Willis Roof Consulting

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 2010

355 N.L.R.B. 280 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
355 NLRB No. 48
280
Willis Roof Consulting, Inc. and United Union of
Roofers, Waterproofers, and Allied Workers,
Local 162, AFL–CIO. Case 28–CA–20852
June 17, 2010
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND BECKER
On June 9, 2009, Administrative Law Judge Burton
Litvak issued the attached supplemental decision. The
Respondent, General Counsel, and Charging Party filed
exceptions and supporting briefs, and the General Coun-
sel and Respondent filed answering briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the 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.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Willis Roof Consulting, Inc.,

1 At the hearing, the judge properly rejected the Respondent’s at-
tempt to relitigate the unfair labor practice case finding that the parties
had reached a collective-bargaining agreement for the time period of
November 1, 2005, through December 31, 2006. Issues decided in an
unfair labor practice proceeding may not be relitigated in the compli-
ance phase. See Arctic Framing, 313 NLRB 798, 799 (1994); Gold
State Acoustics, 310 NLRB 557 (1993). Furthermore, a finding in the
present case that there was no collective-bargaining agreement would
modify the court’s order to comply with that agreement. The Board has
no jurisdiction to modify a court-enforced order. See, e.g., Conver-
gence Communications, 342 NLRB 918, 919 (2004); Scepter Ingot
Castings, 341 NLRB 997 (2004), enfd. 448 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
We reject the Respondent’s argument that it lacked notice of the un-
fair labor practice proceeding and therefore is not bound by the Board’s
January 31, 2007 Decision and Order or the court’s enforcement of that
Order. At the hearing, the Respondent admitted receiving the com-
plaint in the unfair labor practice case. In addition, the Respondent
contends that it posted a remedial notice beginning in February 2007,
so the Respondent must also have received notice of the Board’s deci-
sion, and could have moved for reconsideration or petitioned the court
for review.
2 The Charging Party argues in its exceptions and supporting brief
that interest on the unlawfully withheld payments to the benefit funds
should be compounded quarterly. Having duly considered the matter,
we are not prepared at this time to deviate from our current practice of
assessing simple interest. See, e.g., Cardi Corp., 353 NLRB 966 fn. 2
(2009); Rogers Corp., 344 NLRB 504 (2005). We observe, however,
that the amount of interest, if any, should be determined in accordance
with Merryweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB 1213, 1216 fn. 7 (1979),
not Isis Plumbing, 138 NLRB 716 (1962), enf. denied on other grounds
322 F.2d 913 (9th Cir. 1963), as stated by the judge.

Las Vegas, Nevada, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order.

Joel C. Schochet, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Charles J. Lybarger, Esq., of Las Vegas, Nevada, and Charles
H. Odgers, Esq. (Odgers and Associates), of Las Vegas,
Nevada, on behalf of the Respondent.
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld), of
Alameda, California, on behalf of the Charging Party.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BURTON LITVACK, Administrative Law Judge. The above-
captioned matter1 was scheduled for hearing and tried before
me on February 18, 2009, in Las Vegas, Nevada. This is a
backpay proceeding based upon a prior decision and order of
the Board in 349 NLRB No. 24 (not reported in Board vol-
umes), issued on January 21, 2007. On October 25, 2007, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Judicial Circuit
entered its judgment, enforcing, in full, the provisions of the
Board’s Decision and Order. In this case, in which, solely on
the basis of the underlying complaint, the Board granted the
General Counsel’s motion for a default judgment,2 the former
found that, on October 4, 1999, Respondent, an employer en-
gaged in business in the building and construction industry, and
the Charging Party entered into a collective-bargaining agree-
ment, whereby Respondent recognized the Charging Party as
the exclusive bargaining representative of its journeymen and
apprentice or trainee roofers, tile and dry-in crewmembers and
crew leaders, tile forklift operators, cleanup workers, and load-
ers employed by it in the Las Vegas, Nevada metropolitan area;
that, since October 4, 1999, embodied in successive collective-
bargaining agreements, the most recent of which was effective
for the period of November 1, 2005, through December 31,
2006, Respondent has continued to recognize the Charging
Party as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employ-
ees without regard to whether the majority status of the Charg-
ing Party has ever been established under the provisions of
Section 9(a) of the Act; and that, for the period from November
1, 2005, through December 31, 2006, based on Section 9(a) of
the Act, the Charging Party was the limited exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the above bargaining unit

1 This matter was originally set for trial with Case 28–CA–21931, a
case involving a complaint, issued by the Regional Director for Region
28 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board), alleging that
Willis Roof Consulting, Inc. (Respondent), committed unfair labor
practices, within the meaning of Sec. 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act). However, during the hearing, the coun-
sel for United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers,
Local 162, AFL–CIO (the Charging Party), was granted permission to
withdraw the underlying unfair labor practice charge in Case 28–CA–
21931 and counsel of the General Counsel was permitted to withdraw
the complaint in that matter. Subsequently, the Regional Director for
Region 28 issued an order, severing the latter matter from the instant
hearing involving Case 28–CA–20852.
2 The Respondent failed to file an answer to the complaint and failed
to file a response to the Board’s order to show because why the General
Counsel’s motion for a default judgment should not be granted.
WILLIS ROOF CONSULTING 281
employees.3 The Board further found that, on or about Decem-
ber 29, 2005, Respondent and the Charging Party reached a
complete agreement on the terms and conditions of employ-
ment for the former’s bargaining unit employees to be incorpo-
rated in the parties’ most recent collective-bargaining agree-
ment; that, since December 29, 2005, Respondent has failed to
continue in effect all the terms and conditions of the parties’
above-described agreement by, among other things, failing to
make health and welfare and pension benefit contributions on
behalf of employees in the bargaining unit;4 that Respondent
engaged in the above acts and conduct without the Charging
Party’s consent; and that, on January 31, 2006, Respondent
withdrew its recognition of the Union as the limited exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of its bargaining unit em-
ployees. On the basis of its findings, the Board concluded that
“by withdrawing recognition from the [Charging Party] on or
about January 31, 2006 and by failing to continue in effect all
the terms and conditions of the November 1, 2005 through
December 31, 2006 collective-bargaining agreement with the
[Charging Party] by, among other things, failing to make,
health and welfare and pension benefit contributions on behalf
of unit employees . . . ,” Respondent engaged in acts and con-
duct violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
As to the remedy for Respondent’s unfair labor practices, the
Board declared that it would, in part, order Respondent to con-
tinue in effect all the terms and conditions of its November 1,
2005, through December 31, 2006 collective-bargaining agree-
ment with the Charging Party and “. . . to make all the required
benefits contributions that have not been made since December
29, 2005, including any additional amounts due the benefit
funds in accordance with Merryweather Optical Co., 240
NLRB 1213, 1216 fn. 7 (1979).”5 Thereafter, in its Order, the
Board required Respondent to “. . . comply with the terms and
conditions of the November 1, 2005 through December 31,
2006 collective-bargaining agreement with the [Charging
Party] and any automatic renewal or extension thereof.” (Em-
phasis added.) Also, the Board ordered Respondent to “make
all the required health and welfare and pension benefit contri-
butions on behalf of the employees in the unit that have not
been made since December 29, 2005, with interest, in the man-
ner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.”

