Stone Boat Yard: Stone Boat Yard, Debtor In Possession

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1985

276 N.L.R.B. 1185 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

STONE BOAT. YARD '1185
Stone Boat Yard: Stone Boat Yard , Debtor in - Pos-
session ' and United Brotherhood - of Carpenters
and Joiners of America , Local 1149 , AFL-CIO.
Case 32-CA-3304
30 September 1985
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND JOHANSEN -
On 14 June 1985 Administrative Law Judge
Harold A. Kennedy issued the attached supplemen-
tal decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a brief
in answer to the Respondent's exceptions and in
support of the decision.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three=
member panel.
The Board has considered the supplemental deci-
sion and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings,
findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recom-
mended order.'
ORDER -
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Stone Boat
Yard: Stone Boat Yard, Debtor In Possession, Ala-
meda, California; its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Order.
i The caption is amended to comport with the Respondent 's status as
debtor-in-possession
2 We note that the backpay -specification was amended , inter alia, to
name Stone Boat Yard Stone Boat Yard, Debtor In Possession as the Re-
spondent without objection Accordingly, our Order runs against Stone
Boat Yard Stone Boat Yard, Debtor In Possession
Veronica I. Clements, Esq., of Oakland, California, for the
General Counsel. - -
Herbert S. Matthews, Esq., of South San Francisco, Cali-
fornia, for the Respondent.
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq., of San Francisco, California,
for the Union.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
HAROLD A. KENNEDY , Administrative Law Judge.
This is a backpay proceeding Initiated by a backpay
specification (amended twice) and heard by me in Oak-
land, California , on 12 December 1984.
The National Labor Relations Board (Board) on 30
September 1982 found Stone Boat Yard (Stone) had been
in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National
Labor Relations Act (Act) "since July 1, 1980 , by ceas-
ing to make contributions to the Union 's health and wel-
276 NLRB No. 130
fare and pension funds and by implementing the compa-
ny-funded medical insurance plan." 264 NLRB 981 at
982:' The Board's decision was later enforced by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
715 F.2d 441 (1983). The United States Supreme Court
thereafter denied certiorari 446 U.S. 937, on 16 April
1984 (G.C. Exh. 1(e))
The Board's decision in the underlying case indicates-
that_"the initial charge" was filed on 5 January 1981,
that the complaint issued on 23 February 1981, and that
the trial took place on 9 September 1981. According to
the decision, a "Master Agreement" had been negotiated
between the Union and the major shipbuilding companies
on the west coast for the period I July 1977 to 30 June
1980. Stone was one of eight independent boat yards
within Local 1149's jurisdiction which were not mem-
bers of the multiemployer group but which had "always"
later become signatory to the Master Agreement. The
International Union wrote to Stone on 15 April 1980 that
it wished to negotiate a -new agreement. Stone responded
on 21 May that it wanted "substantial changes" in a new
contract effective 1 July 1980. The major shipbuilding
companies and the International began negotiations in
Olympia, Washington, on 29 May and continued thereaf-
ter through June 1980. Respondent made several calls in
June to the union business agent, but he was involved in
the negotiations away from his office. In late June Stone
told its employees that effective 1 July 1980 it "was im-
plementing a company-funded medical insurance plan
and that effective 1 January 1981, a company-funded
program would be implemented." On 1 July, the day
after Stone's contract with the Union had expired, Stone
implemented its company-funded health plan-and ceased
making payments to the Union's health and welfare and
pension plans. A new Master Agreement was rejected by
the rank-and-file in mid-July 1980, but a new Master
Agreement was ratified in August 1980. The Union
wrote Stone on 21 August concerning the terms of the
new agreement, which had become effective on 1 July.
Seven of the independents signed the new Master Agree-
ment, but Stone, which held "several"- negotiation ses-
sions with the Union, did not.
