The Laidlaw Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 28, 1973

207 N.L.R.B. 591 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

THE LAIDLAW CORP. 591
The Laidlaw Corporation and Local 681, International
Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill
Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases 25-CA-2399 and
25-CA-2450
November 28, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On June 29, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Paul
E. Weil issued the attached Supplemental Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and Counsel for the
General Counsel filed a brief in support of the
Administrative Law Judge's Supplemental Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Supplemental Decision in light of the
exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the
rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administra-
tive Law Judge and to adopt his recommended
Order.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, The Laidlaw Corpo-
ration, Peru, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order.
1 Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied since the
record, the exceptions , and the briefs adequately present the issues and
positions of the parties.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
PAUL E. WEIL, Administrative Law Judge: On June 13,
1968, the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter
called the Board, issued its Decision and Order directing
The Laidlaw Corporation, hereinafter called the Respon-
dent, to reinstate and make whole certain employees of
Respondent for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of
its discrimination against them. On July 28, 1969, the
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit entered its
judgment enforcing the Board's order. The parties having
then been unable to agree upon the amount of backpay
due certain discriminatees, the Regionall Director of the
Board for Region 25 issued a Backpay Specification and
Notice of Hearing and an amendment thereto , each of
which were duly answered by Respondent ; by denying
certain allegations in the backpay specification denying as
to each of the discriminatees involved therein that he or
she was due the backpay recited in the specifications, and
generally denying as to all of the discriminatees that any
backpay was due after a certain strike settlement agree-
ment was entered into on December 12, 1966. On the issues
thus joined the matter came on for hearing before me at
Peru, Indiana, on February 21, 1973, and continued until
March 6, 1973. During the course of the hearing an issue
arose concerning vacation pay allegedly denied certain
discriminatees after their reinstatement by Respondent and
I permitted the General Counsel to further amend the
backpay specification to include a claim therefor. Subse-
quent to the close of the hearing a joint exhibit , which I
hereby receive in evidence, had been received from the
General Counsel and Respondent, setting forth agreed-
upon amounts of backpay in the event that it is determined
that vacation benefits were denied the rehired discrimina-
tees.
All parties were present and represented at the hearing
and had an opportunity to call and examine witnesses and
to introduce relevant and material evidence . After the close
of the hearing the General Counsel and Respondent filed
briefs. On the entire record in this matter and in
consideration of the briefs I make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE THRESHOLD ISSUES
A. The Strike Settlement Agreement
Respondent contends that on December 12, 1966, it
entered into a strike settlement agreement with the Union,
pursuant to which reinstatement was offered 23 discrimina-
tees and all other discriminatees thereby waived reinstate-
ment and subsequent backpay. The evidence upon which
Respondent's contention is based is , in part, sharply
contradicted by evidence adduced by the General Counsel.
In brief the circumstances are these.
In late November 1966, the strike 1 was still in existence.
Most of the striking employees had found interim
employment , some were removed from the labor market
for various reasons and some 23 of the employees
continued full-time around-the-clock picketing of Respon-
dent's plant in Peru , Indiana.
Representatives of Respondent, Personnel Director
Holloway, and Plant Manager Keene, both of whom were
newly arrived on the scene, met with representatives of the
Union, Wentz and Taylor, and discussed ending the strike
and resolving the differences between them . Holloway, the
spokesman for Respondent, declined to discuss resolution
of the issues involved in the instant unfair labor practice
charges but offered to explore whether the strike could be
ended by rehiring some of the striking employees and
negotiating a new contract At this point the credibility
1 Details concerning the strike and the nature thereof are set forth in the
Board's initial decision in this matter and will not be repeated herein.
207 NLRB No. 94
592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
issue arises, Holloway testified that he urged the Union to
give him a list of all employees who sought reinstatement
and Respondent would determine whether it could hire
them . Wentz testified that no request was made for a list of
all employees who sought reinstatement but rather that the
Union offered a list of all discriminatees who were still
involved in the strike, i.e., the 23 discriminatees who were
then manning the picket line. At any rate, the Union
presented a strike settlement agreement, negotiations took
place, Respondent agreed to rehire the 23 named employ-
ees. The employees were not reinstated but returned as new
hires without seniority benefits of any kind. Then the
Union attempted during negotiations to include a 24th
employee, Dorothy Scotten, who had lost her interim
employment apparently during the negotiations. Respon-
dent declined to consider her but stated that if any
experienced employees wanted to work for Respondent
they could file applications as new employees.
On the above facts Respondent contends that it has
fulfilled its duty of offering reinstatement to all the
discriminatees inasmuch as the Union, as their agent, in
presenting a list of 23 discriminatees desiring reinstatement
thereby implicitly waived reinstatement as to all others.
This issue is scarcely one of first impressions. The
Board's rule under these circumstances was quite recently
set forth in its decision in Heinrich Motors, Inc., 166 NLRB
783, in which the following statement appears.
Section 10(c) of the Act expressly empowers the
Board to order "reinstatement of employees with .. .
backpay;" and as the Supreme Court has noted,
"reinstatement is the conventional correction for
discriminatory discharges." Thus, our remedial order in
this case provides that Respondent must offer Cira
reinstatement and make him whole for any loss of
earnings suffered until the offer of reinstatement is
made. The fact that a remedial offer of reinstatement
may be declined, particularly where, as here, it is made
long after the discriminatory discharge, does not
diminish the importance of the offer in our remedial
scheme. Reinstatement is basic to our remedy here, for
"to limit the significance of discrimination merely to
questions of monetary loss to workers would thwart the
central purpose of the Act." Respondent's offer of
reinstatement was required to comply with our, order
and to remedy its discrimination by demonstrating to
employees that their rights will be vindicated. To toll
Respondent's backpay obligation prior to its offer in
September 1965 would eliminate the practical incentive
for compliance with our order.
We note initially that a statement by Cira to Dishner
(a Board agent) that reinstatement was not desired,
could not be relevant to indicate a willfull loss of
earnings . Furthermore , Respondent does not suggest
that its backpay obligation should be tolled because it
relied in any way upon Cira 's statement and delayed its
offer of reinstatement . Indeed, there is no suggestion
that such statement ever came to Respondent's atten-
tion.
As to whether Cira's alleged statement to Dishner
would constitute a waiver of his right to reinstatement,
we consider it clear that such a statement prior to
Respondent's offer could not manifest "an unequivocal
resolve not to accept reinstatement." Both in order to
preserve the public interest in Respondent 's meaningful
compliance with our order and to safeguard a discrimi-
natee's rights, we consistently have discounted state-
ments, prior to a good-faith offer of reinstatement,
indicating unwillingness to accept reinstatement. [Cit-
ing, e.g., Leeding Sales Corp., 155 NLRB 755; Hatch
Chevrolet, 136 NLRB 284, 293; Borg-Warner Controls,
128 NLRB 1035, 1044; Burnup & Sims, Inc., 157 NLRB
366.] We are mindful of the fact that such statements
may reflect only a momentary state of mind that is
subject to change; prior to an offer of reinstatement,
such statements are in the nature of answers to a
hypothetical question ; and the discriminatees expres-
sion "may have been made in the heat of dissatisfaction
with his treatment by Respondent."
In the instant case , assuming the facts as Respondent
would have them , Respondent does not contend that it
offered reinstatement to any employee in 1966. On the
contrary , at that time it contended that the issues were
before the Board and it preferred to leave them that way.
The "offer" if such it could be considered , was to attempt
to end the strike, if putting strikers back to work could do
it. Respondent admittedly was not prepared to put all
strikers back to work and, before it entered into negotia-
tion as to putting any back to work, it demanded a list of
all strikers whose rehire was then actively sought by the
Union. Even assuming that the Union assured Respondent
at that time that the 23 named employees were the only
discriminatees that sought reinstatement, under the rule
quoted above, the Board's order is not fulfilled nor is a
waiver either of future reinstatement or backpay affected.
Accordingly, I reject Respondent's threshold contention
and I find that the strike settlement agreement does not toll
backpay for any of the employees involved herein except
that the earnings of the employees who were rehired
pursuant to the strike settlement agreement, mitigated
Respondent's backpay liability.
B. The Termination Pay
When Respondent closed its Peru, Indiana , plant, in
January 1973, after negotiation with the Union, it paid to
its employees termination pay totaling in excess of
$30,000 .2 Respondent contends that this payment of
termination pay to employees, including some of the
employees involved herein, should serve somehow to
mitigate its liability for backpay. Respondent's counsel
admitted at the hearing that there was no evidence that
during the negotiations over severance pay either party
discussed or considered the severance pay as an offset to
Respondent's liability in this proceeding. Nevertheless
Respondent contends that backpay under these circum-
stances comprises a windfall payment to the employees
who received termination pay and should therefore be
disallowed. Initially it should be noted that backpay is by
2 With few exceptions the individual employees received less than $500.
THE LAIDLAW CORP. 593
no means a windfall. On the contrary, the backpay
awarded as a result of this hearing represents an effort on
the part of the Board, sanctioned by the courts, to restore
the status quo ante that would have existed but for the
unfair labor practices of Respondent, insofar as possible,
and to effectuate the public purpose of ensuring to
employees that they shall be made whole for the financial
harm resulting from an employer's unfair labor practices.
The only extent to which payment could be called a
windfall is that the employees, having somehow managed
to tighten their belts and survive the discrimination
practiced against them, now may have an opportunity to
recoup therefrom.
Respondent points to no authority for the proposition,
which it vigorously espoused, at the hearing nor do I know
of any. I find that the payment of severance pay by
Respondent to certain of the employees involved herein
does not operate as an offset to Respondent's liability.
