U.S. Telefactors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 19, 1990

300 N.L.R.B. 720 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

720
300 NLRB No. 87
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 We find no merit in the Respondent’s contention that Patricia McCarty’s
failure to increase her hours at the Franz Demo Agency constituted a failure
to mitigate damages. McCarty held this part-time job both before and after her
discharge. It involved work totally unlike her work for the Respondent, and
the terms and conditions of the employment were not substantially equivalent
to those previously enjoyed with the Respondent. Since it was thus not the
kind of job she would have been obligated to accept in the first instance in
order to mitigate damages (NLRB v. Madison Courier, 472 F.2d 1307, 1318–
1319 (D.C. Cir. 1972), and cases there cited), her failure to increase her hours
with Demo (and instead to spend that time in searching for a substantially
equivalent job) clearly does not constitute a failure to mitigate. If McCarty had
chosen to increase her hours with Demo, only that additional income would
be included within interim earnings, Isaac & Vinson Security Services, 208
NLRB 47, 50–51 (1973).
U.S. Telefactors Corporation and Professional,
Technical and Clerical Employees Union, Local
707, affiliated with the National Production
Workers Union. Case 13–CA–27948
November 19, 1990
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND OVIATT
On June 29, 1990, Administrative Law Judge Wal-
lace H. Nations issued the attached supplemental deci-
sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering
brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the supplemental decision
and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and
has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1
and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, U.S. Telefactors Corpora-
tion, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order.
Jessica T. Willis, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Keith Harrington, Esq., of Chicago, Illinois, for the Respond-
ent.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WALLACE H. NATIONS, Administrative Law Judge. On
September 7, 1988, the Professional, Technical and Clerical
Employees Union, Local 707, affiliated with the National
Production Workers Union (Union) filed a charge against
U.S. Telefactors Corporation (Respondent) alleging violations
of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations
Act (Act) in Case 13–CA–27948. On September 26, 1988,
complaint and notice of hearing issued in Case 13–CA–
27948 alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act by discharging Alice Brinda, Delores J. Nash,
Cheryl L. Wren, Ann Saye, Michelle Geihm, Melissa Storer,
Cynthia Gonzales, Jeanne A. Neupert, Patricia McCarty, and
Wendy Gonzales because of their protected concerted activi-
ties. On November 8, 1988, General Counsel filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment with the Board in Washington, D.C.,
based on Respondent’s failure to timely answer the com-
plaint. On March 31, 1989, the Board issued its Decision and
Order in Case 13–CA–27948 granting General Counsel’s
Motion for Summary Judgment and ordering Respondent to
offer full and immediate reinstatement to the 10 dis-
criminatees named above, make each whole for any loss of
earnings suffered as a result of their unlawful discharges, re-
move from Respondent’s records all references to the unlaw-
ful discharges, provide written notice to each discriminatee
that such reference was removed, and provide written notice
that the unlawful discharge would not be the basis for any
future personnel action against the discriminatee.
On October 27, 1989, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit entered its judgment enforcing in full
the Board’s Decision and Order in Case 13–CA–27948. On
January 30, 1990, the Regional Director for Region 13 issued
a compliance specification and notice of hearing setting forth
the amount of backpay owed to each of the 10
discriminatees. On February 8, 1990, the Regional Director
issued an order scheduling hearing, which scheduled the
hearing to commence on April 17, 1990. On February 23,
1990, Respondent filed its answer to General Counsel’s com-
pliance specification.
Thereafter, on April 7, 1990, Respondent filed its motion
to extend the date of the hearing. Pursuant to Respondent’s
request, hearing was rescheduled to a date Respondent indi-
cated it would be available, May 14, 1990. Respondent was
notified by phone on April 10, 1990, as well as by letter sent
via FAX on May 10, 1990, and certified mail on May 11,
1990. Respondent filed a second motion to extend the date
of the hearing which was undated but was received by the
Regional Director on or about May 10, 1990. Respondent’s
request was denied by Judge John M. Dyer, associate chief
administrative law judge in his Order dated May 10, 1990.