3 The Board found that the relationship between Respondent and the
Charging Party was entered into pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 8(f)
of the Act and, therefore, the latter was the limited 9(a) representative
of Respondent’s bargaining unit employees for the period covered by
the most recent collective-bargaining agreement. A.S.B.Cloture, Ltd.,
313 NLRB 1012 (1994).
4 The Board found that these are mandatory subjects for the purpose
of collective bargaining.
5 In the cited decision, the Board announced that it would leave to
the compliance stage of a proceeding “. . . the question of whether
Respondent must pay any additional amounts into the benefit funds in
order to satisfy our ’make-whole’ remedy. In ABS Heating & Cooling,
352 NLRB No. 50, slip. op. at 3 (2008) (not reported in Board vol-
umes), the Board noted that these additional payments to fringe benefits
funds may include any liquidated damages and other amounts due as
required under the applicable collective-bargaining agreement.
The Backpay Issues and Findings
The General Counsel’s amended compliance specification,
which was issued by the Regional Director for Region 28 on
January 29, 2009, seeks an order, requiring Respondent to
make payments to the health and welfare and pension benefits
funds, on behalf of each of its bargaining unit employees for
the period December 29, 2005, through December 31, 2008, on
the basis of the terms of the November 1, 2005, through De-
cember 31, 2006 collective-bargaining agreement and “. . . the
automatic extension provisions of the Agreement and in the
absence of an appropriate notification of termination as pro-
vided in the Agreement.” In this regard, the amended compli-
ance specification alleges that, pursuant to the November 1,
2005, through December 31, 2006 collective-bargaining
agreement “as automatically extended,” Respondent’s contribu-
tion rate to the health and welfare fund was $2.75 per hour per
employee for each actual hour worked not to exceed 140 hours
per month and its contribution rate to the pension fund was $.50
per hour per employee for each actual hour worked. With re-
gard to these contribution rates, while denying the existence of
any collective-bargaining agreement, Respondent admitted that,
if such an agreement exists, the cited contribution rates are
accurate. During the hearing, the parties stipulated that the
hours of work for each of Respondent’s bargaining unit em-
ployees during calendar years 2006, 2007, and 2008, as set
forth in Respondent’s answer to the amended compliance speci-
fication, are the numbers which I should consider in assessing
Respondent’s backpay liability herein. Finally, counsel for the
General Counsel and counsel for the Charging Party contend
that, pursuant to the November 1, 2005, through December 31,
2006 collective-bargaining agreement “as automatically ex-
tended,” Respondent should be held liable for liquidated dam-
ages of 10 percent and interest of 12 percent for any unpaid
contributions to the health and welfare and pension trust funds.
As set forth above, the underlying decision of the Board was
a ruling on a motion, filed by the General Counsel, for a default
judgment against Respondent, and the Board’s findings with
regard to the existence of a November 1, 2005, through De-
cember 31, 2006 collective-bargaining agreement, between
Respondent and the Charging Party, were based upon the alle-
gations of the General Counsel’s complaint. As far as I can
ascertain, while the Board found that a collective-bargaining
agreement, effective for the above time period, existed, the
document, embodying this agreement, upon which counsel for
the General Counsel and counsel for the Charging Party rely for
the contribution rates to the two benefit funds, the language
providing for liquidated damages and interest amounts on any
delinquent contributions, and the language providing for auto-
matic renewal on a year-to-year basis absent notice, by either
party, of termination, modification, or amendment of the
agreement, was not a part of the record before the Board. Par-
ticularly with regard to Respondent’s liability for its failure to
make contractually required benefit funds contributions for
bargaining unit employees for the years 2007 and 2008, Board
law is clear that “an 8(f) agreement, like a 9(a) agreement is
binding and enforceable during its term;” however, “when an
employer executes an 8(f) contract that binds it to renewals and
to successive contracts, the employer is statutorily obligated to
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 282
honor those renewals and successive contracts, unless and until
it properly exercises its right to terminate at the end of a con-
tract term. McKenzie Engineering Co., 333 NLRB 905, 907
(2001).
Accordingly, the exact provisions of the parties’ November
1, 2005, through December 31, 2006 collective-bargaining
agreement are crucial herein, and counsel for the General
Counsel and counsel for the Charging Party point to Charging
Party’s Exhibit 1 as the document, setting forth the agreement.6
Contrary to both counsel, the record does not permit, and I am
unable to make, such a finding. Thus, counsel for the Charging
Party offered the exhibit through the compliance officer for
Region 28, Miguel Rodriguez.7 Identifying the document as
one given to him by counsel for the General Counsel, who said
it was the applicable collective-bargaining agreement,8 the
witness testified that he requested the exhibit “. . . because I
was trying to calculate back-pay for this case.” During cross-
examination, asked if he had ever seen a document or a series
of documents containing an agreement between Respondent
and the Charging Party, dated December 29, 2005, Rodriguez
said, “[N]o.” Further, he denied being aware of any other col-
lective-bargaining agreement dated November 1, 2005. The
only other witness was Gabriel Perea, an International represen-
tative for the United Roofers, Waterproofers, and Allied Work-
ers International Union, who is assigned to the State of Nevada
and, in particular, Las Vegas, and counsel for the General
Counsel asserts that Perea “identified” Charging Party’s Exhibit
1 as the Agreement that was negotiated by the parties. Con-
trary to counsel, the record contains no such definitive state-
ment by the witness. Rather, the following colloquy is the por-
tion of the record to which counsel refers:

Q. BY MR. LYBARGER: Did you receive any communi-
cations from Mr. Willis after December 29th of 2005?
A. I don’t recall, but I don’t believe so.
Q. I believe you signed an affidavit . . . indicating that
Mr. Willis had told you that he wouldn’t “sign the fucking
agreement.” Do you recall that?
A. Yes, I do.

6 According to counsel for the General Counsel, the exhibit “. . . is
the agreement referred to in the complaint that the Board . . . held con-
stitutes the agreement between the parties,” and, according to counsel
for the Charging Party, the exhibit “. . . is the agreement reached be-
tween the parties.”
While counsel for Respondent dispute that a November 1, 2005,
through December 31, 2006 collective-bargaining agreement exists, the
Board found that Respondent and the Union have such an agreement
and, as I stated at the hearing, the Board’s underlying decision on this
point is final.
7 I received the document after noting that Rodriguez identified the
document as that which he used as the basis for computing the amount
of backpay allegedly owed by Respondent.
8 The document is 23 pages. in length, bears the title, “Collective
Bargaining Agreement Between Willis Roofing and Consulting, Inc.
and United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers Local
#162,” contains no signature under Employer and the signature of an
unidentified individual under the name of the Charging Party. The
effective date of the purported agreement is November 1, 2005, and the
document contains numerous word cross outs and insertions.
Q. And do you recall at about what timeframe that
was?
A. It was . . . in January.
JUDGE LITVACK: Of what year?
THE WITNESS: 2006, I think.
JUDGE LITVACK: He was referring to an extension of
the Collective Bargaining Agreement that would have ex-
pired on December 31, 2005?
THE WITNESS: No. He was talking about this docu-
ment right here.
JUDGE LITVACK: And when was that due to expire? . . .
THE WITNESS: December 31, 2006. . . .
JUDGE LITVACK: So, he was referring to Charging
Party’s Exhibit No. 1 that he wasn’t going to enter into?
THE WITNESS: Yes.

While the meaning of Perea’s testimony is problematic, he
clearly did not specifically identify Charging Party’s Exhibit 1
as being the memorialized version of the November 1, 2005,
through December 31, 2006 collective-bargaining agreement
between Respondent and the Charging Party, which, according
to the Board, was the parties’ most recent collective-bargaining
agreement. Obviously, I do not know whether or not Perea
would have been able to identify Charging Party’s Exhibit 1 as
the said agreement, but what is certain is that neither counsel
for the General Counsel nor counsel for the Charging Party
posed this question to the witness. Moreover, while Perea de-
nied that, subsequent to December 30, 2005, he has received
any notice from Respondent either that it wished to terminate
the collective-bargaining agreement between itself and the
Charging Party or that it did not wish to have “a collective-
bargaining agreement” roll over into another year, besides ad-
mitting that Respondent’s secretary-treasurer, Joseph Willis,
told him he would not execute Charging Party’s Exhibit 1,
Perea also admitted receiving a January 15, 2006 letter from
Willis in which the latter informed Perea that he would not
execute another collective-bargaining agreement with the Un-
ion unless the latter became the bargaining representative of the
employees of, at least, two other residential roofing contractors.
Based upon the foregoing, I reiterate that I am unable to
make a finding that Charging Party’s Exhibit 1 embodies the
November 1, 2005, through December 31, 2006, collective-
bargaining agreement, between the parties, to which the Board
referred. Thus, the compliance officer for Region 28 had no
direct knowledge that the exhibit was the collective-bargaining
agreement and only identified the document as that which he
utilized to ascertain the trust fund contribution rates. Further,
Gabriel Perea never specified that Charging Party’s Exhibit 1
embodied the parties’ November 1, 2005, through December
31, 2006 collective-bargaining agreement, as found by the
Board, and, at most, testified that Respondent informed him of
its intent not to execute the document.9 As the Board found

9 Respondent’s refusal to execute Charging Party’s Exhibit 1 was not
alleged nor found as an unfair labor practice in the underlying decision
of the Board. Neither counsel for the General Counsel nor counsel for
the Charging Party argue that Respondent’s failure and refusal to exe-
cute the document constitutes an admission that it embodied the parties’
most recent collective-bargaining agreement, and I make no such find-
WILLIS ROOF CONSULTING 283
that a November 1, 2005, through December 31, 2006, between
Respondent and the Charging Party existed, with the agreement
reached on or about December 29, 2005, and given counsel for
Respondent’s admission in its answer to the amended compli-
ance specification, I find that the contractual contribution rates
are as set forth in the amended compliance specification—
pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreement, Respondent’s
contribution to the health and welfare fund is $2.75 per hour
per employee for each actual hour worked not to exceed 140
hours per month, and Respondent’s contribution to the pension
fund is 50 cents per hour per employee for each actual hour
worked. However, in the above circumstances, absent a prrop-
erly authenticated document embodying the terms of this most
recent agreement, I am unable to, and, therefore, do not, find
that the parties’ November 1, 2005, through December 31 col-
lective-bargaining agreement contained liquidated damages or
interest penalty provisions or any automatic renewal or exten-
sion language. Accordingly, I shall recommend to the Board
that Respondent be ordered to make whole the contractual
health and welfare and pension benefits funds for all delinquent
contributions for bargaining unit employees only for the time
period December 30, 2005, through December 31, 2006, with
interest.10
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended11
ORDER
The Respondent, Willis Roof Consulting, Inc., Las Vegas,
Nevada, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall make
payments to the contractual health and welfare and pension
benefits funds for each bargaining unit employee in the
amounts described below with interest:

ing. In my view, Respondent may have had myriad lawful reasons for
refusing to execute the document, including that the document did not
correctly embody the parties’ complete agreement.
10 Interest should be calculated in accord with Isis Pluming & Heat-
ing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Counsel for the Charging Party re-
quests that interest owed by Respondent be compounded rather than
computed on a simple interest, per anum basis. It is the prerogative of
the Board to change its approach to interest payments; accordingly, I
shall reject counsel’s request.
11 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
Health and
Name Welfare Amount Pension Amount

-----, Francisco $ 264.00 $ 48.00
Acevez, C. Alejandro 2145.00 408.00
Aguilar, Salomon 4391.75 877.00
Aguilar, Juan Jose 3751.00 734.00
Aguilar-A, Raul G. 3,938.00 793.00
Aguilar-E, Salvador 4,620.00 1,689.38
Aguilera-R, Gerardo 4,510.00 936.00
Aguinada-E, Marcelino 4,413.75 889.00
Aguirre, Juan A. 4,325.75 865.00
Alamilla, Jose M. 4,463.25 893.00
Alcides-C, Franklin 4,155.25 814.50
Alcides-Canales, Oscar 594.00 108.00
Aldana, Hector A. 3,355.00 625.00
Aldana, Mauro O. 4,460.50 893.50
Alejandre, Luis M. 3,630.00 684.00
Alejandre, Jorge A. 4,532.00 888.00
Alfaro-A, Jayme 1,067.00 206.50
Alpiar-M, Raul 869.00 176.00
Alvarado-C, Aurelio 4,617.25 1,488.63
Alvares, Manuel M. 4,620.00 1,682.25
Alvarez, Miguel 3,278.00 644.00
Alverez, Saidel 88.00 16.00
Alveres-M, Ramiro 3,999.88 807.25
Amaya, Jose-A 4,411.00 880.00
Angel, Ricardo 4,510.00 912.00
Angeles-M, Antonio 132.00 24.00
Anibal-Castillo, Luis 4,336.75 856.50
Aparicio, Roberto 4,389.00 854.50
Arellanes, Cristobal 66.00 12.00
Arellano, Rafael 1,500.13 286.75
Arevalo, Fredys A. 4,204.75 819.50
Argeta, Jose I. 4,215.75 829.50
Arguello, Juan 4,149.75 832.00
Arizaga, German 4,174.50 820.50
Arizaga-Pin, Ismael 4,592.50 1,265.25
Arroyo, Moises 3,304.13 684.75
Avalos, Juan I. 2,299.00 514.50
Avalos, Ricardo 4,620.00 1,129.63
Avalos-C, Juan David 3,976.50 743.50
Avelar-R, Alvaro 1,947.00 404.00
Avila, Miguel 4,202.00 885.00
Ayala, Roberto C. 4,424.75 877.00
Azpeitia-L,Santiago 4,573.25 939.00
Azpeitia-L, Felipe 4,540.25 909.00
Azpeitia-Lo,Ariel 4,540.25 909.00
Azpeitia-R, Marco A. 4,215.75 810.50
Bacca, Gustova A. 4,367.00 866.00
Badillo, Erasmo C. 1,507.00 300.00
Bahena, Gabriel 2,871.00 575.00
Bahena-E, Catalino 2,530.00 511.00
Bahena-G, Daniel 4,213.00 820.00
Barahina, William 4,339.50 823.50
Barahona, Jose A. 4,507.25 935.50
Barahona, Israel 3,258.75 621.50
Barahona, Israel A. 4,125.00 776.00
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 284
Barajas, Sergio 814.00 152.00
Barajas, Ignacio 88.00 16.00
Barcenas, Rodrigo 2,480.50 469.50
Barcenas, Elias 4,515.50 1,283.00
Barcenas, Antonio 3,965.50 779.50
Barcenas, David 4,353.25 820.00
Barcenas, Jose A. 4,235.00 1,223.50
Barcenas-R, Sixto 4,353.25 820.00
Barragan, Andres 1,823.25 356.50
Barragan-M, Arturo 1,199.00 232.50
Barragan-V, Raul 4,147.00 822.00
Barrera, Victorino 1,916.75 388.00
Barrera, Sandro C. 4,620.00 1,692.00
Barrios-C, Ivan 4,499.00 876.00
Barron, Franciso O. 3,385.25 652.00
Bautista-P, Saulo 4,411.00 912.00
Bellozo-M, Juan E. 1,914.00 380.00
Benavides, Francisco A. 4,364.25 855.00
Benavides, Santos 3,825.25 850.50
Benavides, Victor M. 4,119.50 787.00
Benavides, Walter F. 4,562.25 943.50
Benavides, Oscar P. 827.75 159.50
Bernal, Ramon E. 4,576.00 956.00
Bueno-G, Ignacio 3,206.50 641.00
Camarillo, Ernesto 2,849.00 571.00
Campos, Lorenzo 3,910.50 780.13
Campos, Erik A. 4,562.25 943.50
Campos-C, Jose N. 3,137.75 630.00
Campos-C, Rosalio 4,435.75 886.00
Cano, Jamie 2,321.00 452.00
Cantor-R, Jose 308.00 56.00
Carmona, Santiago 4,353.25 886.00
Carpio, Juan 4,202.00 868.00