C. Strike Benefits
Respondent contends that gross backpay during the time
between February 12 and the first employment procured
should be mitigated by the amount strikers were paid by
the Union during that period, arguing that the strike
benefits were "earnings" to the striker. Respondent argues
that the strike benefits are not indeed strike benefits within
the normal usage of the term because employees were paid
only during a period of time they picketed and they
received additional strike benefits as a consequence of
picketing additional periods of time. The record reveals
that strike benefits were paid on the basis of the striker's
family situation, i.e., the head of the household received
greater strike benefits than a single person and additional
benefits3 were paid for each dependent of the striker. The
picketing requirements were not absolute, discriminatees
were not "docked" if they missed a picketing assignment
by reason of illness or necessary unavailability and were
permitted to exchange their hours of picketing among
themselves. The striker who could not walk picket during
an assigned period of time was expected to secure a
replacement, in some instances discriminatees who were
employed continued to walk picket for a period of time but
received no payment. In two cases benefits were continued
for hospitalized strikers. Strike benefit allotments were
available only to unemployed strikers. Apparently com-
mencing May 29, 1966, additional amounts were afforded
pickets based on the number of shifts of picket duty for
gasoline, taxi fare, babysitters, coffee etc. Under the
reimbursement schedule published effective that date,
pickets who worked at least three shifts received $6
additional a week, those who worked four shifts of picket
duty, $9 a week and those who worked five shifts of picket
duty, $12 a week.
As Administrative Law Judge Ross stated in his decision
in Rice Lake Creamery Company, 151 NLRB 1113, 1131:
The legal principles involved are well established. If the
strike benefits received by the discriminatees constitute
wages or earnings resulting from interim employment
they are proper deductions for gross pay, if these sums
represent collateral benefits flowing from the associa-
tion of the discriminatees with their union, then these
sums are not deductible. The burden of proving that
the strike benefits constituted wages for picketing and
thus were in the nature of interim earnings was on
Respondent.
Here the record shows that the payment of strike benefits
was not keyed to picketing alone. To qualify for these
benefits the discriminatees were required to do some
picketing but the benefits themselves were predicated on
the need of the employee rather than on the amount of
picketing performed. The additional sums for reimburse-
ment do not substantially change the picture. It is notable
that the reimbursement policy was instituted at about the
time school recessed for the summer and pickets would
normally be faced with additional expenses of child care.
Also by this time many of the strikers to whom transporta-
tion was available through automobile ownership had
secured other employment and the pickets would inferably
frequently be required to find other transportation to the
plant for picketing purposes. All in all I find that the
additional payment to reimburse employees for these and
other expenses, in the light of the low income the
discriminatees had from the direct strike benefits, are not
such changes in the benefit procedure as to constitute them
as interim earnings.
D. The Basic Backpay Formula
The formula under which the backpay was computed for
purposes of the backpay specification was based on a
determination of the average hours worked by a represent-
ative group of employees employed during the backpay
period in each of the departments of Respondent's Peru,
Indiana, plant in which discriminatees had worked,
omitting the hours of employees who worked less than 24
hours a week unless it appeared that the entire department
worked shortened hours in any particular weekly period.
The quarterly gross backpay for each discriminatee was
determined by multiplying the adjusted average hours
applicable to the backpay period of each discriminatee by
the wage rates he would have received during such
backpay period.
Respondent admitted the propriety of the General
Counsel's method of computation and admitted the
beginning and end of the backpay period except for its
contention that the backpay of all employees should not
continue beyond December 12, 1966, but contended
generally, as to each, that it lacked sufficient knowledge to
admit or deny material allegations regarding each discrimi-
natee and stated that it had no knowledge regarding the
interim employment earnings and expense allegations
concerning each discriminatee. In this state of the
pleadings I accept the computations of General Counsel
except to the extent that I credit evidence adduced during
the hearing either by the General Counsel or Respondent
changing the total computation. The General Counsel
made available at the hearing and called to the witness
3 Two dollars a week.
594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stand 40 of the discriminatees. Three who had no backpay
due them were not called , two were deceased and the
parties reached agreement on the backpay figure for six
employees who did not testify at the hearing for various
reasons. Accordingly, none of the 51 persons named in the
backpay specifications are unaccounted for. At this point it
appears appropriate to consider the backpay of the
individual employees.
Before considering each case on its individual merits, I
have considered generally, on the issue of availability of
desirable alternative employment, the nature of the
employment market in that part of Indiana in which
Respondent's plant was located. As an aid to such
consideration Respondent produced a letter from the chief
of research of the Indiana Employment Security Division
addressed to the manager of the Indiana State Employ-
ment Service in Peru , Indiana, showing that the Miami
county unemployment rate for the year 1966 averaged 3.4
percent as against the United States average of 3.8 percent,
in 1967 in Miami county the lowest rate was in the month
of October, 2.9 percent, the highest rate in June, 5.2
percent with the average of the four bimonthly figures
approximately 3.6 percent, in 1968 the low was in
December, 1.7 percent, the high in February, 4.1 percent
and the intervening months averaged out at approximately
2.9 percent.4 From these figures I can find only that there
was substantial but not alarmingly high unemployment in
Miami county throughout the backpay period.
Perhaps a better indication of the employment situation
is to be found in a sheaf of (sometimes illegible)
photocopies of the employment advertisement in the Peru
Tribune covering a part of the backpay period. These
indicate, in summary, that with the exception of advertise-
ments by Respondent for employees and advertisements
by Radio Corporation of America for openings in
production work at Marion, Indiana, which appears to be
located some 34 miles from Peru , there was no regular
labor market available for the type of employees represent-
ed among the discriminatees. Frequent ads appeared for
babysitters, part-time door-to-door salespeople, experi-
enced automobile mechanics and electronic technicians
and other skilled trades. Occasional ads appeared for
grocery clerks in Peru but by and large the papers reveal
little market for the production, assembly and shipping
capabilities of most of the discriminatees.
Finally the Respondent adduced a copy of a booklet
published by the Chamber of Commerce of Peru entitled
Manufacturers Directory of Peru, Indiana, purportedly
listing the Peru area manufacturers . Perusal of its contents
reveals that in addition to manufacturers the booklet lists
other types of enterprises including railways, the public
service company, newspapers, printing press, dairies and
apparently some distribution facilities. The booklet is
dated May 1, 1965, which date has been struck out and
February 1, 1966, stamped above it. There is no telling as
of what time the various enterprises listed therein did
business in Peru or whether they used employees with the
competence of the discrimmatees herein. The fact that
almost none of the enterprises listed in the booklet appear
to have advertised in the newspapers for help leads one to
suspect that they did not supply a particularly fertile field
for job hunting.
Almost without exception the discriminatees registered
at the Peru office of the Indiana State Employment
Security Division . It is notable that this division advertised
occasionally in the newspaper for employees but with one
or two exceptions , noted below , no discriminatee appears
at any time to have been offered any employment by that
office . Whether phis resulted from discrimination by that
office against this particular group of employees, based on
the expressed wishes of the employers who use that office
to recruit help, does not appear . Most of the discriminatees
drew unemployment security which necessitated regular
reporting on their part to the office of the Indiana State
Employment Security Division where they were required to
affirm their continuing availability for employment and at
which time presumably the unemployment office would
have offered them whatever employment was available.
The failure of that office to offer the discriminatees
employment would seem to substantiate the testimony of
those employees who had difficulty finding employment
during the backpay period.
Respondent produced no specific evidence other than
that detailed above , and that derived from vigorous cross-
examination of the discriminatees . Respondent seems to
contend that if there is any hiatus of information
concerning interim earnings or expenses, or if, for reasons
of failure of memory or failure by the discriminatee to keep
records satisfactory to Respondent, or the giving of
incredible testimony by a discriminatee , it has a right to
expect a diminution of backpay . Respondent apparently
misconceives its burden herein to show , by a preponder-
ance of the evidence , whatever mitigating circumstances
exist . With the exception of a bundle of unassimilated
newspaper advertisement and a letter from the state
authorities concerning the relative level of unemployment
in Peru , Respondent produced no evidence of any
employment available to any discriminatee , nor of the
willful failure of any to accept such employment. Where
records exist, such as hospital records , employment office
records, earnings records and the like, Respondent made
no apparent effort to secure them . It is not enough that
Respondent thinks that employees should have been able
to secure jobs. Suspicion and surmise are no more valid
bases for decision in a backpay hearing than in an unfair
labor practice hearing, and I decline to indulge in them.
With all these facts in mind it is time to discuss the
individual discriminatees' backpay.
At the end of the hearing the parties stipulated on the net
backpay figure for the following employees:
Eiko Oldham $411.42
Diane M . Bakke $300.00
Mildred J. Glaze $1 ,850.00
William Massey $1,450.00
4 The information cited infra in Chief of Research Kelly's letter was the Indiana Employment Security Division and the county rates from the
allegedly derived from Employment and Earnings, a publication of the U. S. Indiana work force summaries for the year of reference.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics ; the Indiana rates from
THE LAIDLAW CORP. 595
Patricia Viertel5 $750.00
Earlene Watson $1,131.53
Richard Achey
Richard Achey's backpay period begins February 12,
1966, and ends January 13, 1969, when he died. His mother
appeared at the hearing and testified that during the
backpay period her son lived with her with his two
children, that she accompanied her son to various
employers where he sought work, that she called Respon-
dent on various occasions seeking to have him recalled
there without success, that she accompanied him to the
unemployment security office on various occasions and
that he made a good-faith effort to seek employment. His
brother testified to Richard's search for employment
before March 28, 1966, where the two brothers sought
work together. The social security report for Richard
Achey reveals that he worked at a number of places during
all but the first quarter of the backpay period with brief
periods if any between his employment at the various jobs
he held. Respondent adduced no evidence that Richard
Achey at any time withheld his services or failed to seek
employment . On the contrary it appears that he sought and
found employment rather successfully. Accordingly I shall
recommend the award of backpay in accordance with the
specification as amended at the hearing.
Stephen Achey
Stephen Achey's backpay period begins February 12,
1966, and ends on January 11, 1967, when he was rehired
by Respondent, he was unemployed during the first
calendar quarter from February 12 through March 1966.
On March 28, 1966, he was called to active duty as a
member of the National Guard and remained on active
duty until August 5, 1966. He returned to Peru at that time
and continued his search for employment, ultimately
finding employment a week or so later at a local
manufacturing concern which he left on his doctor's orders
because he was suffering from lung trouble from fumes
from a plastic process used at that employer. Shortly
thereafter he got a job at another manufacturing company
where he worked until he was rehired at Respondent's
plant on January 11. Respondent adduced no evidence
that Stephen Achey did not make a good-faith effort to
find interim employment or failed to the best of his ability
to mitigate backpay herein. Respondent contends that he
should have been able to find work during the first quarter
before he went into the National Guard encampment,
however, this is no evidence that his search for work was
less than thorough. I conclude that Stephen Achey should
be awarded backpay in accordance with the specifications.