Respondent was again informed that hearing in Case 13–
CA–27948 would begin as scheduled at 11 a.m., May 14,
1990, by General Counsel on May 11, 1990, during a phone
conversation regarding settlement.
Respondent and its counsel failed to appear for hearing at
11 a.m. on May 14, 1990. Upon my request, General Coun-
sel telephoned Respondent’s counsel’s office and was in-
formed that Respondent’s counsel was in another court on a
different matter. After informing me of this development,
General Counsel was requested by me to again phone Re-
spondent’s counsel’s office and inform Respondent’s counsel
that the hearing would commence at 12 p.m. that day, and
further, that failure to appear would constitute waiver of its
appearance in this proceeding. General Counsel so informed
Respondent’s counsel. Respondent failed to appear or give
notice of reasons therefore. Hearing commenced at approxi-
mately 12 p.m. and concluded at approximately 1:54 p.m., at
the conclusion of General Counsel’s case.
Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing and on the
record as a whole, I make the following
721U.S. TELEFACTORS CORP.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
As noted above, Respondent did not appear at the hearing.
However, several issues were raised by Respondent in its an-
swer herein and these will be addressed below. These issues
are:
1. The discriminatees failed to disclose all interim earn-
ings.
2. The discriminatees failed to mitigate Respondent’s
backpay liability by failing to make a reasonable search for
interim earnings.
3. Backpay tolled on the date Respondent offered rein-
statement to each of the 10 discriminatees and not, as Gen-
eral Counsel contends, on the date reinstatement was waived
or the date each discriminatee actually returned to work.
A.Discussion of Issues 1 & 2 and Related
Fact Findings
Under both Board law and the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions governing compliance proceedings, Respondent bears
the burden of proof to show willful loss of earnings, failure
to make a reasonable search for interim employment, failure
to disclose all interim earnings received or other facts to di-
minish Respondent’s backpay liability. Mastro Plastics
Corp., 136 NLRB 1342, 1346–1347 (1962), enfd. as modi-
fied 354 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied 384 U.S. 972
(1976). Any uncertainty must be resolved against Respondent
who made the uncertainty possible and the backpay claimant
must receive the benefit of any doubt. Southern Hospital
Products Co., 203 NLRB 881 (1973).
Respondent presented no evidence in support of its claim
that the discriminatees failed to make a reasonable search for
interim employment and failed to disclose all interim earn-
ings beyond its assertion of this claim in its answer. Simi-
larly, with the exception of its claim in its answer, Respond-
ent failed to produce any evidence in support of its claim
that the discriminatees did not disclose all of their interim
earnings.
Although General Counsel had no affirmative burden to
submit evidence to document interim earnings claimed by the
discriminatees or their search for interim employment, the
record contains ample evidence on these issues including job
search lists submitted by each discriminatee showing times,
dates, and places each applied for employment as well as re-
sponses or offers received. Additionally, each discriminatee
gave unrefuted testimony regarding their job search efforts
and the results of those efforts. A summary of this evidence
is set forth below with respect to each discriminatee. I find
from the evidence that each of the 10 discriminatees made
a reasonable search for interim employment, thereby miti-
gating Respondent’s backpay liability.
After being discharged by Respondent, each discriminatee
searched for interim employment. Ann Saye testified that she
sent resumes, applied in person and filled out job applica-
tions for various employers listed in her job search list and
made part of the record as General Counsel’s Exhibit 8.
Companies at which she sought employment include Allstate
Steel Corp., Dreyer Medical Center, National Controls, and
Sun Coast Corporation. Her job search began when she was
discharged by Respondent in August 1988 and continued
until she resumed employment with Respondent July 7,
1989. Saye did not receive any offers of employment during
this period.