Castillo, Fernando 3,465.00 888.63
Castillo, Juan M. 2,112.00 412.00
Castillo, Armando 3,943.50 825.00
Castillo, Roselio A. 4,521.00 904.00
Castillo, Nelson A. 4,444.00 890.50
Castillo-D, Inacio 1,962.13 688.00
Castillo-O, Jose 2,095.50 392.50
Castillo-S, Edgar 396.00 72.00
Cazares-L, Saul 4,620.00 1,560.88
Centeno, Jose A. 3,894.00 788.50
Ceron, Martiniano 1,894.75 380.00
Ceron-G, Rufino 2,631.75 554.50
Cervantes, Antonio C. 4,620.00 1,527.88
Chavarria-M, Margarito 4,254.25 902.50
Chavez, Joel 4,446.75 897.00
Chavez, David E. 1,080.75 202.00
Chavez, Jose R. 4,532.00 915.00
Chavez-E, Jose 1,696.75 328.50
Chicas, Jose S. 3,693.25 698.50
Cisneros, Jesus 4,089.25 944.88
Colin-C, Alberto 4,092.00 780.00
Colin-C, Julio 4,092.00 780.00
Colin-C, Tomas 4,400.00 872.00
Colin-C, Gregorio 4,455.00 876.00
Contreras, Victor 3,938.00 798.00
Contreras, Hector 22.00 4.00
Corea, Cruz 3,146.00 637.00
Cornejo-M, Nelson E. 4,499.00 908.50
Coronel, Victor 2,167.00 420.00
Coronel, Diego 1,331.00 248.00
Correa, Ernesto 4,246.00 820.00
Cortes, Martin 242.00 44.00
Cortez, Jose A. 4,026.00 809.50
Cortez, Juan R. 4,312.00 897.00
Cortez-C, Wilmer A. 4,160.75 804.00
Coto, Carlos 3,176.25 602.50
Cruz, Jose F. 2,202.75 428.50
Cruz, Jaime De Jesus 4,230.88 935.25
Cruz, Maurico 4,185.50 828.50
Cruz, Jose R. 264.00 48.00
Cruz, Miguel A. 42,130.00 820.00
Cruz, Jose N. 4,230.88 935.25
Cruz, Carlos 4,367.00 866.00
Cruz, Jose Rene 4,174.50 820.50
Cruz-Mendoza, Juan 880.00 160.00
Cruz-Falcon, Octavio 2,455.75 474.50
Cruz-Lopez, Luis A. 1,595.00 304.00
Cruz-Yanez, Angel 3,206.50 641.00
Daniel, Jorge M. 3,069.00 664.50
Daniel-M, Salvador 4,017.75 821.50
De La Cruz, Oscar F. 4,392.44 1,475.50
Delgado, Felipe 4,215.75 803.00
Dias Sanchez, Juan C. 3,674.00 747.00
Diaz, Salvador D. 115.50 21.00
Diaz, Carlos D. 3,737.25 780.50
Diaz-M, Luis 3,951.75 803.00
Diaz-Mendez, Martin 4,235.00 1,563.38
Diaz-O, Daniel 2,505.25 460.00
Dominguez, Juan J. 4,515.50 926.50
Dominguez, Gustavo S. 4,334.00 1,026.00
Dominguez, Manuel
D.J. 4,562.25 935.50
Dominguez, Jose 3,737.25 739.50
Doniz, Eric 3,693.25 715.50
Eaparza, M. Antonio 2,893.00 596.00
Elvir, Wilmer A. 4,468.75 902.50
Escobar, Santos 4,413.75 889.00
Escobar-P, Marvin A. 3,957.25 763.50
Esparza, Jose 3,806.69 772.25
Esparza, Humberto 4,565.00 913.50
Esparza, Gabriel 1,677.50 319.00
Esparza, Aurelio 4,620.00 1,448.00
Espinoza-J, Jose 4,147.00 808.50
Esqueda, Isabel 4,521.00 904.00
Eusebio, Abner E. 979.00 178.00
Eusebio, Francisco 4,620.00 1,714.25
Eusebio-Me, Jaime 121.00 22.00
Falcon, Antonio 3,610.00 698.50
Falcon-Cerc, Benjamin 3,476.00 724.00
Falcon-Cruz, Miguel 4,537.50 1,163.13
Falcon-Cruz, Almaquio 1,157.75 210.50
Fernandez, Jose A. 2,917.75 573.50
Fernandez, Jose 4,103.00 807.00
WILLIS ROOF CONSULTING 285
Fernandez, Manuel 4,460.50 870.50
Fernandez-V, Elmer 3,008.50 583.00
Ferrufino, Isidro O. 4,193.75 822.50
Figueroa, Salvador 4,620.00 1,490.50
Figueroa-So, Miguel 4,620.00 1,711.38
Flores, Raul 4,213.00 792.50
Flores, Rodolfo 2,007.50 381.00
Flores, Juan M. 907.50 169.00
Flores, Josue 4,565.00 954.00
Flores, Rolis 3,979.25 771.50
Frias, Rodrigo G. 4,620.00 1,125.38
Frias, Antonio N. 4,510.00 936.00
Gaitan, Jose E. 891.00 162.00
Gaitan, Vidal A. 3,979.25 771.50
Galindo-P, Ricardo 4,620.00 1,578.38
Galindo-P, Gilberto 4,397.25 1,365.88
Gaona-B, Celestino 3,377.00 668.00
Garay, Adan 3,740.00 768.00
Garcia, Jesus 4,543.00 910.00
Garcia, Juan C. 990.00 192.00
Garcia, Juan 2,563.00 484.00
Garcia, Esteban 1,894.75 384.00
Garcia, Constantino 2,563.00 484.00
Garcia, Victor H. 4,315.44 813.13
Garcia, Crescencio 4.094.75 825.00
Garcia, Jorge 4,094.75 825.00
Garcia, Efrain 4,543.00 906.00
Garcia, Saul 4,353.25 820.00
Garcia, Salvador 3,088.25 666.25
Garcia, Jesus 4,565.00 900.00