Mary Barnhill
Mary Barnhill's backpay period begins February 12,
1966. She was offered reinstatement on November 16 by
Respondent and the backpay period ends at that time.
However, with the exception of the first and second
quarter of 1966 and the last quarter of 1969 Mrs. Barnhill
had no net backpay because her interim earnings included
her gross backpay. During the first quarter of 1966 Mrs.
Barnhill sought work at various places and registered for
unemployment compensation. She also picketed, normally
about 12 hours a week.
I find that the Respondent has not sustained its burden
of proof that Mrs. Barnhill failed in mitigating the backpay
as set forth in the specification. Accordingly I 'shall
recommend that she be paid in accordance therewith.
Norma Black
Mrs. Black's backpay period ended on December 27,
1966, when she returned to work at Respondent's plant.
Although the record reveals that she sought employment
and filed applications with various employers in and
around Peru, she secured no employment until recalled by
Respondent. Respondent, aside from its basic contention
that she should have been able to find a job from which it
would have me infer that she did not make an honest
attempt to do so, adduced no evidence that she deliberately
failed to mitigate the backpay or to search for interim
employment. I conclude therefore that backpay should be
paid her in accordance with the backpay specification and
I so order.
Clara Blackmon
Clara Blackmon's situation is exactly the same as that of
Norma Black except that she returned to Respondent's
employ on 'December 19, 1966. She had no interim
earnings, she applied regularly to the Peru office of the
Indiana Employment Security Division but was never
referred to any job thereby, she sought work at the plants
of many local and nearby employers without success.
Respondent adduced no evidence that her search for
employment had been anything but thorough. Accordingly
I recommend that she be paid backpay on the basis set
forth in the backpay specification.
Myra Bowman Michael
Mrs. Michael was recalled to Respondent's employ on
December 12, 1966. Although she registered for unemploy-
ment compensation, and received it, and searched for
employment, she found none. Respondent made no
showing that her failure to find interim employment was
deliberate. Accordingly I recommend that, she be paid
backpay in the amount set forth in the backpay specifica-
tion.6
Polly Bowman
Polly Bowman's backpay period ends with her recall to
Respondent's employment on December 14, 1966. Between
5 Viertel's name is misspelled in the transcript as Bartel. However the
surrounding circumstances leave no doubt that Patricia Viertel was the
person in the contemplation of the stipulation.
6 Respondent adduced on cross-examination the fact that Mrs. Michael
had not applied for employment at a certain local plant. She explained that
other discriminatees had applied there and had not been permitted to file
applications since they were not haring . This phenomenon obviously
occurred frequently ; the striking employees were in close association with
one another and were usually well informed as to which employer would
accept applications at any given time , thus it is quite possible and I do not
doubt that it occurred that discnminatees who were anxious to find
employment would nonetheless make few calls for that purpose knowing
that most of the specific employers were not hiring
595 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the commencement of the backpay period, February 12,
1966, and October 10 she was unemployed. She com-
menced work on that date at a nearby plant. The General
Counsel concedes that the interim earnings for that quarter
were $580 less $24 attributable to the additional expense of
driving to a nearby town, Wabash, Indiana, leaving a total
of $556 interim earnings for the fourth quarter of 1966. The
Respondent presented no evidence of any failure on Mrs.
Bowman's part to seek employment or otherwise mitigate
the backpay liability. Accordingly I shall recommend that
she be compensated in accordance with the backpay
specification.?
Rhea Bowman
Rhea Bowman's backpay period ends December 12,
1966, when she returned to work at Respondent's plant.
During the entire backpay period Mrs. Bowman was
unemployed. She testified that she registered at the Indiana
State Employment Security Office in Peru immediately
after her termination, but was never sent to any job and
that she hunted assiduously for work without success.
Respondent adduced no evidence that her search for
employment was other than intensive or that she deliber-
ately incurred liability. I recommend that backpay be paid
her in accordance with the specifications.
Christine (Brown) Asberry
Christine Brown Asberry's backpay period ends Novem-
ber 11, 1969, when Respondent offered her employment.
Christine Brown Asberry's backpay period begins February
12, 1966. The General Counsel contends that ' it ends
November 11, 1969, when Respondent offered her employ-
ment. The record reveals that Mrs. Asberry was employed
almost immediately after her termination in February by a
plastics factory at which she worked for 3 or 4 weeks and
found that she could not keep up with the speed of
production at the plastic press at which she was employed
and that the smell of the melting and sometimes burning
plastics made her ill. Accordingly, she quit her employment
and sought another job which she found within a week or
two in a neighboring town. To reach this job she was
required to ride with a fellow employee for "3 or 4 months'
to whom she paid $4 a week for transportation, thereafter
she rode with another employee to whom she paid $5 a
week. The General Counsel has listed as expenses deducted
from interim earnings $5 for each week. Accordingly, I
have reduced the expenses for the second and third quarter
of 1966 to $12 and $52 respectively rather than $15 and $65
respectively.
Mrs. Asberry continued to work at interim employ-
ment into the first quarter of 1967 when her brother died
and she left her job to go to Florida. While in Florida she
became pregnant and remained out of the labor market
until February 19, 1968, at which time she sought and
secured employment at Friendly Nursing Home. The
' The backpay specifications were amended at the hearing to reduce the
net interim earnings of Mrs. Bowman as a consequence of her having
continued her interim employment for 2 weeks after she commenced work
when recalled by Respondent. I agree with the General Counsel that
Respondent deserves no mitigation of backpay by the earnings of Mrs.
General Counsel in the backpay specifications computed
gross backpay in the first quarter of 1968 only for the
month of March 1968 ignoring the period between
February 19 and March 1, 1968, but the net interim
earnings reported were for the entire period for February
19 to March 31. I don't conceive this to be a valid
deduction, unless gross backpay is included for the period
between February 19 and March 1, 1968, during which
period Mrs. Asberry obviously was in the labor market. I
shall therefore increase gross backpay for the quarter by
nine additional working days, to a total of $393.49. In
addition Mrs. Asberry was required to buy five uniforms at
approximately $5 apiece to take the employment at the
nursing home. These uniforms constitute an expense of $25
which is to be deducted from the interim earnings, leaving
net interim earnings for the first quarterof 1968 of $193.76.
Since her earnings for the first quarter of 1968 would have
been $393.49 her net backpay for that quarter becomes
$199.73.
While Mrs. Asberry was employed at the Friendly
Nursing Home she again became pregnant and left the
labor market, in the third quarter of 1968. While she was
out of the labor market she moved to Florida and after she
had recovered from the birth of her second child went back
to work there, making no further effort to seek employ-
ment in the Peru area. In November 1969 she was offered
reinstatement by Respondent and although unemployed at
the time did not accept the offer. She testified that she
moved to Florida in order to be near her relatives. I
conclude that she thus removed herself from the labor
market and that backpay is accordingly tolled with the
commencement of the third quarter of 1968. I shall
therefore recommend that Mrs. Asberry be paid backpay
as set forth in the specifications amended herein, as I have
set forth above through the second quarter of 1968 after
which she earned no backpay.8
Nanola Browning
Nanola Browning's backpay period ends November 16,
1969, when Respondent offered her a job. Mrs. Browning
was pregnant at the time the strike started and because she
believed that employers would not hire her because she
was pregnant she made no attempt to find employment.
The baby was born in September 19,66 and she commenced
seeking work the last of October. Accordingly I find that
she took herself out of the labor market from the
commencement of the backpay period until November 1,
1966. The General Counsel contends that she had gross
and net backpay in the first quarter of $360.58. I reject his
contention and find that she had no backpay for that
quarter.
Commencing November 1, Mrs. Browning made an
intensive search for employment and found a job in the
first quarter of 1967, at which she was still employed when
she was called back by Respondent, thus tolling the
backpay. I note that the gross backpay alleged by the
Bowman while she was working two jobs.
a I make no further deductions from backpay for the cost to Mrs.
Asbeny of laundering her uniforms inasmuch as there is no showing that
she would not have to launder whatever clothing she wore The fact that her
laundry included uniforms provided no additional expense of employment.
THE LAIDLAW CORP.
General Counsel for the fourth quarter of 1966 is $945.33,
the same as the gross backpay alleged for other employees
in the same work category as Mrs. Browning. Inasmuch as
she was out of the labor market for the first month of the
quarter, I shall reduce the gross and net backpay for that
quarter by one-third.
After her return to the labor market Mrs. Browning is
not shown to have faltered in her effort to find employ-
ment and ultimately was employed in the first quarter of
1967, continuing in the same employment until the
backpay period was tolled by Respondent's job offer on
November 16, 1969. With the exception of the reduction
set forth above in the calendar year 1966, I recommend
that she be recompensated as set forth in the backpay
specifications, as amended.9
Dorothy A. Cain
Dorothy Cain's backpay period ends February 14, 1967,
when she returned to work at Respondent's plant. Dorothy
Cain provides the exception that proves the rule; the
Unemployment Security Division referred her to a job.
Before she had been employed by Respondent she had
worked for a restaurant and when she registered with the
Unemployment Security Division the successor-owner of
the restaurant asked the Employment Security Division to
refer her to employment with them. However they offered
only 90 cents an hour which Mrs. Cain determined was not
enough to warrant taking the job. Accordingly she sought
elsewhere for work and found employment at a cleaning
establishment at $1 an hour where she continued to work
until she was recalled by Respondent.
While it is sometimes necessary that an employee lower
his sights in seeking interim employment, I find no warrant
in the instant case in denying Mrs. Cain any part of her
backpay because of her refusal to take the job at 90 cents
an hours, an amount which would scarcely have compen-
sated her for the cost encountered on her transportation
from Chili, Indiana, where she lived, to Peru where the
combination grocery store and restaurant was located. I
find that she made a good-faith effort to find interim
employment and agree with the General Counsel that she
should be awarded backpay in the amount set forth in the
backpay specifications, as amended at the hearing.'0
Betty Crippen
Betty Crippen's backpay period ends December 14, 1966,
when she returned to Respondent's employ. During the
backpay period Mrs. Crippen had no interim employment.
The record reveals that she registered with the Unemploy-
ment Security Division and reported there regularly and
that she applied for employment at most of the plants in
and around Peru where other discriminatees sought and
sometimes found employment. There is no evidence that
she deliberately withheld her services or failed to mitigate
backpay. I recommended that she be paid in accordance
with the net backpay set forth in the specifications.