After being discharged by Respondent in August 1988,
Cheryl Wren applied for employment at various enterprises
including Pheasant Run, Mercy Center Hospital, and other
employers listed in her job search, made part of the record
as General Counsel’s Exhibit 15. Wren did not receive any
offers of employment between her discharge by Respondent
and Respondent’s offer of reinstatement in April 1989.
Wendy Gonzales testified that she used a local newspaper
and job service to find interim employment after her dis-
charge by Respondent in August 1988. Gonzales applied to
Sentel Cable and Royal Insurance among other employers
listed in her job search list, made part of the record as Gen-
eral Counsel’s Exhibit 18. Gonzales began working for Tem-
porary Services International in March 1989. Temporary
Services International was the only source of interim em-
ployment income Gonzales received between the date of her
discharge by Respondent and the date she waived reinstate-
ment June 28, 1989. Gonzales’ gross backpay was offset by
the interim earnings she received.
After being discharged by Respondent in August 1988,
Cynthia Gonzales applied for work as a telephone operator,
receptionist, and office worker at various employers named
in her job search list, made part of the record as General
Counsel’s Exhibit 21. Gonzales received an offer of employ-
ment through Temporary Services International which placed
her with AT & T in February 1989. This was Gonzales’ only
source of interim income between her discharge and June 28,
1989, the date she waived reinstatement. Gonzales’ gross
backpay was offset by the interim earnings she received from
AT & T.
In paragraph IX(b) Respondent asserts that Michelle
Geihm did not intend to return to work after the birth of her
child on November 28, 1988, and claims therefore that her
backpay should end as of that date. Respondent presented no
evidence in support of this position. After her discharge by
Respondent in August 1988, Michelle Geihm sent resumes
and applied in person to various employers listed in her job
search lists, made a part of the record as General Counsel’s
Exhibits 27 and 28. Geihm was unavailable for work from
November 28, 1988, through January 5, 1989, because she
gave birth to her second child. Geihm credibly testified that
she was physically capable of working on January 5, 1989,
and again began sending resumes and applying for employ-
ment. The mere fact that Geihm was pregnant during the
backpay period does not warrant the conclusion that she was
unavailable for work or that she would not return to work
after giving birth. Wayne Trophy Corp., 254 NLRB 881
(1981). Geihm had no interim earnings; however, her gross
backpay was offset by the amount she would have earned
during the period of maternity leave (November 28, 1988–
January 5, 1989).
Alice Brinda applied for employment at Fair Realtors, J.B.
Industries, and Saratoga Hotel among other places named in
her job search list, made part of the record as General Coun-
sel’s Exhibit 31. Brinda worked for Guardian Express from
November 1988 through April 1989. Guardian Express was
Brinda’s only source of interim income and her gross back-
pay was offset by this income.
Jeanne Neupert sent resumes and applied in person to var-
ious employers listed in her job search list, made part of the
722 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
record as General Counsel’s Exhibit 36. These employers in-
clude General American Door and Country Companies Insur-
ance. Neupert began working for Porvey McKee on or about
November 24, 1988, and is currently working there. Her
earnings from that company were used to offset the amount
of backpay owed Neupert by Respondent because of her un-
lawful discharge.
Melissa Storer worked part-time 20 hours per week for
Respondent from May 1988 through her discharge in August
1988. Storer also worked part-time 20–25 hours per week for
Eltron Research during the period she worked for Respond-
ent. Storer was also a full-time student during this period.
She did not increase the number of hours she worked for
Eltron Research after being discharged by Respondent. After
her discharge, Storer worked these additional part-time jobs:
Lord & Taylor (August 20, 1988 through March 11, 1989),
Blockbuster Video (October 1988), and several babysitting
jobs in February 1989. Earnings received from Lord & Tay-
lor, Blockbuster Video, and the babysitting jobs were used
to offset the amount of backpay Respondent owes Storer.
