated against him, Steve Bo-
vinett would have worked 435 hours during the
relevant period and would have been entitled to in-
surance coverage under Respondent's health and
welfare program if he had made personal contribu-
tions to the health and welfare fund in addition to
those made by his employers. The Administrative
Law Judge concluded, however, that Steve Bovin-
ett was not entitled to claim insurance coverage in
the backpay proceeding because he had "provided
no evidence . . . that he ever attempted to ascer-
tain the amount of personal contributions necessary
to insure his medical coverage or that he ever at-
tempted to submit any necessary personal contribu-
tions for such coverage charges."
We disagree. At this stage of the controversy we
cannot know that Steve Bovinett would have elect-
ed to maintain his insurance coverage had he been
given the opportunity, but this is not an issue upon
which such assurance is required. In similar back-
pay disputes we have consistently held that, when
a respondent's unlawful discrimination had made it
impossible to determine whether a certain event
would have occurred absent the discrimination,
"any uncertainty must be resolved against the
wrongdoer, whose conduct made certainty impossi-
ble." 3 We so hold here, and we conclude that
Steve Bovinett was entitled to coverage under Re-
spondent's medical insurance plan between Decem-
ber 1, 1977, and November 30, 1978.
The Charging Party claims that he actually in-
curred medical expenses during 1978 in the amount
of $1,695.50, for which he should be reimbursed
under Respondent's health and welfare program.
' Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, 180 NLRB 142. 143 (1969);
Ozark lardwood Company. 119 NLRB 1130. 1131 (1957).
252 NLRB No. 108
750
I.()CAL 90. PLASTERERS
The Administrative Law Judge concluded that the
evidence presented at the hearing did not establish
"the nature of the injury or illness giving rise to
the expense, or whether the expense would have
been one for which [Steve Bovinett] could have
been compensated under the Union's health and
welfare fund coverage." The Charging Party
argues that neither the specific expenses claimed
nor the details of the medical insurance plan need
be proved at a Board proceeding. He contends
that, having held that he is entitled to coverage
under Respondent's program, we should direct that
any medical claims be submitted to the insurance
carrier to be settled outside the auspices of the
Board. We do not follow the Charging Party's rec-
ommendation in this regard, however, as the obli-
gation for reimbursement of medical expenses to
which a discriminatee may be entitled lies with Re-
spondent.4 Thus the monetary amount of medical
expenses owed is routinely included in the backpay
specification issued by the Board. s Because we are
convinced that this procedure most fully protects
the rights of discriminatees and promotes the final
settlement of backpay claims, we see no reason to
depart here from our established practice.
However, since the backpay specification in the
instant case failed to include a claim for medical
expenses, even though the Charging Party raised
the matter with the Regional Office, and since it
appears that the issue was not adequately consid-
ered at the backpay hearing, we agree with the
Administrative Law Judge that the record as it
stands is not adequate to determine the amount of
medical expenses, if any, for which Steve Bovinett
is entitled to reimbursement. Accordingly, we have
decided to remand this proceeding to the Regional
Director for the limited purpose of ascertaining
whether, during the relevant period, Steve Bovin-
ett incurred medical expenses for which he is enti-
tled to recovery under the terms of Respondent's
health and welfare plan.6
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
4 East Texas Steel Castings Company. Inc.. 116 NLR3 1336. 1377
(1956), enfd. 255 F.2d 284 (5th Cir 1958); Deena Artware. Incorporated,
112 NLRB 371, 375-376 (1955), enfd. 228 F.2d 871 (6th Cir.); NLRB
Casehandling Manual (Compliance) Sec. 10552.1.
5 See, e.g., Famet, Inc, 222 NLRB 1180, 1182-83 (1976); Sam Tanksley
Trucking Inc.., 210 NLRB 656, 658 (1974); .4rtim Transportation System,
Inc., 193 NLRB 179, 184 185 (1971); East Texas Steel Castings Companv.
Inc., supra.