9 Mistakes in the computations set forth in the backpay specifications for
the third quarter of 1968 and the second quarter of 1969 were amended at
the hearing
10 The record reveals that in addition to the second quarter earnings and
Martha Dalton
597
Martha Dalton's backpay period ends April 1, 1967,
when she left the labor market. Mrs. Dalton's husband was
stationed at an Air Force base near Peru, Indiana, and was
ordered to Southeast Asia, at which time Mrs. Dalton
being unable to support herself and her daughter with her
husband overseas and without a job moved to Central
City, Kentucky, to be with her parents during her
husband's absence. After she reached Central City,
Kentucky, she resumed her search for employment without
success. In July she notified the Respondent of her move
but was not thereafter called back to work by Respondent.
On April 1, 1967, her husband returned and was assigned
to a base in Florida where she moved to be with him, thus
taking herself out of the labor market. I conclude that Mrs.
Dalton under the peculiar circumstances of her case does
not relinquish her right to backpay by reason of her move
to Kentucky. She testified that if she had employment in
Peru she would have stayed there but could not afford to
do so without employment. But for the discrimination she
would have been employed by Respondent and presuma-
bly would have stayed there until 1967 when her husband
returned to this country. Accordingly I recommend that
she be paid backpay in accordance with the backpay
specification. Prior to the departure of her husband, she
took a 2-week leave during the course of which her
husband moved her to her parent's home. Respondent
contends that she was out of the labor market during that
period of time. However, Respondent made no showing
that if she had been employed by Respondent at that time
she would have taken a vacation or for that matter her
husband would have taken leave for that purpose.
Accordingly I find that Respondent has not supported its
contention with substantial evidence and I reject it.
Virginia Durham
Virginia Durham's backpay period ends December 15,
1966, when she returned to Respondent's employ. Mrs.
Durham secured no employment during the year 1966 and
accordingly had no interim earnings. There is no evidence
that Mrs. Durham did not make a good-faith attempt to
find employment, she registered at the unemployment
security office and called on all of the usual employers in
the vicinity in an attempt to find employment. Accordingly
I recommend that she be paid backpay in accordance with
the specification;
Dovie Fisher
Dovie Fisher's backpay ends December 20, 1966, when
she returned to Laidlaw. During the year 1966, Mrs. Fisher
had no interim employment and accordingly no interim
earnings. Mrs. Fisher testified that she made no effort to
find employment until May because she did not think the
strike would last that long and thought that she would go
back to work. Commencing in May however she applied at
thereafter attributed to the dry cleaners employment , Mrs. Cam earned $79
in the first quarter. These interim earnings less $2.90 expended at the rate of
10 cents per mile for 29 miles in seeking employment during the first quarter
should be deducted from the gross backpay for the first quarter of 1966.
598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
various other employers and appears to have made a good-
faith attempt to seek employment. Accordingly I shall
reduce gross backpay for the period February 12 through
April 30, 1966. This backpay for the first quarter is wiped
out completely and the backpay for the second quarter is
reduced from $741.97 by $233.66 to $508.31. I recommend
that she be reimbursed in accordance with the backpay
specification for the third and fourth quarter of 1966.
Marjorie Flitcraft
Marjorie Flitcraft's backpay period ends November 11,
1969, when she was offered employment by Respondent.
Mrs. Flitcraft registered at the unemployment security
office promptly and appears to have made a good-faith
effort to seek employment. She found employment in the
second quarter of 1966 and continued in the same job from
then until backpay was tolled by Respondent's offer of the
job.
Respondent contends that because Mrs. Flitcraft took a
vacation in 1967,1968, and 1969, gross backpay should be
reduced for those periods. However, it appears that the
interim employer paid her vacation pay and accordingly no
mitigation of backpay should result therefrom. Mrs.
Flitcraft had transportation expenses from Peru, Indiana,
where she lived, to Wabash, Indiana, where she found
work. Mrs. Flitcraft testified that at all times she had at
least one passenger riding with her who paid $3 a week
towards the expenses and that her expenses, aside from
wear and tear on the car, consisted of $8 a week for
gasoline. Mrs. Flitcraft testified that in addition to the one
rider who always paid her $3 a week she had another one
about half the time who paid a similar sum.
The General Counsel claims $3 per week through the
entire backpay period for transportation expenses. Inas-
much as Mrs. Flitcraft's computation of $8 a week takes
into account no depreciation on the car, no expense for oil,
lubrication, tires, batteries, etc., but only the out-of-pocket
expense for gasoline , and inasmuch as the record reveals
the distance to Wabash from Peru is 16 miles, which
multiplied by five round trips would be 160 miles which
would normally be computed at the rate of 10 cents a mile,
I believe that the General Counsel's offset of $3 a week is
minimal and should be allowed. In addition the General
Counsel claims as an offset $7.60 for travel of 76 miles at
10 cents a mile searching for work in the second quarter. I
believe this is a reasonable offset and should be allowed.
As a consequence I shall recommend that Mrs. Flitcraft be
recompensed in accordance with the backpay specifica-
tion.11
her job. The person who answered stated that there were
no jobs available , whereupon Mrs. Good asked to speak to
Mr. Brown , the plant manager who had signed the
November 11 letter . The person who answered the
telephone stated that Mr. Brown was in conference and did
not have time for her and broke the connection. The
following Friday , Mrs. Good made a similar telephone call
with similar response . Respondent contends that in the
absence of identification of the person to whom Mrs. Good
spoke, Mrs. Good's evidence is not sufficient to continue
Respondent's liability for backpay after the November 11,
1969, date . The evidentiary rule as I understand it is that
when a person places himself in connection with the
telephone system through an instrument in his office he
thereby invites communication in relation to his business
through that channel, and conversations held over such
telephone in relation to his business carried on there are
admissible, even where the voice on the telephone is not
identified . Respondent made no effort to rebut Mrs.
Good's testimony and I credit it. I conceive that it is
Respondent's responsibility that the person who answers
his business telephone speak authoritatively or not at all
and I find that the response to Mrs. Good's inquiry
constitutes a rejection of her attempt to "claim" her job
and is sufficient to continue Respondent's liability.
In March 1970, Mrs. Good and her husband adopted a
baby and shortly thereafter she left the labor market thus
tolling backpay.
Respondent adduced no evidence that Mrs. Good did
not make a good-faith attempt to secure employment and
indeed the General Counsel admits to interim earnings
commencing in the second quarter of 1966 that for the
most part exceeded gross backpay.12 I conclude that
Respondent should make her whole by the payment to her
of the amount set forth in the backpay specifications, as
amended.
Dorothy Graham
Dorothy Graham's backpay period ends November 11,
1969, with the letter from Respondent offering her
employment. The General Counsel admitted 'certain
interim earnings and alleged certain expenses in attaining
these interim earnings. Mrs. Graham appears to have
searched in good faith for employment and to have found
it, as a consequence of which her interim earnings for most
quarters are greater than her gross, backpay. I conclude
that she should be paid by Respondent the figures alleged
in the backpay specifications.
Garnet Good
Garnet Good's backpay ends June 13, 1970, when she
voluntarily removed herself from the labor market. Mrs.
Good testified that on or about November 13, 1969, she
received a letter offering her reemployment with Respon-
dent. She immediately telephoned the plant of Respondent
and informed the person who answered the telephone, a
female, that she had received a letter and wanted to claim
Mary Green
Mary Green's backpay period ends December 15, 1966,
when she returned to Respondent's employ . During the
year 1966 Mrs. Green had no interim employment, she
sought employment from the Indiana Employment Securi-
ty office and went to various local employers seeking work
without success. Respondent has shown no reason why
backpay should be reduced in any respect. Accordingly I
11 It may be noted that Mrs. Flitcraft 's interim earnings exceeded her 12 During the hearing the General Counsel amended the backpay
gross backpay in I 1 of the 16 quarters. specification in significant respects.
THE LAIDLAW CORP. 599
recommend that she be paid in accordance with the figure
set forth in the backpay specifications.
Bobetta (Harter) Pulver
Bobetta Pulver's backpay period ends February 11, 1969,
when she received, job offer from Laidlaw which she did
not accept. -
Mrs. Pulver testified that after her termination by
Respondent she sought work in Kokomo, Indiana, and at a
former employer in Peru and then found work at the South
Side Tavern as a waitress where she worked until sometime
in July, when she went to work for a manufacturing
concern . She stayed there until April 1967 when she left the
labor market, returning early in October 1967 to work at
the South Side Tavern until July 1968, when she again left
the labor market. No backpay is claimed after that date.
During her employment at the manufacturing concern in
1966 and 1967 Mrs. Pulver was ill for a period of 5 or 6
weeks , however, she testified she was paid sick benefits by
her employer at that time which is included in interim
earnings . Accordingly no reduction in backpay- for that
quarter appears to be warranted.
Respondent contends that Mrs. Pulver's interim earnings
should be increased by the amount of meals she was
furnished free. She testified that she had a lunch each day
she worked at the South Side Tavern valued at 40 to 50
cents. I shall increase interim earnings for the period of her
employment at South Side Tavern by $2.50 a week.
While Mrs. Pulver appeared deliberately to have left the
labor market on two occasions, there is no claim for
backpay during those periods.
In the absence of any evidence that her, search for
employment while she was on the labor market was
inadequate I shall recommend backpay on the basis
claimed by the General Counsel in the specifications less
the value of her lunches while employed at the Tavern.13
Edwin Elmer Hiers
her mother died April 21, 1966, that she had no preceding
illness or hospitalization and had not been under the care
of a doctor prior to her death.
Respondent adduced no evidence that Mrs. Hight made
anything less than an adequate attempt to find interim
employment during her lifetime. I recommend that her
estate be paid backpay on the basis set forth in the
backpay specification as amended.
-Elsie Hostetler
Elsie Hostetler's backpay period ends December 12,
1966, when she returned to work at Laidlaw Corporation.
During the interim period Mrs. Hostetler had no employ-
ment. Her testimony reveals that she filed for unemploy-
ment compensation but did not otherwise seek work until
she started to draw unemployment compensation in June
1966. It appears from her testimony that she made no
effort to find employment until June and accordingly I
shall recommend that she be paid backpay only from June
1 forward and that backpay from June 1 to the date of her
reemployment by Respondent be computed on the basis
set forth in the backpay specifications.