The General Counsel's representative, the Regional
Director for the Board's Region 32 in- Oakland, Califor-
nia, issued the backpay specification herein on 31 July
1984 calling for payment of certain expenses plus interest
to one David Shaw as well as substantial payments to
the Marine Carpenters Health and Welfare Fund and to
the Marine Carpenters Pension Fund. On 20 September
1984 Stone filed a, petition in bankruptcy On 31 October
1984 the General Counsel filed an amended backpay
specification. On 9 November-1984 the General Counsel
filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of California a document entitled
"Proof of Multiple Claims for Wages, Salaries or Com-
missions ." A second amended backpay specification was
filed just prior to-the trial of this matter in Oakland, Cali-
fornia, on-13 December 1984.1
i The General Counsel stated at the hearing that the second amended
backpay specification is identical to the amended backpay specification
Continued
1186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The payments claimed to be due the two funds are
said to be based on hours worked by all employees after
1 July 1980 (at the rate of 83 cents for the health and
welfare find and $1.08 for the pension plan). The
amount claimed due Shaw is said to reflect the cost to
Shaw for medical care which would otherwise have
been covered under the health plan provided for in the
most recently expired collective-bargaining agreement.
Stone's principal contentions are:
1. Bargaining between it and the Union after 1
July 1980 relieved Stone of any obligation to make
payments to the Union fringe benefit funds.
2. The interest, penalties, liquidated damages, or
"any such remedy based on the rules of the trust
funds involved are inappropriate to the facts of this
case."
3. It is inappropriate for the General Counsel to
attempt to collect payments. for the "Union Health
& Welfare Plan for medical benefits for employees
and to collect the actual benefits from Respondent
for employees such as David Shaw."
The General Counsel contends that Respondent has
sought, inappropriately, to relitigate issues previously de-
cided in the prior proceeding. According to the General
Counsel, no bargaining between Stone and the Union
could have reached impasse so as to toll Stone's liability
as Stone never restored the status quo ante or even of-
fered to reimburse the Union's trust funds.
The parties entered into a number of stipulations at the
hearing. Respondent stipulated that if it were to be found
that Stone's liability had not 'been tolled as claimed by
the General Counsel, Stone would concede that its liabil-
ity would be in the amounts claimed in the General
Counsel's (last) backpay specification. Respondent's
counsel added:
Basically we are stipulating to the accuracy of the
hours worked, the-named employees and the arith-
metic, that is to say, what General Counsel alleges
was provided in the preceding 'contract is correct
and that that's the proper formula to impose upon
those records of the hours worked by the named
employees and the arithmetic in adding all that up is
accurate.
except that the claim made for' Shaw's medical expenses had been re-
duced from $3,261 25'to $2,974 20
The General Counsel's backpay specification' seeks payment of
$54,142 11 (including $4,922 01 an liquidated damages) for contributions
said to be due to the Union's health and welfare fund (based on 83 cents
per hour worked by each unit employee) for the period I July' 1980
through 19 September 1984 and payment of $70,449.86 (including
$6,404 53 in liquidated damages ) for contributions said to be due the
Union 's pension fund (based on $1 08 per hour worked by each unit em-
ployee) for the same period The General Counsel's specification also
calls for additional payments to both funds (plus liquidated damages) for
the period after 19 September 1984 calculated on the same basis, i e, 83
cents . per hour per unit employee for the health and welfare fund and
$1.08 per hour per unit employee for the pension fund until the current
payments to the funds are restored Attached to the specification are ap-
pendices which list each employee and the hours worked - Respondent
does not contest the computation (i e , the formula used or the arithmetic)
of the amounts set forth in the backpay specification
The General Counsel acknowledged in her brief (fn. 6)
that by making such concession Stone did not waive "its
two subsidiary arguments that (a) the assessment of 10
percent liquidated damages to the Fund amounts due is
unjust and inappropriate and (b) that Respondent should
not be required to both reimburse the Health and Wel-
fare Fund and reimburse employees for expenses." -
The parties stipulated into the record a number of doc-
uments, including correspondence and other materials
bearing dates between 6 February 1981 and 17 Septem-
ber 1984 (G.C Exhs. 3-28). The parties also agreed that
the contents of an affidavit (G.C Exh. 23) given by
David Shaw concerning the expenditures for medical ex-
penses should 'be read and considered as if he had given
it in the form of testimony.2 -
Three witnesses •testified-Pauline F. Kocourek, ad-
ministrator of the Marine Carpenters Trust Funds;
Arthur Johnson, director of labor relations for the Cali-
fornia Metal Trades Association; and Theodore Knud-
son, , the Union's financial secretary and. business repre-
sentative. .