Earnings from Eltron Research were not considered interim
earnings to be deducted from gross backpay because Storer
held that job prior to her discharge. The Board has consist-
ently held that second job earnings normally are not consid-
ered as interim earnings to be deducted from gross backpay,
particularly where, as here, the claimant held the second job
prior to discharge. Calson Tower Geriatric Center, 281
NLRB 399 (1986); Vinson Security Services, 208 NLRB 47,
50, 51 (1973).
In paragraph IX(i) of its answer, Respondent asserts that
Storer was injured and unavailable for work during a portion
of the backpay period thereby diminishing Respondent’s
backpay liability. Respondent presented no evidence that
Storer would have been unavailable for work due to her in-
jury. Storer sprained her ankle March 11, 1989. She testified
that she quit working for Lord & Taylor at that time because
her job as a salesclerk required her to be on her feet all day.
Storer continued attending school and working for Eltron Re-
search throughout the period of her injury. She testified that
her injury would not have precluded her from working as a
telephone operator for Respondent because she would not
have been required to stand. I find from the evidence that
Storer was available for work as a telephone operator and
therefore entitled to backpay throughout the entire period
which began with her discharge in August 1988 and ended
June 28, 1989, when she waived reinstatement.
In paragraph IX(e) of its answer, Respondent claims that
Patricia McCarty did not accurately set forth all interim earn-
ings she received from Franz Demo Agency, but submitted
no evidence in support of this position. McCarty’s interim
earnings are fully documented and supported in the record by
interim earnings reports submitted by her employers during
the relevant period. (G.C. Exhs. 39, 42, 43.) During the time
Patricia McCarty worked for Respondent, she also worked
part-time, two shifts per week for Franz Demo Agency. After
Respondent discharged McCarty in August 1988, McCarty
continued working for Franz Demo Agency but did not in-
crease the number of hours or shifts per week. McCarty testi-
fied that she did not increase those hours because that em-
ployer did not offer benefits or insurance. McCarty applied
for work through an employment agency as well as directly
to employers named in her job search list, made a part of
the record as General Counsel’s Exhibit 41. McCarty worked
for Service Corporation in December 1988, and earned $120.
McCarty began working full time for Jones InterCable in
February 1989. Earnings received from both of these em-
ployers were used to offset Respondent’s backpay liability.
Earnings received from Franz Demo Agency were not de-
ducted because McCarty held this job prior to her August
1988 discharge by Respondent and she did not subsequently
increase the number of hours worked for the agency. Calson
Tower Geriatric Center, supra; Vinson Security Services,
supra.
In paragraph IX(f) of its answer, Respondent claims that
Delores Nash failed to disclose interim earnings received
from her employment at American Cab Company. Again,
Respondent failed to submit any evidence in support of this
position. After Respondent discharged Delores Nash in Au-
gust 1988, she applied for work at various employers listed
in her job search list, made a part of the record as General
Counsel’s Exhibit 52. Nash continued working for her hus-
band’s company, American Cab, as she had previously when
she worked for Respondent. Nash received no compensation
from American Cab and she had no interim earnings from
the date of her discharge in August 1988 until she waived
reinstatement on or about June 30, 1989. Interim earnings are
defined as payment for work or services performed. NLRB
Compliance Casehandling Manual, Section 10604.1.
B. Discussion of Issue 3 and Related Fact Findings
The final issue Respondent raised in its answer was the
date backpay tolled. Respondent maintains that backpay
tolled on the date Respondent made offers of reinstatement
to the 10 discriminatees by letters dated April 20 and 28,
1989 and not, as the General Counsel contends, on the date
each discriminatee either waived reinstatement or resumed
employment with Respondent. Respondent further contends
that in the event the backpay period tolled on the date rein-
statement was waived, General Counsel’s compliance speci-
fication did not set forth the correct date such waiver oc-
curred. Respondent argues reinstatement was waived on the
dates the discriminatees willfully failed to report to work and
by their failure to respond in a timely manner to Respond-
ent’s offer of reinstatement.