Betty Houk
Betty Houk's backpay period ends November 13, 1969,
when she received a job offer from Respondent.
After her termination Mrs. Houk went immediately to
the Unemployment Security Division office and registered
and made a considerable search for employment along
with other employees. She was quite successful, as a
consequence of which no backpay is sought for most of the
quarterly periods. On two occasions she was on layoff by
her interim employers and during those periods of time she
made an adequate attempt to find other employment. I
conclude that she should receive backpay on the basis set
forth in the backpay specifications.
Edwin Elmer Hiers' backpay period ends December 20,
1966, when he returned to Respondent's employ. During
that period of time he had no interim earnings. Mr. Hiers
had no skills and had been employed as a janitor. It
appears that he made a normal search for employment
without success and Respondent presented no evidence
that he failed in any way to make a good-faith attempt to
mitigate, backpay. Accordingly I recommend that he be
paid backpay in accordance with the specifications.
Gertrude Hight
Gertrude Hight's backpay period ends April 21, 1966,
when she expired. Her daughter Marceline Rasmussen
testified that after Mrs. Hight was terminated she applied
at the Indiana Employment Security Division in Peru and
received unemployment compensation checks and that her
mother informed her on various occasions that she had
been out looking for employment. She also testified that
13 Mrs Pulver was questioned about the value of tips received by her.
She testified that she seldom received more than 25 or 50 cents a week in
tips. I conclude that the evidence with regard thereto is too sparse and the
amount too insignificant to warrant further consideration.
Nellie Hughes
Nellie Hughes' backpay period ends December 27, 1966,
when she returned to work for Respondent. During the
intervening period she had no interim employment,
although she sought employment and registered with the
Unemployment Security Division.14 I conclude that she
should be paid in accordance with the backpay specifica-
tions.
Marjorie Johnson
Marjorie Johnson's backpay period ended when she
received and accepted Respondent's offer to rehire her in
December 1966. During the intervening period she filed for
unemployment compensation and got it and searched and
found no employment and accordingly had no interim
earnings. Respondent adduced no evidence that she made
less than a good-faith search for employment and therefore
14 Mrs . Hughes testified that she sought employment in company with
Norma Black whom I have already found made a good-faith effort to find
interim employment
600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I recommend that she be paid backpay in accordance with
the specifications.
Risa Johnson Nance
Risa Nance's backpay period ends December 19 when
she returned to Respondent's employment. During the
backpay period she found no employment and thus had no
interim earnings . Respondent adduced no evidence that
she made other than a good-faith search for employment
during the backpay period or that she was otherwise out of
the labor market . Accordingly I recommend that she be
paid in accordance with the backpay specifications.
Marilyn Jones
Marilyn Jones ' backpay period ends November 16, 1969,
when she was offered a job by Respondent . Mrs. Jones
appears to have made a good-faith effort to find employ-
ment and went to work on March 15 , 1966, for the A.G.P.
Corporation . She continued to work there into the fourth
period of 1966, when she quit because she was only getting
part-time employment. The following workday she com-
menced work at another employer in Wabash, Indiana,
where she continued to work except for a period of layoff
until the fourth quarter of 1969. During the entire period of
her employment in Wabash she drove her automobile with
her sister as a passenger, the gasoline for her week's driving
cost approximately .$6 a week and her sister paid her $3.
The General Counsel requests an allowance for expenses of
$3 a week . In view of the fact that the General Counsel is
not requesting all the expenses of the automobile during
this period but merely gasoline expense , I consider that his
position is reasonable and that the $3 per week should be
allowed . In August 1966, Mrs. Jones took a vacation of I
week from A .G.P. Corporation . She would not have earned
a vacation had she continued in Respondent 's employ.
Accordingly I believe that that week should be deducted
from the gross backpay since she was not paid by A.G.P.
Corporation for the week. I therefore shall reduce the gross
backpay and the net backpay to that extent.
In 1967 between August 20 and 27, Mrs. Jones again
took a vacation of 1 week . At this time she was on layoff
from her present employer . The record reveals that during
the period of her layoff she searched for employment
without success. She was recalled by the A.G.P. Corpora-
tion but her husband refused to permit her to return there
because she developed a nervous condition during her first
employment with A .G.P. and he did not want her to work
there again . She testified that on two occasions she sought
medical advice with regard to her nervous condition. I
conclude that her refusal to return to A.G.P. was
reasonable in view of her prior experience there both with
regard to the part-time characteristics of the job and her
nervous condition and I conclude therefore that she does
not waive her backpay rights by her refusal to return to
that employer. However with regard to the vacation,
inasmuch as it was taken during the layoff period , she took
herself out of the labor market for a period of 1 week and I
believe that the backpay for that period should be reduced
accordingly.
I recommend that Mrs. Jones be recompensed by
Respondent by the payment to her of the amount of
backpay set forth in the specifications less the vacation
period 1966 and 1967.
Betty Kline
Betty Kline's backpay period ends September 11, 1967,
when she returned to Respondent's employ. During the
backpay period Mrs. Kline made a good -faith effort to find
employment and ultimately found employment on June 1,
1966. Her new employer laid her off in December 1966 and
she continued on layoff for several months into 1967 when
she was recalled. In September 1967 she was on layoff
again and applied to her old foreman at Respondent's
plant who put her to work September 11. Shortly
thereafter, during a layoff by Respondent , she went back
to work for her interim employer , however, the General
Counsel seeks no backpay after September 11, 1967. The
General Counsel seeks expenses cf $6 for 60 miles for Mrs.
Kline to seek employment prior to her first employment
with an interim employer . I find that the claim is
reasonable and recommend that interim earnings be
reduced by $6 for the second quarter of 1966.
I recommend that Mrs. Kline be reimbursed by payment
to her in the amount set forth in the backpay specification.
Janett Lampkin
Janett Lampkin's backpay period ends November 16,
1969, when she was offered a job by Respondent. When
she was terminated she immediately contacted a former
employer and was put back to work there , apparently
about February 15. She was employed during each quarter
of the backpay period , although apparently in some
quarters she did not work full time . Respondent has made
no showing that she deliberately incurred loss of earnings
or failed to diminish insofar as possible backpay . Accord-
ingly I recommend that she be paid backpay in accordance
with the specifications as they were amended at the
hearing.
Lavone Landis
Lavone Landis ' backpay period ends December 14, 1966,
when she returned to work at Laidlaw.
During the backpay period Mrs. Landis sought work and
in the second quarter of 1966 obtained work at Wabash,
Indiana. After 18 days of employment Mrs. Landis' car
broke down on the way home from Wabash, Indiana. The
next morning she telephoned her employer and quit. She
testified that the reason that she quit was that she did not
trust her car to carry her back and forth to Wabash. There
is no explanation given for the fact that she made no effort
to ride with other employees who, the record reveals, were
daily driving to the same plant from Peru , Indiana, and
although her car was repaired shortly after she left the
employ of the Wabash firm she made no effort to be
reinstated there. Indeed it was not until July 20 that she
resumed seeking employment in the Peru area. She found
no employment although it appears that her search was
reasonable then until her recall by Respondent. In view of
the above facts. I find that Mrs. Landis did not make a
good-faith attempt to mitigate backpay between her
THE LAIDLAW CORP. 601
resignation from her interim employer in Wabash, Indiana,
and her resumption of her search for work on July 20.
Accordingly I shall deduct from her gross earnings that
period of time and I recommend that with that deduction
she be recompensed by Respondent for backpay in
accordance with the backpay specification 15
Mary Lepkojus Bridges
Mary Bridges' backpay period ends March 30, 1967,
when she removed herself from the labor market. For years
prior to her termination of employment by Respondent,
Mrs. Bridges had been employed part time in a second job
working in a hospital. After her discharge by Respondent
she continued her evening employment and looked for full-
time work, finding it in May in a nearby town, Wabash,
Indiana. She continued working there until the first quarter
of 1967, after which time she removed herself from the
labor market and went to work full time at the hospital.
During the period of time that she worked at the plant in
Wabash, she drove her own car and estimated that the
additional expense, some 28 miles round trip over the
driving that she had done to Respondent's plant, was
approximately $1 a day. Accordingly the backpay specifi-
cations seek to reduce interim earnings by expenses of $1
per day. Respondent showed neither that she did not make
a good-faith effort to find employment or that her expenses
were other than as stated. Accordingly I recommend that
backpay be afforded her in accordance with the specifica-
tions as amended at the hearing.
Marie Nichols
Marie Nichols' backpay period according to the General
Counsel ends January 13, 1967, when she returned to work
at Laidlaw. The record reveals, however, that Mrs. Nichols
was called back to work in December 1966 but was in the
hospital at the time and returned to work at Laidlaw as
soon as she was able to work after getting out of the
hospital. She testified that she went in to the hospital on
November 25 and was operated on the following day.
Accordingly she was out of the labor market from that date
forward and I shall reduce the gross backpay and net
backpay for the last quarter of 1966 and strike the gross
backpay and net backpay alleged for the first quarter of
1967 for Mrs. Nichols. Mrs. Nichols was not shown to have
made less than a good-faith effort to find interim
employment although she succeeded in finding none.
Accordingly I recommend that she be paid on the basis of
the backpay specifications for the period between February
12 and November 25, 1966.
Kathleen Ousley
Kathleen Ousley's backpay period began February 12,
1966, and ends December 15, 1966, when she returned to
work for Respondent. During the backpay period Mrs.
Ousley had no interim employment or earnings. The record
reveals that she made a good-faith effort to find interim
employment. There is no evidence that she deliberately
incurred specifications.
Bertha Parham
Bertha Parham had been employed only a few days by
Respondent when the strike began on January 11, 1966. In
the first week of picketing she was struck by an automobile
and spent 4 or 5 weeks in the hospital. She was in the
hospital on February 12 when she was terminated. I note
that the gross backpay alleged for Mrs. Parham is less than
that alleged for other persons similarly situated and no
evidence to the contrary having been adduced at the
hearing, I assume that the reason therefore is that the gross
backpay was reduced for the first quarter of 1966 because
of her period of- time in the hospital.is In the second
quarter of of 1966 Mrs. Parham found work in a nearby
town where she continued to work until she was informed
that she was to be cut from 48 hours a week to 4 days at 5
hours each, a total of 20 hours a week. Because of the
travel necessitated by the employment she deemed it
uneconomical to continue working for the employer and
quit her job. I consider that this is not an unreasonable
action for her to take.
