Tennessee Packers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1966

160 N.L.R.B. 1496 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1496 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Drivers Union Local No. 383, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America, as the exclusive bargaining
representative of such employees
WE WILL make whole Jon Morton , Keith Eyer , Glen Donnelly , Albert Jones,
Robert Cline , and Franklin Porter for any loss of earnings suffered as a result
of the discrimination against them.
We WILL, upon request bargain collectively in good faith with the aforemen-
tioned labor organization as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the following appropriate unit with iespcct to rates of pay, wages,
hours, and other conditions of employment , and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is
All employees in our plant in Sioux City , Iowa , excluding refrigeration
engineer-mechanics , office clericals , guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
CLOVERLEAF COLD STORAGE CO.,
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Employer.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro-
visions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 316 Fed-
eral Building, 110 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401, Telephone
334-2618.
Tennessee Packers, Inc., Frosty Morn D ivision and Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-
CIO, Local 405. Case 0M-0A-15!p5. September 30, 7966
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On February 27, 1964, the National Labor Relations Board issued
a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding,' bndmg, inter
alia, that the Respondent had discriminated with respect to the recall
after a layoff of Nora Ann Black, Shirley Holt, and Myrtle Lane, in
violation of Section S(a) (4) and (1) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, and directing that the Respondent offer said
employees immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole
for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the Respondent's dis-
crimination against them. Thereafter, on May 4, 1965, the Board's
Decision and Order Was enforced by Decree of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.2
On November 9, 1965, the Board's Regional Director for Region
26 issued a backpay specification and notice of hearing to which the
Respondent duly filed an answw er. Upon appropriate notice issued by
the Regional Director, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner
1146 NLRI3 165.
2 334 F 2d 948
160 NLRB No. 120.
TENNESSEE PACKERS, INC. 1497
Morton D. Friedman on January 18 and 19, 1966, for the purpose of
determining the amount of backpay due the three ciscriminatees. On
June 20, 1966, the Trial Examiner issued his Supplemental Decision,
attached hereto, in which lie found that the discriminatees were
entitled to the following payments, upon which interest was to accrue
at 6 percent per annum until paid, computed on the basis of the quar-
terly amounts of net backpay due, less any tax withholding required
by lase. Ann Black, $8,374; Myrtle Lane, $6,581; and Shirley Holt,
$963. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Supplemental Decision and a supporting brief, and the
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief and also an
answering brief in reply to the General Counsel's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria].
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 entire rec-
ord in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Supplemental Deci-
sion, the exceptions, and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, con-
clusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record in this case, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Tennessee Packers, Inc., Frosty Morn Division, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall pay Ann Black the sum of $8,374, and to
Myrtle Lane the sum of $6,581, as backpay for the period from May 6,
1963, to June 19, 1965, and to Shirley Holt the sum of $963, as back-
pay for the period from May 11, 1963, to June 19, 1965; and to each
stun shall be added interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per
annum.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 27, 1964, the National Labor Relations Board (herein the Board)
issued its Decision and Order 1 finding that the Respondent had discriminatorily
refused to recall or rehire Nora Ann Black, Shirley Holt, and Myrtle Lane and
ordering the Respondent to offer each of them "immediate and full reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss
of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against
them in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the section entitled "The
Remedy."'
1146 NLRB 165.
1498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On May 4, 1965, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed
the Board's Decision and Order 2 and on the same day entered its decree enforcing
in full said reinstatement and backpay provisions of the Board Order.
A controversy having arisen over the amount of backpay due under the terms of
the Board Order and court decree, on November 9, 1965, the Regional Director of
the Board for Region 26 issued a backpay specification and notice of hearing. Said
backpay specification alleges, in substance, that neither Black, Holt, nor Lane has
been reinstated, as provided in the Board Order and court decree, in the Respond-
ent's wiener department where each had worked before their layoffs in September
1962, and that backpay should be computed on the basis of the average weekly
hours of the employees in the wiener department during the period commencing
from the first date of the discrimination against the three, as determined by the
Board in the main case, up to and including the date that full reinstatement is given
each employee. The specification also contains specific allegations as to the compu-
tation of backpay claimed due for each of the three discriminatees.