Garcia, Enrique 4,312.00 868.00
Garcia, Luis M. 4,202.00 828.00
Garcia-A, Adrian I. 4,122.25 777.50
Garcia-B, Jesus H. 4,620.00 1,630.63
Garcia-B, Salvador A. 4,257.00 862.50
Garcia-D, Luis M. 3,220.25 644.50
Garcia-F, Horatio 4,471.50 1,205.50
Garcia-G, Adan 2,563.00 484.00
Garcia-G, Renan 4,312.00 868.00
Garcia-G, Jaime 3,036.00 612.00
Garcia-H, Jorge 462.00 84.00
Garcia-M, Juan J. 4,515.50 1,283.00
Garduno-G, Jesus 4,400.00 875.00
Garduno-R, Ascencion 4,400.00 875.00
Gasca, Cecilio 4,620.00 954.00
Gasca, Rene 3,344.00 670.00
Gomes, Fernando 4,587.00 976.00
Gomez, Miguel 4,620.00 1,548.88
Gomez-F, Jesus 4,608.31 1,149.38
Gomez-F, Ismael 4,620.00 1,609.63
Gomez-Z, Alejandro 2,354.00 466.00
Gonzaga, Isidoro 2,442.00 455.50
Gonzaga-H, Adan 3,877.50 723.50
Gonzalez, Humberto 3,877.50 723.50
Gonzalez, Luis 4,620.00 1,628.88
Gonzalez, Fernando 4,532.00 928.00
Gonzalez, Rogelio 4,518.25 916.00
Gonzalez-S, Julio 4,446.75 897.00
Gonzalez, Jose A. 3,729.00 800.00
Granados, Osman 4,466.00 977.00
Guerrero, Teodoro 3,470.50 674.50
Guerrero, Manuel 4,125.00 776.00
Guevara, Juan M. 2,365.00 452.00
Guevara, Victor M. 4,306.50 852.50
Guevara-R, Jose D. 4,136.00 809.00
Guiterrez, Jose 1,177.00 228.00
Guzman, Alejandro 4,620.00 1,581.63
Guzman, Miguel A. 4,444.00 920.50
Guzman, Jose A. 4,444.00 920.00
Guzman, Manuel 4,290.69 852.13
Guzman-R, Ronaldo P. 4,532.00 912.00
Heredia, Jaime 4,191.00 846.50
Hernandez, Juan C. 3,503.00 713.00
Hernandez, Armando 1,633.50 336.50
Hernandez, Alfredo 3,173.50 621.00
Hernandez, Carlos 4,202.00 818.00
Hernandez, Octavio 4,331.25 1,071.50
Hernandez, Joaquin 3,333.00 668.00
Hernandez, Felipe 4,444.00 920.00
Hernandez, Juan 1,707.75 335.00
Hernandez, Alejandro 4,587.00 921.00
Hernandez, Ismael 4,515.50 888.50
Hernandez, Ruben S. 4,620.00 1,465.25
Hernandez, Jorge A. 4,592.50 916.50
Hernandez, Ismael 4,279.00 823.00
Hernandez, Heriberto 4,207.50 808.00
Hernandez-I, Gerardo 4,279.00 823.00
Hernandez-I, Simon 1,925.00 402.00
Hernandez-I, Horacio 1,925.00 402.00
Hernandez-I, Tomas 2,871.00 600.00
Hernandez-I, Isidro 3,399.00 696.00
Hernandez-I, Jose O. 847.00 154.50
Hernandez-I, Gregoio 4,400.00 875.00
Hernandez-I, Ismael 4,400.00 875.00
Hernandez-I, Francisco 4,400.00 875.00
Hernandez-I, Jesus 3,366.00 655.00
Herrera, Joel 4,499.00 913.50
Herrera, Leonardo 4,427.50 903.00
Huerta, Ricardo 4,290.00 828.00
Huerta-S, Francisco 484.00 88.00
Huerta-S, Vidal 4,215.75 845.00
Ingles, Wilfredo 4,543.00 916.00
Isabel-G, Jose 506.00 111.50
Janres, Salvador 3,401.75 656.50
Janres-Z, Pedro A. 4,072.75 800.50
Jimenes, J Jesus E. 4,147.00 808.50
Jimenez, Carlos 3,951.75 776.00
Jimenez, Nestor 4,301.00 873.00
Jimenez-M, Jimmy 2,469.50 481.50
Jimenez-M, Juan 2,817.38 688.75
Jimenez-S, Everado 4,042.50 826.00
Jimenez-S, Eduardo 4,246.00 853.00
Leon, Sergio 4,235.00 1,466.75
Leon, Jose G. 4,603.50 951.00
Leyva-R, Ivan 22.00 4.00
Leyva-R, Ronny 22.00 4.00
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 286
Lomely, Juan M. 605.00 113.50
Lopez, Jonathan 44,770.00 878.00
Lopez, Ramon 28.25 533.50
Lopez-C, Marco A. 429.00 823.00
Lopez-F, Luis 242.00 476.00
Lopez-L, Inocenio 3,916.00 740.00
Lopez-U, Leiber A. 4,314.75 852.50
Lopez, Manuel 4,477.00 884.00
Lozano, Frederico A. 4,573.25 939.00
Luna-T, Luis A. 3,927.00 730.50
Luna-T, Alan 4,147.00 826.00
Machado, Manuel O. 4,444.00 865.50
Machado-R, Juan 4,059.00 828.00
Macias-E, Emmanuel 3,971.00 823.00
Madigal, Pedro 2,975.50 593.00
Madigal, Jose L. 4,444.00 896.00
Madrigal, Jose M.A. 4,417.88 863.75
Magana-O, Luis 4,195.81 1,352.25
Maldonado, Jose A. 4,488.00 884.00
Manzo, Salvador 484.00 88.00
Manzo-D, Ricardo 3,990.25 818.00
Manzo-M, Luis A. 4,006.75 749.00
Marin-P, Miguel 3,197.00 604.00
Marquez, Gerado 2,090.00 428.00