Several weeks after quitting her first employer Mrs.
Parham took herself out of the labor market for 2-1/2
weeks while she took a vacation. Thereafter, she returned
to Peru and in the fourth quarter commenced work at the
Noncommissioned Officers Club at Grissom Air Force
Base near Peru. She continued working there after she was
called back to Respondent's employ in January 1967. Mrs.
Parham testified that she made about $10 a week in tips
while she worked at the NCO club. It is not possible to
ascertain from the documentary evidence whether these
tips are included in the interim, earnings reported by the
employer to the Social Security Administration or admit-
ted by the General Counsel, nor did Respondent make any
attempt to ascertain the facts in that regard. Accordingly I
presume the interim earnings reported include the tips, as
I.R.S. regulations require.
The record does not reveal at what time during the
summer Mrs. Parham took her 2-1/2 week vacation.
Accordingly I have averaged the number of hours per week
for the third quarter of 1966 and subtracted from the gross
backpay for that quarter five-twenty-sixths of the total.
Although the General Counsel admits no interim
earnings for the first quarter of 1967 and Respondent
admits that the backpay period ends January 9, 1967, Mrs.
Parham testified that she continued in the employ of the
NCO club until and indeed after she resumed her
employment with the Respondent. In the absence of any
explication of her earnings for that period I recommend
that the gross backpay for the period be reduced by one-
tenth of the interim earnings shown for the quarter on the
social security form furnished for Mrs. Parham, $53.86.
In the absence of any evidence that Mrs. Parham did not
make an adequate search for, employment during the
backpay period, especially in view of the fact that she held
two jobs during that period of time, I recommend that she
15 See Cornwell Company, Inc., 171 NLRB 342.
16 Respondent admitted gross backpay in its answer to the amended
specifications.
602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be reimbursed by the payment to her of the amount shown
in the backpay specifications less the reductions set forth
above.
Rozena Patterson Hudson
Rozena Hudson's backpay ended November 16, 1969,
when she received a job offer from Respondent. The
record reveals Mrs. Hudson was unemployed the first
quarter and part of the second quarter of 1966 but made a
good-faith effort to seek work. In 1966 she took a job with
Eck-Adams Corporation which she continued into the
third quarter of 1966. She left Eck-Adams and went to
work for Wagner Industries during the third quarter in
order to receive more pay. I find that she lost no earnings
between the Eck-Adams and Wagner employment. There-
after 'the lady with whom Mrs. Hudson rode to the job at
Wagner quit and Mrs. Hudson quit too. She gave no
reason for her failure to continue employment and made
no search for another ride. Under these circumstances it
appears that her loss of employment was deliberate. She
was employed for 2 weeks at Wagner for a total of $103.68,
therefore I shall add an additional $51.84 to her interim
earnings for that quarter because of her deliberate loss of
earnings for the week that elapsed between her resignation
at Wagner and her next job at A.G.P. Corporation,
Mrs. Hudson worked only two nights at A.G.P.
receiving a gross of $46.40. She then quit because she
didn't like it and was off 2 weeks until she went to work for
Houlihan Sales Agency. I shall deduct from the gross
backpay the amount of interim earnings which she lost as a
result of her quit from A.G.P., 10 days at $23.20 a day, a
total of $232.17
The record reveals that while employed at Houlihan she
received free lunches valued at $4 a week. Mrs. Patterson
worked at Houlihan's 2 weeks in October and for the rest
of the year. Accordingly ,I shall deduct $36 additional for
the fourth quarter of 1966 and $52 for the first quarter of
1967 at the end of which Houlihan's went out of business.
Mrs. Patterson was out of the labor market until the first
quarter of 1968 when she secured employment at Cham-
berlain Products in Akron, Indiana. She quit her job at
Chamberlain, which was too far to travel, but for the next
month made no application for employment. The record
reveals that the distance from Peru to Akron was 21 miles.
Accepting her explanation that it was too far to drive to
Akron to work at Chamberlain's I must nevertheless
consider that by a lack of application for other employ-
ment Mrs. Patterson removed herself from the labor
market immediately upon her quit from Chamberlain's
employ. Accordingly I shall subtract from the gross
backpay for the first quarter of 1968 the 2d, 3d, 4th and 5th
weeks' earnings, a total of $238. In addition Mrs. Patterson
testified that she was out of the labor market on March 15,
1968 , when she had an automobile accident. I note that the
gross backpay attributed to her account by the General
Counsel is for the entire quarter, I shall deduct the last 2
weeks from the gross backpay, a total of $137.08. Thus the
total gross backpay for the first quarter of 1968 is $439.77.
The General Counsel claims no backpay for the second
and third quarters of 1968 because Mrs. Patterson was out
of the labor market, having a baby. She reentered the labor
market in the fourth quarter of 1968. However it was not
until the end of October that she commenced looking for
employment. I note that the General Counsel has alleged
full gross backpay for that quarter. I shall deduct the first 4
weeks thereof, reducing the gross backpay for the fourth
quarter of 1968 to $647.40. Mrs. Hudson went to work for
Kofabco about November 1, and worked for a month and
then quit about December I in order to take care of her
child. Although the General Counsel shows her out of the
labor market the first two quarters of 1969 he shows her in
the labor market the entire fourth quarter of 1968.
Inasmuch as no valid distinction appears between the last
month of 1968 and the first quarters of 1969 I shall further
reduce the gross backpay for the entire month of
December 1968 a total of $257.60 leaving a net backpay of
$173.81. During the third and fourth quarter of 1969 Mrs.
Hudson worked at Crofton Inc. Crofton closed in the
fourth quarter. There is no evidence that Mrs. Hudson did
not make a good-faith search for employment after its
closure and I note that the fourth quarter gross backpay
has been reduced. Accordingly I shall adopt the figures as
set forth in the backpay specification for that period.
Margaret Pierce
Margaret Pierce's backpay period ended July 1, 1966,
when she voluntarily removed herself from the labor
market. She had no employment in the first quarter of
1966, however it appears that she made a good-faith effort
to find employment and Respondent adduced no evidence
to the contrary. She found interim employment on April
20, 1966, and had interim earnings of such a substantial
nature that the net backpay for that quarter is only 92
cents. I recommend that she be reimbursed in accordance
with the computation set forth in the specifications, as
amended.
Wanda Rose
Wanda Rose's backpay period ends November 14, 1969,
when she returned to Respondent's employ. There is no
evidence that Mrs. Rose did not search diligently for
employment and in the second quarter of 1966 she secured
employment in a nearby town. She quit this employment
because her work entailed connecting fine wires in
electrical components and her eyesight was too poor to
enable her to continue. I find that she was justified in
quitting. This was on approximately June 21. She resumed
her search for employment and in the third quarter of 1966
secured employment at a hotel where she worked for $1 an
hour, she continued working there just short of a month
and quit for no good reason and resumed her search for
other employment. She found another job on August 24,
1966. Mrs. Rose had no recollection of the dates of her
employment at the hotel; her social security records reveal
no earnings prior to the third quarter of 1966. Inasmuch as
she went to work for A.G.P. in the 7th week of the third
quarter and worked approximately 3-1/2 of those weeks at
the hotel, I presume she commenced work about July 1.
17 See Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Ca, 151 NLRB 1701, 1703-04.
THE LAIDLAW CORP. 603
Inasmuch as there is no justification for her quitting the
hotel job I shall increase her interim earnings, based on $40
per week, up to the date of her hire on August 24, a total of
$280 thus reducing her net backpay for the quarter to
$154.46.
Mrs. Rose continued working until December 13, 1966,
on which date she quit because she was working on the
third shift and could not continue to work that shift and
take care of her children. (She had been employed at
Respondent's factory on the second shift.) I find that this
quit was justified. Thereafter she worked 1 day for another
employer on a temporary basis.
The backpay specification shows Mrs. Rose to be out of
the labor market from January 1, 1967, until September 7
when she went to work for another employer. However she
testified that she commenced working at a local restaurant
approximately January 1, and continued on that job until
the September 7 date at $40 a week with about $2.50 a
week in tips. Inasmuch as she was clearly not out of the
labor market during this period I shall cc mpute her-gross
backpay at $805.63 for the first quarter of 1967 and
$631.14 for the second quarter of 1967 and deduct
therefrom interim earnings in the amount of $552.50 for
each quarter leaving a net backpay of $253.13 for the first
quarter of 1967 and $78.64 for the second quarter of 1967.
Mrs. Rose continued in the employment of the General
Tire and Rubber Company commencing September 7,
1967, until she returned to Respondent's employ. The
specifications show interim earnings of $58 in the first
quarter of 1968 from the "Little Gem" restaurant. Mrs.
Rose's testimony reveals however that her employment at
the Little Gem restaurant was in addition to her full-time
employment at General Tire. The Board does not normally
deduct part-time employment earnings which are supple-
mental and outside of full working hours.18 Accordingly I
shall strike that item leaving interim earnings in the first
quarter of 1968 of $753.79 and net backpay of $61.89.
The General Counsel points out and Respondent agrees
that in the third quarter of 1967 Mrs. Rose worked 7 weeks
at $40 a week at the restaurant and suggests an additional
deduction of $280 for that quarter.
I recommended that Mrs. Rose be reimbursed by
Respondent in the amount set forth in the backpay
specification with the changes set forth above.
She is a slight woman who was then 55 years of age and her
job was screwing backs on chairs with a power screwdriver.
I find this quit was justified. In any event the next day she
went to work for Wagner Industries molding powdered
plastic. After a few days her hands and arms began
breaking out, apparently from an allergic reaction to the
powder and her physician recommended that if she could
not be transferred to other work that she quit. She sought a
transfer but was refused and accordingly in September 26
quit that employment. She continued unemployed until the
second quarter of 1967. During the interim period she
appears to have made a good-faith attempt to find work.
On April 11, 1967, she went to work for Bailey Manufac-
turing where she continued until recalled to Respondent's
employ.19 I recommend that Mrs. Scotten be reimbursed
by Respondent in the amount set forth in the specification.