' The amount of personal contributions, if any, which would have
been required of Steve ovinel absent discriminalion is deductible from
the total amount of reimbursement due him for medical expenses, if the
medical expenses incurred exceed the amount of personal contributions
required Sam TanklsIy TrucAing, Inc.. upra at 660, fn 19
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Local 90, Op-
erative Plasterers and Cement Masons' Internation-
al Association of the United States and Canada,
AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives,
shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order and make Steve Bovinett whole by
payment to him of the amount set forth by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge in his attached Supplemen-
tal Decision, with interest.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be,
and it hereby is, remanded to the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 14 for further proceedings consist-
ent with this Supplemental Decision and Order to
determine whether Steve Bovinett has incurred
medical expenses for which he is entitled to reim-
bursement by Respondent and, if so, to include
such expenses in an amended backpay award. Such
further proceeding may include an additional hear-
ing, should the Regional Director consider it neces-
sary.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
STTFEM NT OF THE CASEF
HUTTON S. BRANDON, Administrative Law Judge: On
May 25, 1978, the Board issued a Decision and Order
(236 NLRB 329) against Local 90, Operative Plasterers
and Cement Masons' International Association of the
United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Respondent. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
issued its judgment order (No. 782071) enforcing the
Board's order on September 25, 1979. The Board's order,
as enforced, directed the Respondent, inter alia, to make
Steve Bovinett, herein referred to as Bovinett, or the
Charging Party, whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits he may have suffered by reason of the Respond-
ent's discriminatory refusal to refer Bovinett to employ-
ment by employers having an exclusive hiring hall agree-
ment with the Respondent.
A controversy having arisen over the amount of back-
pay, if any, due to Bovinett, the Regional Director for
Region 14, on January 29, 1980, issued a backpay specifi-
cation and notice of hearing. Respondent filed its answer
to the specification on February 11, 1980.
A hearing was held before me in St. Louis, Missouri,
on February 27, 1980. All parties were afforded full op-
portunity to participate, to call, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses, and to present evidence. Following the
close of the hearing, the General Counsel and the Charg-
ing Party filed briefs on the issues presented.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of
the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due considera-
tion of the briefs I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The backpay specification defines the backpay period
as beginning on October 20, 1976, the date the Respond-
ent first unlawfully refused to place Bovinett's name on
751
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its "idle list" for employment, and ending on June 20,
1977, the date the Respondent began to refer Bovinett
through its exclusive hiring hall arrangement on a non-
discriminatory basis. The Respondent in its answer, how-
ever, claimed that the period of discrimination ended on
June 10, 1977. A reading of Administrative Law Judge
Stone's Decision in the original proceeding reveals that
the Respondent's June 10 offer of referral to Bovinett
was considered and found to be a "charade," inasmuch
as the offer was made to Bovinett at a time when the Re-
spondent knew he was unable to accept the referral be-
cause he was scheduled to attend the unfair labor prac-
tice hearing. The finding of Administrative Law Judge
Stone on this issue, approved by the Board, is res judi-
cata in this backpay proceeding. United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 347,
AFL-CIO (Newton Associates), 231 NLRB 688 (1977).
Accordingly, I find that the first bona fide referral of Bo-
vinett occurred on June 20, 1977, as set forth in the spec-
ification, and urged by the General Counsel.
The specification sets forth the formula for the compu-
tation of the quarterly gross backpay due Bovinett as the
average hours worked by those employees having the
same employment classification as Bovinett, journeyman
cement finisher, who actually worked during the back-
pay period multiplied by the hourly wage earned by
such employees at the rate specified in the collective-bar-
gaining agreement in effect at the relevant time between
the Union and the employer association, party to the
hiring hall arrangement. The average hours of work
available was computed by dividing the total hours
worked per calendar quarter by employees in Bovinett's
classification referred to jobs by the Union, with excep-
tions discussed infra, by the number of employees re-
ferred. The specification further sets forth that additional
sums were due to the Employers and Cement Masons
Local 90 Health and Welfare Fund in the amount of 60
cents per hour for each hour of lost employment suffered
by Bovinett as well as a sum of money to the Employers'
and Cement Masons Pension Fund in the amount of 50
cents per hour for each hour of lost employment suffered
by Bovinett. The total net backpay due Bovinett as set
forth in the specification, as amended at the hearing, was
$3,865.63 while the amount due the health and welfare
fund and the pension fund on Bovinett's behalf was
$219.15 and $182.63 respectively.'
The Respondent contests the appropriateness of the
formula utilized and set forth in the specification to the
extent that it is calculated on a calendar quarter basis.
The formula appears to be an appropriate one and has
been utilized by the Board in similar cases of hiring hall
referral discrimination. See, e.g., International Association
of Bridge, Structual & Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 45
(William Handley, et al.), 235 NLRB 211, 213 (1978); In-
ternational Association of Bridge, Structual & Ornamental
Ironworkers, Local 373 (Henry Arminas, et al.), 232
NLRB 504, 506 (1977); International Association of
Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 45
(Ralph Bucci and Building Contractors Association of of
New Jersey), 232 NLRB 520, 521 (1977). I find the for-
G.C. Exh. 2.
mula to be appropriate here. Both the Respondent and
the Charging Party take issue with respect to the various
inclusions and exclusions of employees and working
hours in the application of the backpay formula.