The undisputed facts are as follows. Respondent dis-
charged the 10 discriminatees on August 15, 1988. Pursuant
to the Board’s Order, Respondent offered each discriminatee
reinstatement by letters dated April 20 and 28, 1989. Neither
letter set forth a date to return to work, but did require the
discriminatees to respond to the offer of reinstatement by
May 5, 1989.
Patricia McCarty waived reinstatement by her letter dated
May 3, 1989. Each of the remaining nine discriminatees ac-
cepted Respondent’s offer by their individual letters.
Andrew Knee, president of U.S. Telefactors, met individ-
ually with Ann Saye, Cheryl Wren, Michelle Geihm, Alice
Brinda, Jeanne Neupert, Melissa Storer, and Delores Nash,
during the middle of May 1989 to discuss the number of
hours each would be available to work weekly, shift avail-
ability, and training schedules. No definite start dates or
training schedules were decided upon during these meetings.
According to each of the discriminatees, Knee advised them
that Respondent would contact each of them during the fol-
lowing week to give them a definite schedule. However, con-
723U.S. TELEFACTORS CORP.
1 The sole exception to this conclusion is my finding that Delores Nash’s
backpay was tolled on June 30, 1989, rather than on December 15, 1989, as
claimed by General Counsel.
2 Under New Horizons, interest is computed at the ‘‘short-term Federal rate’’
for the underpayment of taxes as set forth in the 1986 amendment to 26
U.S.C. § 6621.
trary to this statement, Respondent did not advise the
discriminatees of the training schedule and start dates until
4 to 6 weeks later, by letter dated June 19, 1989.
Discriminatees Michelle Geihm, Jeanne Neupert, Cynthia
Gonzales, Wendy Gonzales, and Melissa Storer waived rein-
statement by their individual letters dated June 28, 1989, be-
cause Respondent had scheduled each of them to work shifts
for which they had previously informed Respondent they
would be unavailable. Alice Brinda waived reinstatement by
letter dated June 30, 1989, because she had been scheduled
to work hours she had previously informed Respondent she
was unavailable. Contrary to Respondent’s position, the evi-
dence shows and I find that each of the discriminatees re-
sponded to Respondent’s offer of reinstatement in a timely
fashion and those who chose to waive reinstatement did so
only because of Respondent’s failure or refusal to cooperate
with these discriminatees in the matter of scheduling. Ann
Saye returned to work July 7, 1989. Cheryl Wren returned
to work June 30, 1989.
Discriminatee Delores Nash did not appear at the hearing
because she had been hospitalized the previous day. In her
affidavit, Nash testified that she had completed her scheduled
training with Respondent on June 28 and 29, 1989, but was
unable to return to work on June 30, the day Respondent had
her scheduled to return. Nash advised Respondent that she
could not return to work until July 7, 1989, because Re-
spondent did not timely notify Nash of her schedule, and she
had prior commitments. On or about June 29, in Nash’s
opinion, Respondent advised Nash that she would be fired if
she did not return to work on June 30. On that occasion, one
of Respondent’s supervisors advised Nash over the phone
that if she did not report for work as scheduled, she would
be ‘‘done for,’’ and advised Nash to contact the NLRB for
advice. Nash again informed Respondent that she wanted to
return to work; however, was unable to reschedule her pre-
vious commitments due to Respondent’s short notice and
therefore could not return to work until July 7. Nash did not
return to work on June 30 or July 7 because of prior commit-
ments and because she believed that Respondent had termi-
nated her employment, although she admitted that she had
never been formally told this. Nash attempted to waive rein-
statement by letter dated December 15, 1989. However, I be-
lieve Nash actually waived reinstatement on or about June 30
when she failed to report for work as scheduled and never
followed up on her conversations with Respondent’s super-
visor. She was unable to report for work on the date sched-
uled because of her work commitment to her husband’s busi-
ness, for which she was not paid and for which no interim
earnings have been deducted from her gross backpay. I do
not believe that Nash can take both positions. That is, her
work for American Cab is unpaid and cannot constitute in-
terim earnings, but that it can constitute a valid excuse for
not reporting to work as scheduled and thus avoid tolling
backpay. I have sustained her position with respect to interim
earnings, but cannot also sustain her position with respect to
the date her backpay period ended.