Lois Snow
Lois Snow's backpay period ends December 13, 1966,
when she returned to Respondent's employ. During the
entire year of 1966 Mrs. Snow had no interim earnings.
The record reveals no evidence that she did not diligently
search for interim employment. Respondent would exclude
a period of 2 weeks during which Mrs. Snow went with her
husband to visit her mother in Arkansas, some 600 miles
away. Mrs. Snow testified that this took place during the
summer of 1966 and that she had made arrangements with
her next door neighbor to open her mail and telephone her
in the event any call for employment was received , but that
none was received during that time. Respondent has made
no showing that any employment became available to Mrs.
Snow during that period of time. The Board has frequently
held with the approval of the courts that a good-faith
search for employment does not necessitate that the
employee spend all of every day searching for employment.
It appears that Mrs. Snow had made application where she
could at the various plants in and around Peru, Indiana,
that were hiring during that period and there is no evidence
that it would not have been futile for her to have continued
during the 2 weeks that she spent on vacation with her
husband. Accordingly I decline to diminish the gross
backpay in that manner. I recommend that she be
reimbursed in the figure set forth in the specifications.
Dorothy Scotten
Dorothy Scotten's backpay period ends September 1,
1967, when she returned to Respondent's employ. Mrs.
Scotten had no interim earnings in the first quarter of 1966
although the record reveals that she made an adequate
search for employment. In the second quarter she got a job
in a furniture factory. During that quarter, while -seeking
employment, she drove in excess of 240 miles looking for
work in various towns around the Peru area. The General
Counsel seeks expenses in the sum of $24. I find that the
record justifies this expense and it should be allowed. In
the third quarter of 1966, Mrs. Scotten quit her job at the
furniture factory because the work was too hard for her.
18 Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Company, supra.
19 Mrs. Scotten was unemployed at the time of the strike settlement.
Catherine Wolfe
Catherine Wolfe's backpay period terminated in Decem-
ber 1966 when she returned to Respondent's employ.
During the interim period she had no employment
although it appears from the record that she made a good-
faith effort to find employment. Respondent would deduct
the first week of July from the gross backpay because Mrs.
Wolfe was on vacation during that time with her husband.
I believe the same considerations are applicable to Mrs.
Wolfe as to Mrs. Snow, supra. Accordingly I decline to
reduce the gross backpay in this amount . I recommend
that she be reimbursed in the amount set forth in the
backpay specifications.
Although the Union's negotiating committee attempted to get her
reemployed by Respondent at that time, Respondent refused to do so.
604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Alexander Zelinsky such tax withholdings as are required by Federal and state
laws.
Alexander Zelinsky's backpay period ends November 16,
1969, when he received a letter offering him employment
with Respondent. During the period October 5, 1966, to
August 26, 1969, Mr. Zelinsky was in military service;
accordingly no gross backpay is alleged.
Immediately after his termination by Respondent in
1966 Mr. Zelinsky sought employment and found it on
March 8 in a neighboring plant. He continued in that
employ until he went into military service and returned
there when he was mustered out. Thus the net backpay
sought by General Counsel results from the difference
between his interim earnings and his gross backpay. I
recommend that he be reimbursed in the amounts sought
in the backpay specifications.
The record reveals that Larry Condon, Janice Coll and
Patricia Miller all had no backpay. Those three employees
did not appear at the hearing. The parties agreed on net
backpay figures for Diane Bakke, Mildred Glaze, William
Massey, Patricia Viertel and Earlene Watson. I recom-
mend that they be paid in the amount so stipulated.
The parties additionally stipulated to the amounts of net
vacation backpay for the years 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970
for those employees who were rehired by Respondent
during the period February 12, 1966, and the date upon
which Respondent closed its doors in 1973. These
employees were hired as new employees and deprived of
the vacation they would otherwise have received under
Respondent's contract with the Union had they been
reinstated as ordered by the Board. The record is hereby
reopened for the purpose of receiving the stipulation, it is
received and the record is closed. The stipulated figures
have been added to the net backpay for the third quarter of
the year in which they appear, the stipulation was signed
by Respondent "without prejudice to or a waiver of legal
and equitable defenses raised by employers in amended
answer and at the hearing." I have rejected the legal and
equitable defenses raised by employer in the amended
answer and at the hearing. Accordingly, I recommend that
backpay be paid in accordance with the stipulation.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclu-
sions, it is ordered that Respondent, The Laidlaw Corpora-
tion, Peru, Indiana, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall pay to the employees involved in this
proceeding as net backpay the amounts set forth below
opposite their names as computed in the schedule attached
hereto. Interest is to be added at the rate of 6 percent per
annum on the respective amounts of backpay, computed in
the manner prescribed in Ism Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716. The net backpay awards are to be reduced by
Richard L. Achey $4,929.61
Steven M. Achey 1,268.44
Diane M. Bakke 300.00
Mary Barnhill 667.97
Norma Black 2,780.53
Clara L. Blackmon 2,697.97
Myra J. (Bowman) Michael 2,853.73
Polly M. Bowman 2,166.39
Rhea M. Bowman 2,846.40
Christine (Brown) Asberry 1,858.83
Nanola Browning 1,878.88
Dorothy A. Cain 1,074.71
Larry A. Condon -0-
Betty J. Crippen 2,740.44
Martha M. Dalton 3,644.91
Virginia Durham 2,846.88
Dovie D. Fisher 2,134.90
Marjorie P. Flitcraft 89238
Mildred J. Glaze 1,850.00
Janice Goll 4-
Garnet L. Good 2,113.11
Dorothy V. Graham 1,197.87
Mary A. Green 2,852.46
Bobetta J. (Harter) Pulver 1,745.72
Edwin Elmer Hiers 2,600.49
Gertrude Hight 565.37
Elsie Hostetler 1,947.46
Betty M. Houk 2,406.21
Nellie K. Hughes 2,754.54
Marjorie Johnson 2,862.22
Risa (Johnson) Nance 2,830.02
Marilyn D. Jones 2,477.02
Betty L. Kline 1,744.87
Janet L. Lampkin 2,449.48
Lavone Landis 2,337.51
Mary (Lepkojus) Bridges 838.79
William Massey 1,450.00
Patricia A. Miller -0-
Marie L. Nichols 2,607.62
Eiko Oldham 699.11
Kathleen Ousley 2,857.76
Bertha L. Parham 2,308.34
Rozena E. (Patterson)
Hudson
2,348.62
Margaret C. Pierce 346.32
Wanda Rose 2,208.79
Dorothy H. Scotten 3,259.21
Lois V. Snow 2,957.02
Patricia M. Viertel 750.00
Earlene L. Watson 1,131.53
Catherine Wolfe 2,829.19
Alexander Zelinsky 712.05
THE LAIDLAW CORP. 605
APPENDIX
Net Interim
Year Quarter Gross Earnings Net Backpay
Richard L. Achey 1966 1 $ 414.72
none $ 414.72
II 913.24 $ 45.78 867.46
III 928.59 333.20 595.39
IV 1,051.02 429.35 621.67
1967 I 954.44 609.00 345.44
II 747.72 584.87 162.85
III 840.53 652.13 188.40
IV 974.57 520.60 453.97
1968 I 949.15 995.26 -
II 1,190.82 1,160.22 30.60
III 1,088.66 256.05 832.61
IV 1,143.37 740.80 402.57
1969 I 139.83 125.90 13.93
$4,929.61
Steven M. Achey 1966 I 414.72 none
II none none
414.72
none
III 290.61 131.04 159.57
IV 1,051.02 441.67 609.35
1967 I 118.44 56.00 62.44,
1967 III vacation 22'.36
$1,268.44
Diane Bakke stipulated net backpay $ 300.00
Mary Barnhill 1966 I 360.58 none 360.58
II 741.97 448.94 293.03
1969 IV 626.42 612.06 14.36
$ 667.97
Norma Black 1966 I 345.40. none 345.40
II 760.61 none 760.61
III 773.39 none 773.39
IV 840.48 none 840.48
1967 III vacation 29.38
1968 III vacation 10.83
1969 III vacation 20.44
$2,780.53
606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Year Quarter Gross
Net Interim
Earnings Net Backpay
Clara Blackmon 1966 I $ 345.40 none $ 345.40
II 760.61 none 760.61
III 773.39 none 773.39
IV 747.57 none 747.57
1967 III vacation 442.63
1968 III vacation 28.37
$2,697.97
Myra J. (Bowman) Michael 1966 I 345.40 none 345.40
II 760.61 none 760.61
III 773.39 none 773.39
IV 668.28 none 668.28
1967 III vacation 87.08
1968 III vacation 70.15
1969 III vacation 60.00