The Respondent contends that in calculating the aver-
age individual working hours of employees referred
through the hiring hall system, the total number of hours
worked by those referred should be divided by the total
number seeking referral through the Union for the entire
backpay period rather than for each calendar quarter. I
find no merit to the Respondent's position in this regard.
The inclusion of all persons seeking referral in the calcu-
lation of the average individual earnings would be inap-
propriate since it would result in a distorted figure
having no relationship to the average earnings of those
actually referred. And it must be presumed that absent
the discrimination against him, Bovinett would have
been referred to an equivalent number of hours of work
as those actually referred. Moreover, the inclusion in the
computation of those on the "idle list," the list from
which referrals were made but not referred, would fur-
ther distort the average hours available because it would
incorporate those who may have rejected referral for
one reason or another. Accordingly, I conclude, consist-
ent with the General Counsel's position, that the exclu-
sion from the backpay computation of those on the "idle
list" who were not actually referred was proper.
The Respondent's argument against the calculation of
backpay on a quarterly basis must be directed to the
Board rather than myself, for the Board's Order in the
initial decision provided that the loss of earnings to Bo-
vinett "shall be computed in the manner set forth in F.
W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950) .... "
That case specifically provides for the computation of
loss of earnings "on the basis of each separate calendar
quarter or portion thereof," so that "liability for each
quarter may be determined by reference to factors then
current, and not subject to subsequent fluctuation." Id. at
292-293. Accordingly, the utilization of a quarterly com-
putation of loss of earnings here is not only appropriate
but required.
The Charging Party also finds fault in the General
Counsel's failure to include in the backpay computation
the hours of work of certain categories of employees and
union members who either worked during the backpay
period or were referred out by the Union. In this regard,
the compliance officer, Roy B. Hayden, testified that in
arriving at the total hours available to persons referred
by the Union, he excluded the hours worked by employ-
ees in Bovinett's classification who; (1) were referred
prior to the beginning of the backpay period but worked
into the backpay period on the referral, (2) worked con-
tinuously as "permanent employees" for one employer
without being referred by the Union, (3) were referred
to jobs pursuant to an affirmative action program for mi-
nority groups,2 and (4) were referred upon request by
name by an employer as allowed under the referral pro-
cedure. The Charging Party contends that the exclusion
of the hours worked by the first numbered category was
2 II is clear that Bovinett was not a member of any minority group for
affirmative action purposes.
752
LOCAL 90, PLASTERERS
appropriate, but that exclusion of the other categories
was inappropriate.
More particularly, with respect to the inclusion of the
hours worked by persons requested from the Union by
name, it is contended by Bovinett that he was requested
by name during the backpay period, but was not re-
ferred. This contention is based on Bovinett's vague testi-
mony of a hearsay nature that indicated that on Septem-
ber 20, 1977, after the conclusion of the backpay period,
an individual named Mel Vandergriff, whose relationship
to any particular employer was not explained, apparently
told Bovinett that he had requested Bovinett by name.
The testimony does not establish when the actual request
was made. I regard such testimony as too vague and un-
reliable to establish that an actual request for Bovinett by
name was made by an employer. Accordingly, and be-
cause the hours of work of those referred by name
would not have been available to that group, including
Bovinett, who were not referred by name, I conclude
that the exclusion of that category of employees from
the computation of available hours was appropriate.
In regard to the exclusion from the computation of
employees referred by the Union pursuant to an affirma-
tive action program, the Charging Party argues that
since the affirmative action program required referral of
20 percent minorities to certain highway jobs involving
Federal funds, and since the Union's membership consist-
ed of about 15 percent minorities, according to Union
business representative Dean Turner's testimony, who
would have been referred on a rotating nondiscrimina-
tory basis in any event, it could be expected that the
highway jobs would have been manned by 15 percent
minorities without regard to the affirmative action plan.
Thus, the Charging Party claims that the affirmative
action plan required, in effect, only a one in four, in-
crease in minority referrals so that 75 percent of the
hours worked by such minorities should be included in
the backpay computations for Bovinett. I find this argu-
ment to be specious. The number of hours that would
have been worked by those referred under the plan in
the absence of the plan is too speculative to warrant in-
clusion of any portion of the hours worked under the
plan in the backpay computation herein. Thus, and since
it is clear that Bovinett would never have been referred
to work under the affirmative action plan, I conclude
that it is proper to exclude from his backpay computa-
tion the hours worked by those who were referred under
such plan.