The Respondent's duly filed answer to the backpay specification generally avers
that although Black. Holt, and Lane were regularly assigned to the wiener depart-
ment at the time of their layoffs, nevertheless, under the terms of the Board Deci-
sion and court decree backpay should be computed on the average weekly hours of
employees in the Respondent's smoked meats department rather than the wiener
department and that Black, Holt, and Lane have been fully reinstated in the wiener
department in any event and therefore, backpay has been cut off. The answer also
sets forth the computation of backpay which the Respondent claims is due the
discriminatees.
Hearing was held before Trial Examiner Morton D. Friedman in Clarksville, Ten-
nessee, on January 18 and 19, 1966 At the opening of the hearing, counsel for
General Counsel amended the backpay specification by striking therefrom the allega-
tion that Respondent continues to fail to reinstate employee Holt.3 Also, at the close
of the hearing, I reserved the right of the parties to stipulate as to corrections in the
computations of base pay to allow the rates to be changed eliminating therefrom the
amounts paid to male employees in the wiener department, the male employees nor-
mally having higher rates than female employees. This stipulation was received after
the close of hearing, and is hereby received in evidence .4
At the hearing both parties were represented by counsel and afforded full oppor-
tunity to participate , examine witnesses and adduce evidence . Briefs were filed by
both parties. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of each
of the witnesses , I make the following findings , conclusions , and recommendations:
A. The issues
1. Should the calculation of backpay be based upon the average weekly earn-
ings of employees in the Respondent's wiener department or the smoked meats
department?
^2 Were Black and Lane reinstated fully to their former positions in the wiener
department on June 16, 1965, and was backpay thereby cut off?
3. A subsidiary issue is whether Ann Black made sufficient effort to avoid willful
loss and whether her expenses were sufficiently established.
4. What is the proper determination of sick pay for Black and Lane? 5
B. Department of employment to determine the basic backpay formula
Counsel for the General Counsel contends that in computing backpay for Black,
Holt, and Lane the average hours worked in the wiener department by the women
employees of that department constitute the correct formula basis. In support of that
contention counsel for the General Counsel points to the terms of the section of the
Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy" and his Recommended Order
2 344 F.2d 948
3 There were also other amendments in minor respects as to all three claimants which
are reflected in the computations hereinafter set forth
4 Trial Examiner ' s Exhibit 1.
5 At the hearing , another issue, the amount of medical expense due Myrtle Lane, was
disposed of by stipulation
TENNESSEE PAC KERS, INC. 1499
which was adopted by the Board and approved by the court which states in part:
. immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions "; that the former position of each disciiminatee was in the Aiener
department where each was employed prior to their September 1962 layoffs and that
a substantially equivalent position could not have been in the smoked meats depart-
ment because employees in the latter department receive substantially less incentive
pay.
The Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the average weekly hours of
the female employees in the smoked meats department constitutes the correct
formula basis for computing backpay and in support thereof points to the section
of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy" which states ". . . I also
recommend that Respondent make each of the discriminatees whole for any loss of
salary or pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination
against them by a payment to each of them a sum of money equal to that which
each normally would have earned from the date of said failure to recall or
reemploy to the date of said reinstatement , less the net earnings of each said
period...." The Respondent argues that from this language it is clear that the
discriminatees are entitled to backpay from that department to which they would
have been rehired on May 6, 1963, the date that Betty Mohon and Faye Seay were
hired. Respondent further argues that placing the discriminatees , rather than Seay
and Mohon , in the smoked meats department would have been precisely what the
General Counsel contended should have been done absent discrimination.
