Calson Tower Geriatric Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 10, 1986

281 N.L.R.B. 399 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

CALSON TOWER GERIATRIC CENTER
Health Enterprises of America , Inc. d/b/a Calson
Tower Geriatric Center and Geriatric Center of
St. Louis, Inc., a successor to Health Enter-
prises of America , Inc., d/b/a Calson Tower
Geriatric Center and Local 545, United Food
and Commercial Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC.
Case 14-CA-14645
10 September 1986
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY MEMBERS JOHANSEN , BABSON, AND
STEPHENS
On 26 August 1983 Administrative Law Judge
Elbert D. Gadsden issued the attached supplemen-
tal decision,' modified by the attached Errata
which issued 9 and 15 September 1983 . The Re-
spondent , Geriatric Center of St. Louis, Inc., filed
exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the supplemental deci-
sion and the record in light of the exceptions and
brief and has decided to affirm the judge 's rulings,
findings, s and conclusions and to adopt the recom-
mended Order, as modified. 3
1 Pursuant to a settlement stipulation entered into by the Respondent,
Health Enterprises of America (HEA), the Union and the General Coun-
sel, the Board on 12 May 1981 issued a Consent Order, directing HEA to
check off union dues, make health and welfare fund contributions , furnish
relevant information requested by the Union, bargain in good faith with
the Union, report employee discharges to the Union as required by the
collective-bargaining agreement, and abide by two arbitration awards re-
instating employees Mary Young and Barbara Pannell with backpay. The
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit enforced the Consent Order
against HEA on 28 July 1981 and against HEA's successor, Geriatric
Center of St. Louis, Inc. (Geriatric), on 12 August 1982.
a In the appendices to his supplemental decision, the judge made cer-
tain typographical and mathematical errors in calculating the backpay
amounts owed the claimants . App. A is corrected to state that the gross
backpay amounts for Mary Young are calculated on the basis of pay peri-
ods, not weeks, that the 'gross and net backpay due her in each of the
first and second quarters of 1982 is $2009 .22, and that the total backpay
due her is $15,752 .42. App. C is corrected to show that in the first 5.5
pay periods of the first quarter of 1982, Barbara Pannell would have
earned $364 .01 per pay period . App. D is corrected to delete the backpay
claim of Louis McPherson . The record establishes that her actual wages
were more than the contractual wages and accordingly that no backpay
is due her. App. D is further corrected to state that the contractual gross
earnings figures for employees Wirda Bynum and Alonzo Green are
$9913 .75 and $8888.08, respectively , that the actual gross earnings of
Geraldine Spencer are $3626.25 in 1981 and that the total actual gross
earnings of Elzora Hooker are $699 . The judge's calculations of the net
backpay due these and the other listed employees are correct, with the
exception that Hooker is due 40 cents . We adopt the judge's appendices
subject to the above modifications.
By telegram of 8 March 1983, HEA notified the General Counsel
that it agreed to pay half the backpay owed to Young and Pannell, but it
did not otherwise participate in this backpay proceeding . The Order is
modified to correct the judge 's inadvertent failure to recommend, as al-
leged in the backpay specification, that HEA be held jointly and several-
ly liable with Geriatric for backpay and interest owed these employees
and for health and welfare fund contributions and interest, if any, owed
on behalf of Young.
399
ORDER
It is ordered that Respondents Health Enter-
prises of America, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, and
Geriatric Center of St. Louis, Inc., St . Louis, Mis-
souri, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall jointly and severally:
(1) Pay to employee Mary Young, as net back-
pay, $15,752.42, with interest computed in the
manner set forth in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB
651 (1977), minus tax withholdings required by
law.
(2) Pay to the Regional Director for Region 14,
$8673.66, with interest computed as in Florida Steel
Corp., supra, to be held in an escrow account on
behalf of employee Barbara Pannell for 1 year, in
order to give Barbara Pannell an opportunity to
come or to be brought forward by the Charging
Party, and be examined by the Respondents.
(3) Pay contributions to Local 545, United Food
and Commercial Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC,
Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of employee
Mary Young, $1172.35, with such interest or other
sums as specified by the pertinent fund agreement.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Geriat-
ric Center of St. Louis, Missouri, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns, shall pay to the 61
employees named in Appendix D the amounts set
forth opposite their respective names, with interest
computed as in Florida Steel Corp., supra, minus tax
withholdings required by law.
The judge inadvertently failed to specify in his recommended Order
that interest on net backpay owed to Young and Pannell and the employ-
ees named in App . D be calculated in the manner set forth in Florida
Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). The recommended Order also fails to
direct that any interest or penalty owed on arrearages to the health and
welfare fund on Young 's behalf be computed in the manner set forth in
Merryweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB 1213 (1979).