Pauline Kocourek identified copies of the Union's
health and welfare and pension trust agreements (G.C.
Exhs. 24 and 25). She said she considered Stone to be a
signatory to both funds and, although apparently execut-
ed 10 years ago or more, the agreements are still in
effect.
Kocourek explained that contributing employers are to
make monthly reports and payments as follows:
The employers complete the form, calculate the
total contribution, hours times the hourly rate and.
send the form together with their remitttance to a
lock box at _ Crocker Bank entitled Marine Carpen-
ter. The money is deposited immediately and
Crocker sends the employer report forms plus
copies of the deposit to us and we verify the cor-
rectness or the timeliness.
- The contributions are due by the 15th day of the
month following the month in which the hours are
worked. January hours are due by February 15th.
They are delinquent if they are not received by the
25th of the month. -
Crocker Bank invests the money in certificates of depos-
it, issued either by it or another bank. Over the last 5
years health and welfare earnings have averaged 12-1/2
percent Pension funds are handled by the Crocker In-
vestment Management Corporation, and the average
return for such funds over the past 5.years has been
"slightly over 16 percent annually."
Kocourek explained that both trust agreements call for
payment of liquidated damages. She stated if an employ-
er does not respond to a first delinquent notice, another
letter is sent by the Funds' office informing the employer
that 10-percent liquidated damages will be added. A col-
2 Shaw 's affidavit , dated 10 December 1984 , 'recites recollection and
understanding as to his employment by Stone, medical insurance cover-
ages for himself and his family , and certain medical expenses incurred
(some of which have not been reimbursed).
STONE BOAT YARD 1187
lection agency or an attorney may be engaged to effect*
collection for the funds. .-:
Kocourek explained that the Funds are administered
by a board of trustees made up of three management-.
trustees and three 'labor trustees.3 Kocourek serves as
sec'r`etary to the board as well as the administrator' of the
funds.
On- cross-examination by- Respondent, Kocourek ex-
plained that an employer's health and welfare contribu-
tion is the same for each employee but that the amount
of the contribution made for an employee's pension ac-
count may vary as there are 'three different categories.
She said she would be advised if an employer and the
Union had ever reached an impasse during negotiations,
but she had not been told by the Union That any had
been reached with Stone. Kocourek testified that she had
been an employee of the funds since October 1983, and
she could recall no reports or contributions being made
by Stone "during her employment. She stated that she
was aware that a board of directors had waived liquidat-
ed damages on one occasion. She said that the one occa- -
sion involved the report of a delinquency based on a
clerical. error. The employer had paid contributions for
three employee participants, but the wrong fund had
been credited.
Arthur Johnson - represented Stone in negotiations be-
tween the Company and the Union in 1981. He said he
was the company spokesman and attended a number of
meetings, including those held on 8, and 18 February, 7
April, 13 May, and 23 July 1981. 'He said no proposals
were discussed at the first meeting, although the Union
indicated it would want Stone to agree to sign a new
master agreement. He, identified Respondent's Exhibit 4
as the Company's proposal which had been submitted to
the Union (with a letter dated 3 April, G.C. Exh. 4)
prior to the 7 April, meeting. According to Johnson, the
parties had reached agreement on,everything except the
amount of contributions the Company should pay to the
two.funds and two "minor" -(cost-of-living) items as indi-
cated in letters written by him to the Union on 22 April
and 13 May (G.C. Exhs. 5 and 7). He identified and ac-
knowledged the exchange of other correspondence dated
27 April, 27 May, and 14, 15, and 31 July (G.C Exhs. 6,
9, 10, and 11) between the parties.