Board law clearly holds that the backpay period is tolled
on the date of actual reinstatement, the date of rejection of
that offer, or in the case of discriminatees who did not reply
to the offer, on the date of the last opportunity set by the
Employer to accept the offer of reinstatement. American Mfg.
Co. of Texas, 167 NLRB 520, 521 (1967); Vinson Security
Services, 208 NLRB 47 (1973); NLRB Compliance Manual
Section 10536 fn. 8. Thus, the evidence shows Patricia
McCarty’s backpay period ended May 3, 1989, when she re-
jected Respondent’s offer. The backpay period for Michelle
Geihm, Jeanne Neupert, Cynthia Gonzales, Wendy Gonzales,
and Melissa Storer ended when each waived reinstatement by
letter dated June 28, 1989. The backpay period for Alice
Brinda ended by her letter waiving reinstatement dated June
30, 1989. As found above, Delores Nash’s backpay period
ended on June 30, 1989, the last date set for by the Respond-
ent to accept the offer of reinstatement. Ann Saye resumed
employment with Respondent July 7, 1989; however, her
backpay period ended June 30, 1989, because she was on va-
cation from June 30, 1989, until July 7, 1989, and thus was
unavailable for work. Cheryl Wren resumed employment
with Respondent June 30, 1989, thereby tolling her backpay.
Due to a clerical error, General Counsel’s compliance speci-
fication incorrectly lists July 7, 1989, as the date backpay
ended. Total backpay through June 30, 1989, is $7176 plus
interest.
In conclusion, Respondent failed to produce any evidence
in support of its allegations that the discriminatees failed to
make a reasonable search for work, failed to disclose all in-
terim earnings, or that the date of waiver of reinstatement by
the discriminatees which tolled the backpay period was any-
thing other than that claimed by General Counsel.1 Respond-
ent admits that General Counsel’s compliance specification is
correct in the method used to calculate backpay including for
each discriminatee their hourly wage rate, number of hours
worked, weeks or days in the pay period, and quarterly gross
earnings. I therefore conclude that the 10 discriminatees be
awarded backpay in the amount set forth in Appendix A to
this Supplemental Decision and that Respondent be ordered
to pay such sums.
THE REMEDY
For the reasons set forth above, I find that Respondent’s
obligations to the discriminatees herein will be discharged by
the payment to them of the respective amounts set forth in
Appendix A. Such amounts shall be payable plus interest to
be computed in the manner set forth in New Horizons for the
Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).2
The gross backpay figures in Appendix A detail gross
backpay, interim earnings, and net backpay figures plus in-
terest calculated through the second quarter of 1990 (June
30, 1990). These figures are based upon General Counsel’s
compliance specification, as amended to show Delores
Nash’s backpay period ending June 30, 1989. It is also noted
that the compliance specification erroneously lists Jeanne
Neupert as working only 30 hours during the first and second
quarters of 1989. She actually worked 40 hours during each
week of those periods. The compliance specification cor-
rectly calculated her backpay based upon 40 hours each week
of each quarter. Accordingly, Neupert’s net backpay remains
as shown.