It would seem, from the contentions of the parties, that what counsel for the
General Counsel is contending is that the Board Order must be taken literally and
that the actual findings of the Trial Examiner as to what constituted discrimination
cannot be considered in determining what department hours should form the basis
for the backpay computation . The Respondent 's contention would seem to be that
the order should be interpreted in the light of the findings and should not neces-
sarily be followed literally. I find merit in the contention of the Respondent. Thus,
if Seay and Mohon had not been hired and the discriminatees had been reemployed
instead, they would have been placed in the smoked meats department . Any other
interpretation could result in an unjust enrichment of the discriminatees by paying
to them amounts which they would not have earned had they been rehired instead
of Seay and Mohon.
However, the Respondent fails to go far enough in its argument . A reading of
the findings and conclusions of the Trial Examiner's Decision reveals that about
the same time that Seay and Mohon were hired in the smoked meats department,
the Respondent also hired two employees, Langster and Suggs, in the wiener depart-
ment. The Trial Examiner found that the failure of the Respondent to reemploy
the backpay claimants here into the wiener department instead of Langster and
Suggs was a further discrimination and that the three should have been reemployed
in the wiener department Therefore, although the Respondent's basic premise may
have merit , the result of its application is that the discriminatees ' not having been
employed in the wiener department instead of Langster and Suggs, the hours of
the employees in the wiener department thereby become the basis of the backpay
formula.
Accordingly , I find and conclude that it is the houis of work and earnings of
the employees of the wiener department, rather than of the smoked meats depart-
ment, which constitutes the correct formula basis. This is the basis used in the
backpay specification and is hereby adopted.
C. The issue of reinstatement
In December 1964, Holt was reemployed by the Respondent as a new employee
in the smoked meats department. On May 10, 1965, Black and Lane were reem-
ployed, also as new employees, in the wiener department. According to Clay
Barnes, the Respondent 's plant superintendent , these employees were put back to
work because of advice to that effect by the Respondent' s counsel and also because
Barnes felt that the Court of Appeals would hand down a decision on the Board's
enforcement proceeding which would be adverse to the Respondent. The purpose,
therefore, was to reduce backpay as much as possible.
1500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When Lane and Holt were rehired their hours of work began at 9:30 a.m.,
whereas all of the other girls in the department began work at 6:30 a.m. Moreover,
Lane and Holt were paid at the rate of $1.60 per hour which was not the rate
of the other employees in the department but, rather, was the rate at which they
had been paid when they were laid off in 1962. The same was true of Holt in her
job in the smoked meats department. Thus, neither of the three employees was
reinstated upon the rehire nor does the Respondent claim that they were
Thereafter, as hereinabove set forth, on May 4, 1965, the Court of Appeals
handed down its decree enforcing the Board's Order. As a result thereof, and by
reason of service of a copy of this decree upon the Respondent and notification
by the Regional Director containing copies of the notices to be posted, Barnes
spoke to employee Holt and told her on June 16, 1965, that she was being rein-
stated to her former position in the wiener department. On that day Holt was
reinstated and the General Counsel concedes that full reinstatement was made
insofar as Holt is concerned.
The General Counsel, however, claims otherwise with regard to Black and
Holt. The record clearly shows that on June 16, 1965, Black, Holt, and Lane were
placed back in the wiener packaging department in the positions which they held
prior to their layoff in 1962. The record also is clear, although General Counsel
contends otherwise, that on that day Black and Lane were placed on full time and
worked from that day until their layoff on July 23, from 6:30 in the morning, the
same hours as other employees in the department. In addition, the notice supplied
by the Regional Director was posted in the places necessary. However, Superin-
tendent Barnes admitted he did not tell either Black or Lane, personally, that he
was reinstating them to their former positions on the wiener packaging line Roy
Cipriano, the foreman of the wiener department, as well as other departments,
stated on direct examination in the instant proceeding that on June 16, under
instruction from Barnes, he informed Black and Lane that they were being rein-
stated. On cross-examination, however, Cipriano was reminded that he could not
have told both Black and Lane because Lane, as a matter of fact, was on sick
leave on that day, having injured her back in the latter part of May lifting a
heavy box on order from Cipriano. Then Cipriano stated that he thought that he
had told both of them but perhaps he only spoke to one. But, on further cross-
examination, Cipriano stated that he heard Barnes tell Lane that the latter had
been reinstated. However, as noted above, Barnes testified that he never told
either Black or Lane personally that they were reinstated.