1970 III vacation 88.81
$2,853.72
Polly M. Bowman 1966 I 345.40 none 345.40
II 760.61 none 760.61
III 773.39 none 773.39
IV 693.40 556.00 137.40
1967 III vacation 85.11
1968 III vacation 64.48
$2,166.39
Rhea M. Bowman 1966 I 345.40 none 345.40
II 760.61 none 760.61
III 773.39 none 773.39
IV 668.28 none 668.28
1967 III vacation 87.37
1968 III vacation 67.71
1969 III vacation 62.72
1970 III vacation 80.92
$2,846.40
Christine (Brown) Asberry 1966 I 345.40 100.17 245.23
II 760.61 169.44 591.17
III 773.39 759.13 14.26
IV 878.16 703.70 174.46
1967 I 805.63 629.06 176.57
1968 I 393.49 193.76 199.73
II 1,023.36 565.95 457.41
$1,858.83
THE LAIDLAW CORP. ' 607
Year Quarter Gross
Net Interim
Earnings Net Backpay
Nanola Browning 1966 IV $ 630.22 none $ 630.22
1967 I 800.48 $ 78.75 721.73
II 709.73 555.45 154.28
IV 849.53 709.87 139.66
1968 II 988.70 885.47 103.23
III 980.41 909.50 70.91
1969 II 990.06 931.21 58.85
$1,878.88
Dorothy A. Cain 1966 I 360.58 76.10 284.48
II 741.97 643.00 98.97
III 796.55 648.00 148.55
IV 945.33 607.50 337.83
1967 I 391.53 306.00 85.53
III vacation 61.26
1968 III vacation 35.73
1969 III vacation 22.36
$1,074.71
Larry A. Condon - 0 -
Betty J. Crippen 1966 I 345.40 none 345.40
II 760.61 none 760.61
III 773.39 none 773.39
IV 668.28 none 668.28
1967 III vacation 71.63
1968 III vacation 64.36
1969 III vacation 56.77
$2,740.44
Martha M. Dalton 1966 I 360.58 none 360.58
II 741.97 none 741.97
III 796.55 none 796.55
IV 945.33 none 945.33
1967 I 800.48 none 800.48
$3,644.91
Virginia Durham 1966 I 360.58 none 360.58
II 741.97 none 741.97
III 796.55 none 796.55
IV 785.71 none 785.71
1967 III vacation 60.77
1968 III vacation 46.11
1969 III vacation 54.24
1970 III vacation .95
$2,846.88
608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Net Interim
Year Quarter Gross- Earnings Net Backpay
Dovie D. Fisher 1966 I $ none none $ none
II 508.31 none 508.31
III 796.55 none 796.55
IV 830.04 none 830.04
$2,134.90
Marjorie P. Flitcraf t 1966 I 345.40 none 345.40
II 760.61 $ 413.04 347.57
1967 III 709.48 661.96 47.52
1968 III 935.57 861.35 74.22
1969 III 913.04 835.37 77.67
$ 892.38
Mildred J. Glaze stipulated total $1,850.00
Janice Goll no backpay - 0
Garnet L. Good 1966 I 360.58 none 360.58
II 741.97 403.65 338.32
IV 945.33 873.16 72.17
1967 III 747.27 557.92 189.35
IV 849.53 407.59 441.94
1968 III 980.41 905.21 75.21
1969 III 993.36 951.55 41.81
IV 1,193.83 989.63 204.20
1970 I 1,013.88 740.00 273.88
II 844.80 729.15 115.65
$2,113.11
Dorothy V. Graham 1966 I 345.40 none 345.40
II 760.61 267.31 493.30
Iv 878.16 851.14 27.02
1967 I 805.63 783.00 22.63
III 709.48 562.56 146.92
1968 III 935.57 874.44 61.13
1969 I 886.74 853.28 33.46
III 401.29 333.28 68.01
$1,197.87
Mary A. Green 1966 I 360.58 none 360.58
II 741.97 none 741.97
III 796.55 none 796.55
IV 785.71 none 785.71
1967 III vacation 61.26
1968 III vacation 46.10
1969 III vacation 60.29
$2,852.46
THE LAIDLAW CORP. 609
Year Quarter Gross
Net Interim
Earnings Net Backpay
Bobetta J. (Harter) Pulver 1966 I 345.40 $ 44.50 $ 300.90
II 760.61 557.50 203.11
III 773.39 700.31 73.08
Iv 878.16 397.47 480.69
1967 I 805.63 692.71 112.92
IV 824.94 591.60 233.34
1968 I 815.68 474.00 341.68
$1,745.72
Edwin Elmer Hiers 1966 I 313.06 none 313.06
II 689.38 none 689.38
III 700,97 none 700.97
IV 697.55 none 697.55
1967 III vacation 56.16
1968 III vacation 62.65
1969 III vacation 80.72
1970 III vacation -3.90a/
$2,600.49
Gertrude Hight 1966 I 345.40 none 345.40
II 219.97 none 219.97
$ 565.37
Elsie Hostetler 1966 , II 229.58 none 229.58
III 773.39 none 773.39
IV 668.28 none 668.28
1967 III vacation 85.06
1968 III vacation 62.58
1969 III vacation 49.10
1970 III vacation 79.47
$1,947.46
Betty M. Houk 1966 I 345.40 none 345.40
II 760.61 315.80 444.81
1967 I 805.63 187.68 617.95
III 709.48 437.97 271.51
IV 824.94 98.40 726.54
$2,406.21
a/ The parties stipulated that Hier's vacation backpay was minus $3.90,
and subtracted it from the total vacation backpay . This deduction is
not appropriate under the rule in F. W . Woolworth Company , 90 NLRB 289,
in the absence of gross backpay in 1970 quarter III, and I have there-
fore not subtracted $3.90 from the total.
610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Year Quarter Gross
Net Interim
Earnings Net Backpay
Nellie K. Hughes 1966 I $ 345.40 none - $ 345.40
II 760.61 none 760.61
III 773.39 none 773.39
IV 827.92 none 827.92
1967 III vacation 30.74
1968 III vacation 16.48
$2,754.54
Marjorie Johnson 1966 I 360.58 none 360.58
II 741.97 none 741.97
III 796.55 none 796.55
IV 773.75 none 773.75
1967 III vacation 76.37
1968 III vacation 61.80
1969 III vacation 51.12
1970 III .08
$2,862.22
Risa (Johnson) Nance 1966 I 360.58 none 360.58
II 741.97 none 741.97
III 796.55 none 796.55
IV 817.48 none 817.48
1967 III vacation 46.36
1968 III vacation 31.28
1969 III vacation 34.98
1970 III vacation .82
$2,830.02
Marilyn D. Jones 1966 I 360.58 67.75 292.83
II 741.97 480.31 261.66
III 740.17 716.18 23.99
IV 945.33 699.72 245.61
1967 I 800.48 704.95 95.53
II 709.73 13.36 696.37
III 687.89 257.37 430.52
IV 849.53 788.32 61.21
1968 I 799.80 748.57 51.23
III 980.41 913.65 66.76
1969 I 943.55 905.67 37.88
II 990.06 980.46 9.60
III 993.36 878.67 114.69
IV 626.42 537.28 89.14
$2,477.02
THE LAIDLAW CORP.
Net Interim
Year Quarter Gross Earnings
611
Net Backpay
Betty L. Kline 1966 I $ 360.58 none $ 360.58
II 741.97 $ 296 . 28 445.69
1967 I 800.48 none 800.48
III 556.14 418 . 02 138.12
$1,744.87
Janet Lampkin 1966 I 360.58 289.54 71.04
II 741.97 296.53 445.44
III 796.55 442 . 39 354.16
IV 945.33 772 . 00 173.33
-1967 I 800.48 474 . 78 325.70
II 709.73 140 . 16 569.57
1968 III 980.41 960.16 20.25
IV 928.94 686 . 64 242.30
1969 II 990.06 899 . 08 90.98
III 993.36 836.65 156.71
$2,449.48
Lavone Landis 1966 I 345.40 none 345.40
II 584.24 202 . 95 381.29
III 594.87 none 594.87
Iv 705.96 none 705.96
1967 III vacation 88.32
1968 III vacation 68.63
1969 III vacation 65.71
1970 III vacation 87.33
$2,337.51
Mary (Lepkojus ) Bridges 1966 I 345.40 none 345.40
II 760.61 370.35 390.26
IV 878.16 847.33 30.83
1967 I 805.63 733 . 33 72.30
$ 838.79
William Massey Stipulated Net Backpay $1,450.00
Patricia Miller - 0 -
Marie Nichols 1966 I 345.40 none 345.40
II 760.61 none 760.61
III 773.39 none 773.39
IV 526.74 none 526.74
1967 III vacation 75.00
1968 III vacation 67.12
1969 III vacation 59.36
$2,607.62
612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Year Quarter Gross
Net Interim
Earnings Net Backpay
Eiko Oldham Stipulated Net Backpay
$ 411.42
1968 III vacation 122.83
1969 III vacation 81.30
1970 III vacation 83.56
$ 699.11
Kathleen Ousley 1966 I 360. 58 none
360.58
II 741. 97 none 741.97
III 796.55 none 796.55
IV 785. 71 none 785.71
1967 III vacation 61.21
1968 III vacation 50.52
1969 III vacation 61.14
1970 III vacation .08
$2,857.76
Bertha L. Parham 1966 I 344. 58 none 344.58
II 741.97 208.92 533.05
III 659. 84 none 659.84
IV 945.33 192.43 752.90
1967 I 71.83 53. 86 17.97
$2,308.34
Rozena E. (Patterson ) 1966 I 345. 40 none 345.40
Hudson II 760.61
362.86 397.75
III 773.39 655.08 118.31
IV 878.16 664.40 213.76
1967 I 805.63 479.50 326.13
1968 I 439 .77 372 .68 67.09
IV 389. 80 215 . 99 173.81
1969 III 913.04 329.60 583.44
IV 540.75 417. 82 122.93
$2,348.62
Margaret C. Pierce 1966 I 345.40 none
345.40
II 760.61 759.69 .92
$ 346.32
Wanda Rose 1966 I 345.40
none 345.40
II 760.61 366.94 393.67
III 773.39 618. 93 154.46
IV 878.16 478. 30 399.86
1967 I 805.63 552.50 253.13
II 631.14 552.50 78.64
III 709.48 452.97 256.51
IV 824.94 574. 26 250.68
1968 1 815.68 753. 79 61.89
1969 IV 540.75 526.20 14.55
$2,208.79
THE LAIDLAW CORP. 613
Year Quarter Gross
Net Interim
Earnings Net Backpay
Dorothy H. Scotten 1966 I $ 360 . 58 none $ 360.58
Ii 741 . 97 254 . 40 487.57
III 796 . 55 564 . 95 231.60
IV 945 . 33 none 945.33
1967 1 800 . 48 none 800.48
II 709 . 73 548 . 82 160.91
1968 III vacation 116.86
1969 III vacation 77.84
1970 III vacation 78.04
$3,259.21
Lois Snow 1966 1 360.58 none 360.58
II 741.97 none 741.97
III 796 . 55 none 796.55
IV 761 . 79 none 761.79
1967 III vacation 91.31
1968 III vacation 61.99
1969 III vacation 60.51
1970 III vacation 82.32
$2,957.02
Patricia M. Viertel Stipulated net backpay 750.00
Earlene L. Watson Stipulated net backpay $1,131.53
Catherine Wolfe 1966 I 345.40 none 345.40
II 760 . 61 none 760.61
III 773 . 39 none 773.39
IV 680 . 84 none 680.84
1967 III vacation 86.53
1968 III vacation 41.09
1969 III vacation 59.48
1970 III vacation 81.85
$2,829.19
Alexander Zelinsky 1966 I 414.72 128.16 286.56
II 913.24 897.47 15.77
III 928.59 745 . 54 183.05
1969 III 438.27 211.60 226.67
$ 712.05