On cross-examination by the General Counsel, John-
son agreed that the subject of past due contributions had
been discussed on 13 May and that the Company had
never offered to pay the funds for any past due contribu-
tions. He explained that the. Company was concerned
during the negotiations with the "total cost." It would
consider accepting the, Union's health and welfare plan
but, if it did, lower wages would result. Also, payment
of any back contributions -would mean there would be
less to pay in wages. Johnson also agreed that the Com-
pany's position did,not change thereafter, including at
the time-of the last bargaining session held on 23 July
1981. According to Johnson, it never occurred to him
than there would be any retroactive costs. Said Johnson:
"If you don't get the dollars, you don't certify eligibil-
ity." He agreed that he had taken the position, as indicat-
ed in his letter of 31 August 1981 (G.C. Exh. 11), that
any moneys that might be owed to the trust funds after
July 1980 was something to be bargained over between
the company and the Union.
On cross-examination by the Charging Party, Johnson
explained that with respect to pensions the Company's
final proposal involved an offer to make-a $10,000 retro-
active pension payment to cover the period 1 July 1980-
1 January 1981 plus payment of 50 cents per hour for
each employee participant after 1 January 1981. Accord-
ing to Johnson, if the Union had accepted such proposal
the Company would have been "out of the [Union's]
plan," and there would have been no further obligation
in that regard. Johnson recalled that in the spring of
1981, when he was representing Stone in negotiations
with the Union, the Company was not -contributing to
the Union's pension fund and that Stone had previously
implemented its own health and welfare plan. Johnson
maintained that the Company had agreed on "every-
thing" except payment of pension and health and welfare
costs.4
Theodore L. Knudson was called to testify as a rebuttal
witness for the General Counsel. He has been financial
secretary and business representative' of Local 1149 since
December 1958 and had represented the Union in negoti-
ations with Stone over the past several years. Knudson
recalled 'that there had been a number of bargaining ses-
sions starting in February 1981. He was asked specifical-
ly about the 13 May bargaining session. He recalled that
Johnson did "most of the speaking" for Stone at that
meeting, but that- Stone's owner, a Mr. Folker, stated
that $1.10 would be the top paid by the Company for
pensions and health and welfare. It was explained, Knud-
son said, that the balance to pay for the "full fringes"
under the Union's plan would have to come out of
wages. Knudson stated that the Company's past liability
to the Union's trust funds was mentioned and that John-
son had indicated "that the past liability as well as the
difference in future payments would have to come from
the wages- of the employees." Knudson said that he
pointed out that he had no authority to excuse liability to
the trust funds. -
At the 23 July bargaining session, according to Knud-,
son, several options were discussed. Folker was present
at the meeting, but again Johnson did most of the talk-
ing. The Company was willing to pay the Union wage,
but the Company "had already started a health and wel-
fare plan of [its] own and an annuity instead of a pension
fund." Knudson said the Union proposed certain changes
from the new. Master Agreement, including reduction in
the number of paid holidays and the amount of jury pay,
trainees' pay, and tool allowances. According to Knud-
son, Johnson indicated he did 'not expect the' Union to
agree with the Company, but the Company could only
pay $1.10 for fringes. Said Knudson:
a Actually there are two boards of trustees (one for each fund), but the
two boards are made up of the same six members The boards meet sepa-
rately , and separate minutes are kept for each meeting
* Johnson indicated that he knew wages had increased and that the
multiemployer group had agreed to one or two additional holidays
1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[Johnson] suggested that to get the contract, you
have to go back and take $1.23 from the men's
wages from July of 1980 to the present to get the
Union contract with the Union fringes, and that the
employees would be docked the difference in the
$1.10 to the total package from their wages for the
Union's health and welfare and pension.
If the Union-if the members didn't want to dock
it, then he was asking the Union to excuse those
benefits or those payments-either excuse those
payments, the past liability payments or they would
have to come off from the men's wages.
The biggest thing there was what the men had
turned down all the proposals for all the time was
that the past liabilities either had to be excused or
taken from the men's wages, -and that was why the
men always turned down the proposals.
According to Knudson, the Company never indicated it
would 'pay back the retroactive contributions to the trust
funds. -
The Board's enforced order requires Stone to:
(c) Make employees in the aforesaid unit whole
for any losses or expenses they may have suffered
as a result of the unilateral discontinuance, as set
forth in the section of this Decision and Order enti-
tled "The Remedy."5
(d) Pay into the union health and welfare and
pension plans those contributions it has failed to pay
as a result of said unilateral change.