I further find and conclude that the other categories
excluded in the backpay computation, i.e., those referred
prior to the beginning of the backpay period and "per-
manent employees" were likewise appropriate. As the
General Counsel contends, the inclusion of the hours of
work of employees in such categories would in no way
assist in determining the probable frequency of Bovinett's
referrals absent the discrimination against him.3
a While the Charging Party questions the accurancy of the compliance
officer's determinations regarding the Identity and number of "permanent
employees" as a result of an amendment made at the hearing to exclude
from the specification two persons named in the Respondent's answer as
"permanent employees." there was no actual error shown on the part the
compliance officer with respect to the identity of other "permanent em-
The Charging Party also contends that the backpay
specification is in error in that it does not compensate
him for certain hospital and medical expenses incurred
by him during the summer of 1978. Bovinett claimed that
he would have been qualified for the Union's health and
welfare plan during 1978 absent the Respondent's dis-
criminatory failure to refer him during the backpay
period. In support of his claim in this regard, Bovinett
testified that in mid-1978 he incurred hospital and medi-
cal expenses totaling $1,695.50. "However, the record
does not establish the nature of the injury or illness
giving rise to the expense, or whether the expense would
have been one for which he could have been compensat-
ed under the Union's health and welfare fund coverage."
Moreover, the record does not establish that Bovinett
would have been eligible for coverage by the funds' in-
surance provisions during mid-1978, even if he had
worked the average available hours during the backpay
period. Thus, for coverage during the period December
1, 1977, to November 30, 1978, Bovinett, pursuant to the
rules of the Union's health and welfare fund, would have
had to work 1,000 hours during the qualifying period,
August 1, 1976, to July 31, 1977. 4 Bovinett testified and
union records indicate that an employee could be cov-
ered, however, if he worked in excess of 250 hours so
long as he made additional personal contributions to the
fund. Based on union records not disputed by Bovinett,
he actually worked 69-3/4 hours during the August 1,
1976, to July 31, 1977, qualifying period. The specifica-
tion, as amended, sets forth that the average number of
hours Bovinett could have expected to have worked in
the fourth calendar quarter of 1976 was 102.6, while the
number of such hours for the first and second quarters of
1977 were 91.01 and 171.64, respectively. Totaling the
hours he actually worked during the qualifying period
with the average hours he might have worked, but for
the Respondent's discrimination, results in a figure of 435
hours which would have made him eligible for the
health and welfare fund coverage only with the submis-
sion of additional contributions. Bovinett provided no
evidence herein that he ever attempted to ascertain the
amount of personal contributions necessary to insure his
medical coverage or that he ever attempted to submit
any necessary personal contributions for such coverage
charges. Under these circumstances, I am not persuaded
that the record sufficiently establishes either Bovinett's
entitlement to the insurance benefits or the extent of re-
imbursement to which he would otherwise be entitled if
he were covered by the Union's health and welfare fund
when the medical expenses were incurred.
Finally, it is the Respondent's position that Bovinett
failed to "mitigate his damages" during the backpay
period by failing to make reasonable efforts to secure
other employment. Compliance Officer Hayden testified
that Bovinett had reported to the Board that he had reg-
ployees" for exclusion purposes Although the work of "permanent em-
ployees" as not necessarily continuous. they were not required to go
through the referral system for each period of employment with the same
employ r
The qualifying hours were reduced to 700 for the qualifying period
of August I. 1975, to July 31, 1976, but his reduction did not extend into
the subsequent qualifying period releant to this case
753
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
istered for unemployment benefits during the backpay
period and had continued in his efforts to secure referral
through the Respondent's hiring hall. Moreover, Bovin-
ett testified herein that he had sought referrals out of a
sister local in St. Louis, Missouri, during the backpay
period, but found he could not be referred by that local
without becoming a member of it, an alternative which
he rejected. Bovinett conceded that he had not applied
for any work outside of his special qualifications as a
cement finisher, nor had he sought employment by any
employer who was not either signatory to the Union's
collective-bargaining agreement or who was not abiding
by its terms whether or not signatory to it. According to
Bovinett, as a member of the Union he was prohibited
by union rules from seeking his own employment in
derogation of the Union's exclusive hiring hall arrange-
ment. And he explained his failure to seek employment
with a nonunion employer because he did not "presume
to be a scab." Moreover, he would have risked union
censure for such employment.
A discriminatee must make reasonable efforts to secure
employment which is substantially equivalent to the posi-
tion for which he was qualified and from which he was
barred by discriminatory action. See N.L.R.B. v. Miami
Coco-Cola Bottling Company, 360 F.2d 569, 575 (5th Cir.
1966). Substantial equivalency means suitability on the
basis of the discriminatee's background and experience.