724 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules
and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as
provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objec-
tions to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended3
ORDER
The Respondent, U.S. Telefactors Corporation, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall make the individual
discriminatees involved in this proceeding whole by payment
to them of the following amounts denoted as ‘‘Total Amount
Due’’ together with interest to be computed in the manner
get forth in the remedy section of this decision, and con-
tinuing until the amounts are paid in full but minus tax with-
holding required by Federal and state laws:
Name Net Backpay
Calculated In-
terest on
Backpay
through 2d
Qtr., 1990
(June 20,
1990)
Total Amount
Due
Cynthia Gonzales $4,062 $525 $4,587
Wendy Gonzales 4,560 561 5,121
Patricia McCarty 9,957 1,218 11,175
Delores Nash 8,096 847 8,943
Jeanne Neupert 2,886 405 3,291
Ann Saye 4,416 462 4,878
Melissa Storer 2,695 257 2,952
Cheryl Wren 7,176 751 7,927
Alice Brinda 2,249 312 2,562
Michelle Geihm 11,368 1,684 13,052
APPENDIX A
BACKPAY SUMMARY
Yr./Qtr. Total Gross Backpay Net Interim Earnings Net Backpay Holiday Interest on Backpay Total Amount Due
BRINDA, ALICE
88/3 $455 $0 $455 $90 $545
88/4 2,275 1,915 360 61 422
89/1 2,275 2,626 0 0 0
89/2 2,275 841 1,434 161 1,595
Totals $7,280 $5,381 $2,249 $312 $2,562
GEIHM, MICHELLE
88/3 $1,960 $0 $1,960 $387 $2,347
88/4 2,240 0 2,240 381 2,621
89/1 3,640 0 3,640 519 4,159
89/2 3,528 0 3,528 397 3,925
Totals $11,368 $0 $11,368 $1,684 $13,052
GONZALES, CYNTHIA
88/3 $1,232 $0 $1,232 $187 $1,419
88/4 2,288 0 2,288 285 2,573
89/1 2,288 1,746 542 53 595
89/2 2,218 3,252 0 0 0
Totals $8,026 $4,998 $4,062 $525 $4,587
GONZALES, WENDY
88/3 $1,120 $0 $1,120 $170 $1,290
88/4 2,080 0 2,080 259 2,339
89/1 2,080 720 1,360 132 1,492
89/2 2,016 3,024 0 0 0
Totals $7,296 $3,744 $4,560 $561 $5,121
MCCARTY, PATRICIA
88/4 $4,095 $88 $4,007 $499 $4,506
88/3 2,835 0 2,835 431 3,266
725U.S. TELEFACTORS CORP.
APPENDIX A—Continued
BACKPAY SUMMARY
Yr./Qtr. Total Gross Backpay Net Interim Earnings Net Backpay Holiday Interest on Backpay Total Amount Due
89/1 4,095 1,452 2,643 256 2,899
89/2 1,449 977 472 32 504
Totals $12,474 $2,517 $9,957 $1,218 $11,175
NASH, DELORES
88/3 $1,232 $0 $1,232 $187 $1,419
88/4 2,288 0 2,288 285 2,573
89/1 2,288 0 2,288 222 2,510
89/2 2,288 0 2,288 153 2,441
Totals $8,096 $0 $8,096 $847 $8,943
NEUPERT, JEANNE
88/3 $1,680 $0 $1,680 $255 $1,935
88/4 3,120 1,914 1,206 150 1,356
89/1 3,120 3.555 0 0 0
89/2 3.024 3,741 0 0 0
Totals $10,944 $9,209 $2,886 $405 $3,291
SAYE, ANN
88/3 $672 $0 $672 $102 $774
88/4 1,248 0 1,248 155 1,403
89/1 1,248 0 1,248 121 1,369
89/2 1,248 0 1,248 84 1,332
Totals $4,46 $0 $4,416 $462 $4,878
STORER, MELISSA
88/3 $700 $317 $483 $58 $441
88/4 1,300 888 412 51 463
89/1 1,300 626 674 65 740
89/2 1,260 34 1,226 82 1,308
Totals $4,560 $1,865 $2,695 $257 $2,952
WREN, CHERYL
88/3 $1,092 $0 $1,092 $166 $1,258
88/4 2,028 0 2,028 252 2,280
89/1 2,028 0 2,028 197 2,225
89/2 2,028 0 2,028 136 2,164
Totals $7,176 $0 $7,176 $751 $7,927