The General Counsel asserts in her brief that the law
is well settled that liability of a respondent for unilateral
changes "continues to run unless and until tolled by (a)-
restoration of the status quo ante, then (b) bargaining to
impasse or. agreement over the terms of a new Con-
tract.". Respondent concedes that there is "some author-
ity to support" the General Counsel's argument that "no-
amount of post violation good faith bargaining can stop
the liability from continuing to accrue until the Company
has first restored the status quo ante." NLRB v. Allied
Products Corp., 548 F.2d 644 (6th Cir. 1977), which Stone
cites, indicates which a respondent which unilaterally
discontinues benefits must restore the status quo ante and
continue their payment during negotiations.6
® The remedy portion-of the decision states in part:
We have found that Respondent since July 1, 1980, violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by ceasing to make contributions on behalf
of its bargaining unit employees to the Union's health and welfare
and pension plans
e Quoting from the decision of the Board's majority in Allied Products
Corp, 218 NLRB 1246 (1975)
[I]n cases, like here, involving a violation of Section 8(a)(5) based on
a respondent 's unilaterally altering existing benefits , it is the Board's
established policy to order restoration of the status quo ante to the
extent feasible, and in the absence of evidence showing that to do so
would impose an undue or unfair burden upon the respondent i We
find no basis here which justifies a departure from this policy Thus,
contrary to the Administrative Law Judge, the fact that Respondent
presented the Union with a fait accompli at the outset of negotiations
must necessarily have obstructed meaningful bargaining 2 To hold
that bargaining in such circumstances is an adequate substitute for re-
-medial action would unwarrantedly relieve Respondent of its statuto-
ry obligation to maintain existing benefits during negotiations and un-
The case principally relied on by Stone, NLRB v.
Cauthorne, 691 F.2d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1982), enfg. in part
the Board's Order in 256 NLRB 721 (1981), does give
support to the notion that restoration of the status quo
ante need not always precede a bargaining impasse.?
Cauthorne is of no assistance to Stone here, however, for
the record establishes that Stone could not have legally
bargained to impasse. It is clear from the record that
Stone could have only insisted to impasse on a nonman-
datory subject-the matter of restoring the status quo
ante-which is legally untenable. See Taft Broadcasting
Co., 274 NLRB 260 (1985); Arlington Asphalt Co., 136
NLRB 742 (1962), enfd. 318 F.2d 550 (4th Cir. 1963);
and Covington Furniture Mfg. Corp., 212 NLRB 214
(1974), enfd. 514 F.2d 995 (6th Cir. 1975). I agree with
the General Counsel that the record does not support
Stone's contention that it offered to restore the status
quo ante but instead conditioned reaching agreement on
the Union's willingness to waive its, right to that status.8
Thus, Stone's liability for the unilateral change was not
tolled, and the Company's obligation for payment of past
dues to the two trust funds continues.
Stone contends that it should be relieved of restoring
payments to the Union's pension and health and welfare
plans on the grounds of "hardship." Such an argument is
not a proper subject in a backpay proceeding, which is
instituted only to determine the total amount owed by a
respondent as a result of unfair labor practices. See H. S.
Brooks Electric, 247 NLRB 619 (1980). The cases cited in
Respondent's brief (p. 13) are not backpay cases.
Stone's argument that the General Counsel is seeking
"double payment" (i.e., payment of David Shaw's medi-
cal expenses and payment to the Union's health and wel-
fare plan) must also be rejected. It is clear that the
Board's Order, enforced by the court, requires Stone to
do both: to make contributions to the Union' s pension
and health and welfare plans on behalf of employees
after 1 July 1980 and also to make employees "whole for
any loss or expenses that they may have suffered as a
result of the unilateral discontinuance" of payments. The
Board 's order in this case is not , as was the Order in Re-
public Steel Corp. v. NLRB, 311 U.S. 7 (1940), penal or
punitive but is well within the Board's statutory author-
ity.9
justifiably ignore the rights of those employees who may have been
adversely affected by Respondent 's breach of that duty.