Martines, Manuel 3,170.75 600.50
Martinez, Rufino 3,745.50 784.00
Martinez, Ramon 4,331.25 1,077.75
Martinez, Pedro O. 264.00 48.00
Martinez, Mario 4,411.00 918.00
Martinez, Benito 4,620.00 1,798.75
Martinez, Amador S. 4,620.00 1,580.00
Martinez-C, Elmer 3,693.25 698.50
Martinez-M, Pascual 4,378.00 909.00
Martinez-M, Florentino 4,400.00 913.00
Martinez-M, Julian 4,400.00 913.00
Martinez-M, Macario 4,279.00 881.00
Martinez-R, Jose 3,775.75 735.50
Martinez-V, Arturo 4,221.25 1,057.75
Maya, Afredo 3,465.00 1,028.88
Medina-V, Harvy D. 1,881.00 356.00
Medina-V, Luis A. 4,147.00 816.00
Mejia, Jose A. 3,390.75 622.50
Mejia, Oscar M. 4,620.00 1,655.38
Mejia, Francisco A. 4,056.25 747.50
Mejia, Juan P. 4,056.25 747.50
Mejia-C, Oscar M. 4,389.00 864.00
Mejia-S, Fidel 3,872.00 740.00
Melendez-L, Eleazar 4,089.25 802.50
Membrano, Oscar N. 4,532.00 919.00
Membrano-G, Francisco 2,684.00 550.00
Mendez, Carlos E. 2,541.00 470.50
Mendez, Hugo 3,465.00 1,013.38
Mendez-C, Afredo 3,968.25 958.00
Mendez-C, Romiro 528.00 96.00
Mendez-C, Saul 255.75 46.50
Mendez-S, Marco A. 385.00 72.00
Mendoza, Francisco 4,620.00 954.00
Modesto, Ornaldo 1,886.50 343.00
Molina, Edwin 3,168.00 645.00
Molina-C, Jose A. 3,995.75 764.00
Montiel-A, Juan 4,191.00 841.50
Montiel-H, Guillermo 2,981.00 595.00
Montiel-H, Carlos 4,191.00 841.50
Montiel-S, Juan C. 4,136.00 800.00
Montoy, Leonardo 4,046.63 815.25
Montoya, Gaudencio V. 3,256.00 622.00
Montoya-F, Ynai 1,430.00 270.75
Montoya-F, Pablo 4,001.25 758.25
Montoya-P, Roberto 3,456.75 712.50
Montufar-F, Marco 4,479.75 905.00
Mora, Antonio 3,194.13 650.75
Morales, Hector 1,476.75 282.50
Morales, Gonzalo 1,966.25 357.50
Morales, Alberto 4,518.25 916.00
Morales-M, Redin 907.50 169.00
Moreno, Kevin 3,220.25 644.50
Moreno-G, Luis 2,917.75 573.50
Mota, Raul M. 4,422.00 880.00
Mota, Mario M. 4,422.00 880.00
Moya-R, Salvador 2,013.00 376.00
Munoz, Joel 2,307.25 465.50
Munoz, Alejandro 2,838.00 524.00
Munoz-M, Moises 2,299.00 460.00
Munoz-N, Mauricio 1,045.00 196.00
Munoz-N, Arnulfo 2,838.00 524.00
Natividad-C, Jose 4,510.00 888.00
Navarrette, Audencio J. 3,880.94 729.13
Navarro-C, Ricardo 3,929.75 748.50
Navarro-L, Rogellio 2,013.00 402.50
Navarro-L, Humberto 3,918.75 734.00
Navarro-O, Miguel 4,402.75 889.00
Niko, Rob 902.00 170.00
Ocampo, Andres 4,215.75 803.00
Ocampos-A, Rodolfo 1,424.50 269.75
Ochoa, Francisco 4,620.00 1,496.13
Ochoa-L, Santos 3,539.25 687.50
Oguin, Adrian 4,145.63 846.75
Oliva-M, Luis 2,310.00 639.53
Orellana, Juan C. 4,554.00 921.00
Orellana-F, Carlos A. 4,400.00 844.00
Orellana-H, Esteban 4,204.75 819.50
Orellana-V, Jose 3,817.00 734.50
Ortega, Allen 4,248.75 853.50
Ortega, Agustin 4,290.00 848.00
Pacheco, Javier 2,310.00 714.50
Palomo, Saul A. 4,204.75 839.50
Parga, Miguel A. 4,136.00 844.00
Pedraza-A, Enrique 2,057.69 723.13
Pedraza-A, Juan J. 4,602.13 1,484.13
Pena, Joaquin 3,951.75 755.25
Pena, Jesus O. 4,413.75 889.00
Pena-Q, Narciso 4,045.25 769.75
Peres-B, Angel 4,620.00 1,569.50
Perez, Hector 4,103.00 800.50
Perez, Faustino V. 4,455.00 870.00
Perez Jr., Raul 2,310.00 679.38
WILLIS ROOF CONSULTING 287
Perez V, Benito 4,493.50 875.50
Perez-B, Esdras 3,965.50 748.00
Perez-O, Emanuel 3,682.25 725.50
Pineda, Lucas 4,312.00 852.00
Pinedo, Ezequiel 4,562.25 924.00
Poblano, Eduardo 2,090.00 428.00
Poblano, Manuel 2,497.00 508.00
Poblano, Roberto 2,893.00 596.00
Ponce-F, Fernando 3,465.00 1,118.50
Prado-G, Erick 3,660.25 721.50
Prudencio, Denis A. 4,444.00 885.50
Quazada-N, Inocencio 4,290.00 858.50
Quintanilla, Omar D. 1,586.75 302.50
Quintero, Frederico 4,191.00 836.00
Ramirez, Crispin 3,960.00 812.00
Ramirez, Carlos J. 1,493.25 284.50
Ramirez, Rolando 4,408.25 899.50
Ramirez, Margarito R. 4,477.00 904.50
Ramirez, Pedro 4,364.25 852.50
Ramirez, Arturo 3,594.25 704.50