Both Black and Lane testified that neither had ever been told that they were
reinstated either on June 16 or any time thereafter. In view of Barnes' admission
that he did not tell either of these employees personally that they had been rein-
stated and in view of Cipriano's conflicting testimony, I credit Black and Lane to
the effect that they were never told that they had been reinstated to their jobs.
In addition to the foregoing, it was developed at the hearing that neither Black
nor Lane had received, from June 16 to July 23, the rate which they should have
been paid had they been completely reinstated. Although their rate was immedi-
ately raised on that day, it was still some cents less than that received by other
employees in the department doing similar work. Barnes explained that the reason
for this was that it was a bookkeeping error and an oversight and at the hearing
the Respondent tendered to Black and Lane the difference between the rate they
should have been paid and the rate they were paid. Both Black and Lane refused
the Respondent's tender.
Barnes further testified that Black, Lane, and Holt were each given the seniority
which they would have earned had they been reemployed on May 6, 1963. He
stated that they were not given the seniority which they would have earned had
they not been laid off in September 1962, because the Respondent's policy is that
if the layoff of any employee continues for a period longer than 30 days, that
employee has to return as a new employee and loses all seniority rights. Because
there was no testimony or evidence in the record to contradict this statement of
Barnes, I credit it and find that this has been the Respondent's established policy.
As heretofore referred to, the General Counsel contends that the actions of the
Respondent on June 16, 1965, did not constitute a complete reinstatement of Holt
TENNESSEE PACKERS, INC. 1501
and Lane, but, rather, a mere token reinstatement and that backpay continues to
accrue even though Holt and Lane were laid off on July 23, 1965. The theory of
counsel for General Counsel is that since the reinstatement was not completed,
backpay continues to run despite any subsequent events. The Respondent contends
that the reinstatement was complete on July 16, 1965, and that therefore the back-
pay of Lane, Black, and Holt has been cut off as of that date. Since there is no
question as to Holt, and Geneial Counsel concedes that Holt has been reinstated,
the issue must be decided only as to Black and Lane.
There are only two factors which would possibly prevent a finding that Lane
and Black were not fully reinstated on June 16, 1965. The first factor is that they
were not formally told that they were reinstated with full seniority rights and
other privileges But, they were given their former jobs in the wiener department
and moreover they replaced other employees who were laid off by reason of such
replacement. Secondly, their full hours of work were restored. As testified by
Barnes, they were given their full seniority rights dating from May 6, 1963, the
date they should have been recalled as found by the Board. Finally, the notices
regarding the reinstatement were posted. Under these circumstances, the mere
formality of failure to mouth certain words does not seem to me to be sufficient
upon which to base a finding that Black and Lane were not restored to their former
standing. The question may well be asked, "What more could the Respondent do
aside from formally announcing the restoration?"
I cannot believe that Black and Lane were so naive as to not know what was
happening. Other employees were laid off so that Black and Lane could have their
old jobs. This they most certainly knew.6
Therefore I conclude that the mere failure to inform them in so many words
did not constitute in and of itself a failure to reinstate Black and Lane.
I come now to the remaining factor, the failure of the Respondent to pay Black
and Lane the full rate paid to other employees in the wiener line if the failure
was deliberate, then the two discriminatees were not fully reinstated and their job
restoration would constitute only a token compliance, as urged by counsel for the
General Counsel. However, I note that Barnes testified, without contradiction, that
this was merely an oversight. Moreover, Holt was fully restored as conceded by
counsel for the General Counsel and there is nothing in the record to show why
Respondent would have deliberately given Black and Lane separate and different
treatment. Moreover, I have found that in all other respects the restoration was
complete.