1 See, "e.g., American Smelting and Refining Company, 167
NLRB 204 (1967); Southland Paper M,lls Inc., 161 NLRB 1077,
1078 (1966)
2 NL.R B v. Benne Katz, et al., d/b/a Williamsburg Steel Prod-
ucts Co, 369 U S 736, 747 (1962)
7 Cauthorne has been cited in recent decisions of the Board See De-
pendable Maintenance Co, 274 NLRB 216 (1985), Buck Brown Contracting
Co, 272 NLRB 951 (1984); and Day's Metal Tab, 271 NLRB 1393 (1984).
8 Stone cites G C. Exh 7 , a 13 May 1981 letter sent by its labor rela-
tions representative Arthur Johnson to the Union as confirmation that
Stone made an "unequivocal offer to resume participation in the union
fringe benefits plan." The letter states that under Stone 's proposal em-
ployees may remain "in the Jointly Trusteed programs" if they were
willing to allow the costs therefor to be recovered from their hourly
wage rates Such was hardly a realistic offer to restore the status quo
ante
a Counsel for the Charging Party pointed out at the hearing that the
Board 's Order clearly requires "the trust fund be made whole separite
Continued
STONE BOAT YARD
Stone asserts that there is no reason to require pay-
ment of liquidated damages because the Funds' office
knew Stone wanted to withdraw from the two union
funds and the trustees could waive their payment. I am
unpersuaded by such argument. The relevant trust agree-
ments (G.C. Exhs. 24 and 25) provide for mandatory liq-
uidated damages ($20 per delinquency or 10 percent of
the amount of contributions, whichever is greater), and
the Board has ordered payment of such when a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement contains such explicit lan-
guage . See F.M.L. Supply, 258 NLRB 604 (1981); also
NLRB v. Strong, 393 U.S. 357 (1969).10
The General Counsel points out in her brief that the
Fund's office has gone to "substantial" expense to at-
tempt collection from delinquent employers and, more-
over, that the moneys which were collected have earned
a good return (over 12 percent in the case of the health
and welfare fund and over 16 percent in the case of the
pension fund).
and apart" from the obligation to reimburse Shaw. He noted that Stone
"put itself in this position by refusing to pay either Mr. Shaw or the trust
fund." He agreed that an offset would be appropriate if Shaw were to be
reimbursed, but the record does not indicate that Shaw has ever been
paid for the medical expenses claimed.
10 Fn 6 in the Board 's original decision herein provides for "additional
amounts" to satisfy the make-whole remedy. It reads in part:
These additional amounts may be determined , depending upon the
circumstances of each case, by reference to provisions in the docu-
ments governing the funds at issue and , where there are no govern-
ing provisions , to evidence of any loss directly attributable to the un-
lawful withholding action, which might include the loss of return on
investment of the portion of funds withheld , additional administra-
tive costs, etc., but not collateral losses. Merryweather Optical Ca,
240 NLRB 1213 (1979).
ORDER
1189
The Respondent, Stone Boat Yard, Alameda, Califor-
nia, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall
1. Reimburse David Show $2,974.12 with interest as
prescribed in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1971),
for medical expenses which would have been reimbursed
by the Marine Carpenters Health and Welfare Fund.
2. Restore current payments to the Marine Carpenters
Health and Welfare Fund at the rate of 83 cents per hour
worked by each unit employee and make payment to the
Fund of $49,220.10 representing contributions due for the
period 1 July 1980 through 19 September 1984, and
$4,922 .01 representing liquidated damages on those con-
tributions. In addition, make payment to the fund of 83
cents per hour worked by each unit employee for the
period after 19 September 1984, until current payments
to the fund are restored, and liquidated damages of 10
percent of the amount of any such contribution paid in a
delinquent manner.
3. Restore current payments to the Marine Carpenters
Pension Fund at the rate of $1.08 per hour worked by
each unit employee and make payment to the fund of
$64,045.33 representing contributions for the period 1
July 1980 through 19 September 1984, and $6,404.53 rep-
resenting liquidated damages on those contributions. In
addition, make payment to the fund of $1.08 per hour
worked by each unit employee for the period after 19
September 1984, until current payments to the fund are
restored, and liquidated damages of 10 percent of the
amount of any such contributions paid in a delinquent
manner.