Ramos, Jose 4,422.00 880.00
Renderos, Jose A. 4,367.00 851.50
Renderos, Nelson D. 4,204.75 819.50
Renderos, Jose M. 4,548.50 894.00
Renderos, Jorge A. 3,008.50 583.00
Reyes, Ignacio 4,455.00 928.00
Reyes, Alberto 682.00 124.00
Reyes, Javier 176.00 32.00
Reyes, Rudis D. 4,039.75 776.50
Reyes, Hector 4,620.00 1,582.50
Reyes-G, Gilberto 4,081.00 832.00
Reyes-S, Mario 3,718.00 788.00
Rincon, Alejandro 4,334.00 1,026.50
Rivas, Jose E. 4,411.00 876.00
Rivas, Ernesto 4,441.25 859.00
Rivera, Jose M. 4,537.50 906.50
Rivera, Mario 4,290.00 894.00
Rivera. Pedro G. 4,554.00 917.00
Rivera, Jorge 673.75 122.50
Rizo, Noe 4,620.00 1,458.50
Rodriguez, Oscar 1,683.00 331.00
Rodriguez, Juan C. 2,997.50 650.00
Rodriguez, Hugo 714.31 187.75
Rodriguez, Omar 3,553.00 667.50
Rodriguez, A. Alfredo 3,077.25 664.50
Rodriguez-C, Jesus 2,752.75 564.00
Romero, Gabriel 4,466.00 889.50
Romero, Jose 737.00 148.00
Romero, Enrique 704.00 128.00
Romero-V, Cesar 22.00 4.00
Rosa, Angel De Je 4,072.75 800.50
Rosales, Esteban 4,334.00 1,026.00
Rosas-B, Rodolfo 660.00 120.00
Ruiz, Moises 3,916.00 778.00
Ruiz, Alejandro 1,094.50 202.50
Ruiz, Salvador 4,411.00 918.00
Ruiz, Ricardo 3,951.75 745.50
Ruiz–R, Felix 3,951.75 745.50
Ruiz-E, Juan C. 121.00 22.00
Ruiz-L, Juan M. 4,290.00 848.00
Ruiz-R, Eliseo 3,698.75 715.50
Ruiz-R, Filadelfo 6,847.25 740.50
Ruiz-S, Erasmo 3,828.00 723.00
Salgado, Nelson 3,476.00 696.00
Salmeron-Q, Tomas 3,333.00 644.00
Salvado-P, Efren 3,861.00 800.00
Salvador, Mario 4,411.00 912.00
Samora, Frederico 4,312.00 832.00
Sanchez, Rodrigo 2,079.00 385.50
Sanchez, Jose 88.00 16.00
Sanchez, Tomas 199.38 36.25
Sanchez, Jesus E. 3,883.00 748.00
Sanchez-A, Jose 811.25 155.00
SanJuan, Jaime 2,519.00 520.50
Santiago, Hector 2,543.75 486.50
Santiago-A, Ramon 4,620.00 1,718.63
Serafin, Pablo 588.50 107.00
Serpa, Elmer A. 4,323.00 884.00
Serpas, Sergio 4,593.88 920.75
Serpas, Jose I. 4,213.00 864.00
Serpas, Jose R. 4,323.00 884.00
Serrano, Alejandro-E 4,290.00 820.00
Silvas, Joel A. 1,834.25 636.25
Solorio, Ismael 3,465.00 1,123.38
Soria, Juan 4,620.00 1,636.75
Soria, Carlos 4,620.00 1,587.50
Sorto, Eugenio 3,575.00 715.63
Sosa, Joel P. 4,540.25 920.00
Soto, Guadalupe 4,169.00 842.00
Suarez, Hugo 121.00 22.00
Tapia-C, Elpidio 4,620.00 1,779.00
Torres-U, Reinaldo 1,771.00 336.00
Urias Vargas, Jose 4,103.00 822.50
Uribe, Fernando 2,590.50 511.00
Valencia, Raul T. 4,620.00 1,561.38
Vargas, Lorenzo U. 1,155.00 234.50
Vargas-G, Jose 4,158.00 830.00
Vargas-G, Luis 4,213.00 852.00
Vasquez-C, Jose L. 1,892.00 374.00
Vega-V, Edgar 88.00 16.00
Vega-M, Ricardo 2,685.38 839.13
Vela-N, Bernardo 4,620.00 1,530.75
Velasquez, Lucio 3,168.00 618.50
Velasquez-Z, Jose D. 3,902.25 757.38
Velasquez, Bernardo 4,532.00 884.50
Valez, Jose 3,063.50 566.50
Valez-C, Jose L. 3,542.00 691.50
Valez-F, Juan C. 3,972.38 756.13
Viera, Franklin 4,350.50 865.00
Villanueva, Noe 594.00 108.00
Villanueva, Eliceo 4,061.75 787.50
Villanueva, Juan 4,620.00 1,176.75
Villanueva, Faustino 3,863.75 712.00
Villanueva-E, Jesus 1,738.00 339.00
Villanueva-S, Javier 594.00 108.00
Villegas-S, Pablo 4,246.00 811.00
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 288
Vivator, Arnoldo 330.00 60.00
Viveros, Ismael 770.00 140.00
Yanez, David 4,235.00 818.00
Yanez-A, Daniel 4,554.00 908.00
Zambrano, Jaime 3,630.00 684.00
Zambrano-L, Paulo 4,603.50 951.00
Zamudio-N, Lazaro 286.00 52.00
Zaragoza-H, Agustin H. 4,576.00 937.50
Zaragoza-P, Salvador 3,982.00 792.00
Zaragoza-H, Luis M. 3,707.00 731.00
Zavala, Isidro 1,386.00 260.00
Zelaya, Ramon 4,248.75 798.00
Zelaya, Pablo 4,427.50 867.00
Zelaya-M, Juan V. 4,405.50 863.00
Zumiga-M, Juan I. $ 957.00 $ 188.50

FUND TOTAL

Health and Welfare $1,832,074.06 plus interest

Pension $395,570.50 plus interest