A reasonable effort to secure equivalent employment
does not require the highest standard of diligence in this
regard. See N.L.R.B. v. Arduini Manufacturing Corp.,
394 F.2d 420, 422-423 (Ist Cir. 1968).
Under the circumstances of this case, and in agreement
with the position of the Charging Party and the General
Counsel, I am persuaded that the efforts of Bovinett
were sufficient in seeking equivalent employment, and
meets the reasonableness test.
Bovinett, presumably a loyal union member, cannot be
faulted for complying with union rules, which barred
him from individually seeking employment with employ-
ers who were signatory to the union contract. Indeed, he
ran the risk of fine or expulsion if he did not comply
with such rules. Furthermore, Turner admitted in his tes-
timony that while members might secure their own jobs
with employers who only had a "working agreement"
with the Union as opposed to being signatory to the col-
lective-bargaining agreement, the members were never
generally told that this practice was acceptable to the
Union. On the other hand, Turner testified that most em-
ployers with "working agreement" with the Union, se-
cured their men through the referral system and, occa-
sionally, when they did not, the employee contacted di-
rectly by the employer would seek Turner's approval
before accepting the job.
Turner named in his testimony a number of nonunion
contractors in Bovinett's home area during the backpay
period who employed people in Bovinett's classification.
But Turner's testimony fell short of establishing that they
had jobs available for union members during the backpay
period. On the contrary, Turner's testimony suggests that
at least some of the employers named were not amenable
to knowingly hiring members of the Union. Finally,
Turner did not establish the equivalency of the wages
and working conditions of any jobs with such employers
to those obtainable through the Union's referral system.
Considering the foregoing, and since it is clear from
the Board's initial decision that Bovinett aggressively
sought referral through the Union at all times during the
backpay period considering in effect, the Union to be his
only source of available employment, 5 I cannot conclude
that Bovinett willingly incurred any loss, or that his
search for employment was not reasonably diligent.
In view of the foregoing findings, I conclude that the
total amount due Steve Bovinett by the Respondent is
$4,267.41 computed as follows, including appropriate
amounts for pension and health and welfare fund contri-
butions:
Backpay 10/11 thru 12/31/76
102.6 Avg. hours (of journeymen cement finishers)" at 10.775 per hr.
Less supplemental dues for 97.97 hours at .20 per hour
GROSS BACKPAY
Less interim earnings
NET BACKPAY
Pension: 102.6 hours at .50
Welfare: 102.6 hours at .60
Backpay 1/1 thru 3/31/77
91.01 average hours at $10.775 per hour
Less supplemental dues for 87.16 hours at .20
GROSS BACKPAY
$1,105.52
19.56
1,085.96
0
1,085.96
51.30
61.56
$980.63
17.43
963.20
Interim earnings
NET BACKPAY
Pension: 91.01 hours at .50
Welfare: 91.01 hours at .60
0
$963.20
45.51
54.61
5 Cf. Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf
Lakes Inland Waters District. AFL-CIO (Ilthmian Lines. Inc.), 220
NLRB 698 (1975). where the Board held that a discriminatee's regular
appearance at a hiring hall throughout the backpay period seeking em-
ployment through the hall in a regular manner did not constitute willful
idleness.
Quarters
1976-4
1977-1
Quarrers
1977-1
754
LOCAL o0. PLASTERERS
Backpay 4/1 thru 6/19/77
171.64 average hours at $10.775
Less supplemental dues for 164 77 hours at .20 per hour
GROSS BACKPAY
Interim earnings
NET BACKPAY
Pension: 171.64 hours at .50
Welfare: 171.64 hours. at .60
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions and
the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended.
ORDER7
The Respondent, Local 90, Operative Plasterers and
Cement Masons' International Association of the United
Oerinlme hurs ,s ere cons ericd tO straight time hours ad added to
regular straight time
I In the event no exceptionls are filed as provided b Sec 102 40 of the
Rules and Regulalilos of the National Labor Relations Board. he find-
States and Canada, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall make whole Steve Bovinett by pay-
ment to him or to his account the sum of $3,865.63 for
wages, $182.63 for pension, and $219.15 for welfare. with
interest as provided for in the Board's Order as enforced
by the Court." Such interest shall continue to accrue
until the date of payment for all backpay due.
inrgs, conclutsions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provlded in
Sec 10)2 4 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted b the Hoard and
become its findings, conclusiotis. and Order, and all objections hereto
shall he deemed waived for all purposes.
I See Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 51 1977)
1977-2
S1,849.42
32.95
$1.816.47
0
1.816.47
85.82
102.98
755