Accordingly, I conclude and find that on the record as a whole Black and Lane
were given full and complete reinstatement to their former positions with full
rights and privileges as required by the Board Order and court decree and that
their backpay is cut off as of the date of reinstatement, June 16, 1965.7
D. Sick pay
Respondent denies that the computations of sick pay due Ann Black and Myrtle
Lane are correct and in its answer to the specification seeks to establish a formula
which it alleges differs from that used in the amended specifications. In the specifi-
cation, the formula for sick pay is set out as follows "Sick pay computed at base
hourly rate of pay for straight 40-hour week beginning . . ." on a certain date
through a certain date. In its answer Respondent sets out the sick pay formula as
follows: Sick pay computed on basis of 40-hour maximum straight time earnings
or equivalent after 7-day waiting period. Holiday pay included."
6 Both Black and Lane testified in a later proceeding concerning these laid off em-
ployees. See Tennesssee Packers, Inc, Frosty Morn Division, 158 NLRB 1192.
7In coming to the foregoing conclusion, I have not overlooked the incident of May 17,
1963, in which Cipriano ordered Lane and Black to lift the 00-pound box onto the float
which resulted in a back injury to Lane. Although, as contended by the General Counsel,
I considered this, to an extent at least, to be indicative of a feeling of resentment on
the part of 'Cipriano to the activities of Lane and Black in testifying in the earlier pro-
ceeding that they performed men's work, nevertheless, I do not consider it sufficient to
alter my determination that Black and Lane were fully reinstated.
1502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
However, there is nothing in the record, nor did Respondent offer any evidence
or explanation, with regard to Respondent's contention that the sick pay in the
specification was incorrectly formulated. I therefore conclude that under the Board's
rules and regulations regarding answers to backpay specification 8 the formula
applied by the General Counsel as to sick pay due these employees is deemed to
be admitted as accurate and true. Moreover, I take official notice of the formula
used in the decision of the Board in another backpay proceeding involving this
employer D in which the Board found to be correct the identical formula.
In view of the foregoing, therefore, I find and conclude that the computations
as to sick pay set forth in this specification, as amended at the hearing, is true and
correct and I shall recommend that this formula be used in establishing the back-
pay of the discriminatees.
E. The backpay of Ann Black
The Respondent contends that the General Counsel has not sufficiently estab-
lished Black's interim earnings for the burden of proof to have shifted to the
Respondent. According to the Respondent, Black's testimony does not substantiate
the information contained in the General Counsel's specifications. Moreover, the
Respondent also contends that Black's testimony does not sufficiently establish her
claimed expenses incurred while working at another employer's plant some miles
away from her home in the vicinity of Clarksville, Tennessee. The specification
sets forth employment periods for Black with Neuhoff Packing Co., Nashville,
Tennessee, for the quarters beginning the second quarter of 1963 through part of
the second quarter of 1965 until 2 weeks before she was reemployed by the
Respondent. Thus, Black was employed in every quarter beginning with the second
quarter of 1963. Although she testified that there were periods of layoff from
Neuhoff during these quarters Black could not remember with any exactitude the
dates of the layoffs or the length thereof. However, Black testified, on cross-
examination, that during these layoffs which lasted from 2 to 3 weeks she sought
work, among other places, at Acme Boot Company in Clarksville. There she was
told to report to work, but she was refused work at Acme Boot when she told the
employment office at that company that she had worked for the Respondent. In
addition, Black testified that she looked for work at Bigger Burger Cafe, Hillsdale
Cafe, and Town and Country, a drug store in Clarksville.
I find that the record establishes that Black was employed during every quarter
during the backpay period and that her testimony made it clear that she made
repeated and constant efforts to seek employment at all times that she was laid
off from Neuhoff Packing Company except for the 2 weeks prior to the time she
returned to Tennessee Packers. For this latter period no backpay is claimed. The
Respondent could elicit from Black no contradictory statements with regard to
her claims for backpay and did not offer any evidence to show that Black's efforts
were other than those she related Nor did the Respondent show that Black had
not made efforts to find employment during her layoff. Accordingly, I find that the
burden of going forward shifted to the Respondent and since the Respondent was
unable to introduce any evidence to the contrary, I find that Black made sufficient
efforts to find employment during the interim period and incurred no willful loss io
With regard to the expenses of Black, the specification sets forth the exact num-
ber of days that Black traveled from her home in the vicinity of Clarksville,
Tennessee, to her job at Neuhoff Packing Co. in Nashville, Tennessee. Based on
the number of days that Black worked at Neuhoff Packing and the number of
trips that she had to make therefore, charged at 8 cents a mile and at a distance
of 90 miles a day, the General Counsel computed the expenses for each quarter.
I take official notice of Standard Highway Mileage Guide, Rand McNally & Com-
pany, which shows the road distance between Clarksville and Nashville, Tennessee,
to be in excess of 50 miles. I, therefore, find 90 miles per day for a round trip,
as claimed by the General Counsel, to be reasonable. I further find that 8 cents
per mile is a reasonable amount to charge as mileage expense. Accordingly, I
find that the expenses as set forth in the specification are reasonable. I note that
the Respondent has offered no evidence beyond the mere assertion that the mileage
has not been proven or that the mileage request is excessive. Accordingly, I shall
b Section 102 54(b).
1155 NLRB 1102, supra
10 See Dlastio Plastics Corporation , ct at , 130 NLRB 1..3 42, enfd 354 F 2 d 170 (C A 2)
TENNESSEE PACKERS, INC. 1503
recommend that the full expenses of Ann Black incurred during the interim period
as transportation to and from employment during that period be allowed.
Computation of Ann Black's Backpay:
Gross backpay due May 6, 1963 to June 19, 1965 using figures in specifica-
tion as amended at hearing------------------------------------- *$11, 395
Less difference as corrected by post-hearing stipulation---------------- 48
11,347
Less net interim earnings ----------------------------------------- 2,973
Total backpay due Ann Black upon which interest shall accrue at 6% per
annum until paid---------------------------------------------- 8. 374
'Since the computation of backpay ended on June 19, 1965, I have not deducted any
amount for this period subsequent to the cutoff date of June 16, 1965.
F. Backpay of Myrtle Lane
Myrtle Lane was employed during the entire period of time from her layoff in
1962 until she was reemployed by the Respondent . The Respondent does not con-
tend that Lane incurred any willful loss. Accordingly , I shall award her backpay
in accordance with the computations in the specification.
Computation of Myrtle Lane's Backpay:
Gross backpay due May 6, 1963 to June 19, 1965 using figures in specifica-
tion as amended at the hearing----------------------------------- $11,472
Less difference as corrected by post-hearing stipulation----------------- 5'
11,467
Less net interim earnings------------------------------------------ 5,096
Net backpay due------------------------------------------------ 6,371
Plus medical expenses as per stipulation ----------------------------- 210
Total backpay due Myrtle Lane upon which interest shall accrue at 6% per
annum until paid----------------------------------------------- 6,581
G. Backpay of Shiley Holt
The Respondent does not contest the interim earnings or the employment efforts
of Holt. Accordingly, I shall award her backpay as computed in the specification.
Computation of Shirley Holt's Backpay:
Gross backpay due May 11, 1963 to June 19, 1965, using figures in specifica-
tion as amended at the hearing------------------------------------ $2,907
Less net interim earnings ------------------------------------------- 1,944
Total backpay due Shirley Holt upon which interest shall accrue at 6% per
annum until paid----------------------------------------------- 963
H. Conclusions and iecoinmendations
It is concluded and found that the net amounts of backpay due Black, Lane,
and Holt for the periods heretofore set forth until their respective reinstatements
are, respectively, Black $8,374, Lane $6,581, and Holt $963, plus interest at the
rate of 6 percent per annum on each quarterly amount as provided in the Board
Order and court decree, less any tax withholding required by law.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions and upon the entire
record in this case, I recommend that the Board issue the following:
ORDER
Respondent, Tennessee Packers, Inc., Frosty Morn Division, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns shall pay to Ann Black the sum of $8,374, Myrtle Lane
the sum of $6,581, and Shirley Holt the sum of $963 with interest to each 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, as net backpay due
each under the Board Order and court decree for the period ending June 19, 1965.