Finally, although we agree with the judge 's recommended 1-year
period regarding the escrow account to be created on behalf of claimant
Pannell, who had not been located as of the time of the backpay hearing,
we apply the standards set forth in Starhte Cuttin& Inc., 280 NLRB 1071
(1986).
Robert L. Seigel, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Robert W. Stewart, Esq. (McMahon, Berger, Breckinridge,•
Hanna, Linihan & Cody), of St. Louis, Missouri, for
the Respondent.
James I. Singer, Esq. (Schuchat Cook and Werner), of St.
Louis, Missouri, for the Charging Party.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ELBERT D. GADSDEN , Administrative Law Judge.
This proceeding is initiated pursuant to a Decision and
Order of the National Labor Relations Board in Case
14-CA-14645 on May 12, 1981 , directing Health Enter-
prises of America, Inc., d/b/a Calson Tower Geriatric
Center (Health Enterprises), inter alia, to comply with
281 NLRB No. 52
400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and abide by arbitration awards issued pursuant to arbi-
tration proceedings under the grievance and arbitration
provisions of its collective-bargaining agreement with
Local 545, United Food and Commercial Workers,
AFL-CIO-CLC (the Union), and to abide by the provi-
sions of its collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union.
The Board's Order having been enforced by the Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on July 28, 1981, the
Board about December 30, 1981, having filed its petition
for adjudication in civil contempt and for other civil
relief in the court of appeals, naming Respondent therein,
Geriatric Center of St. Louis, Inc., as successor to
Health Enterprises of America, Inc., d/b/a Calson
Tower Geriatric Center (Geriatric) and Ruby Nail, the
National Labor Relations Board, Geriatric, and Ruby
Nail entered into a consent decree approved by the court
of appeals on August 12, 1982, directing Geriatric, inter
alia, to abide by the arbitration awards concerning discri-
minatees Barbara Pannell and Mary Young, by making
them whole for any loss of earnings they might have suf-
fered by reason of their discharge by Health Enterprises,
and to make all employees whole for any loss of wages
they may have suffered as a result of Geriatric's noncom-
pliance with the collective-bargaining agreement from
June 1 , 1981 , the amounts, unless agreed on, to be fixed
by the Board subject to further court review.
A controversy having arisen over the amount of back-
pay due under the terms of the Board 's Order of May
12, 1981 , as enforced by the court of appeals and the
consent decree , the Regional Director for Region 14
issued this second amended backpay specification, alleg-
ing that the backpay due under the terms of the Board's
Order of May 12, 1981, as enforced by the court of ap-
peals and the consent decree, is as follows:
Health Enterprises and Geriatric are jointly and sever-
ally liable for the backpay owing to discriminatees
Young and Pannell, and such liability will be satisfied by
the payment of sums of money calculated in accordance
with the Board 's policies and procedures, as follows:
(a) The backpay period for discriminatee Mary Young
begins on July 17, 1980, the first working day after the
date Health Enterprises discharged her, and ends on
August 13, 1982, the date Geriatric made a full and un-
conditional offer of reinstatement to Mary Young.
(b) The backpay period for discriminatee Barbara Pan-
nell begins on September 12, 1980, the date agreed on by
the parties hereto in the consent decree and the date the
arbitrator issued his award ordering Pannell's reinstate-
ment . The backpay period for Pannell ends on August
13, 1982, the date Geriatric made a full and uncondition-
al offer of reinstatement to her.
(c) The amount of quarterly contributions due the
United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 545,
Health and Welfare Fund on behalf of discriminatee
Mary Young, in accordance with the terms of a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement between Health Enterprises
and/or Geriatric and the Union, is the sum of money per
quarter of a backpay period computed by multiplying the
average number of hours which would have been
worked by discriminatee Young during the quarter, by
the rate per hour set forth in the collective-bargaining
agreement between Health Enterprises and/or Geriatric
and the Union, for contributions to the United Food and
Commercial Workers , Local 545 , Health and Welfare
Fund, plus interest.
Health Enterprises of America, Inc. agreed in a tele-
gram directed to the Board that it will pay one -half the
ultimate award of the judge in this proceeding, with re-
spect to the backpay specification regarding discrimina-
tees Young and Pannell.
The hearing in the above matter was held before me at
St. Louis, Missouri , on March 9 , 1983 . Briefs have been
received from the General Counsel and counsel for Re-
spondent, respectively , which have been carefully con-
sidered.
The Record (Transcript)
The transcript in this proceeding is perhaps only
second to the worse that I have ever seen . It contains
numerous errors of omission and commission, and in
some portions the speaker appears incoherent. Words
were substituted for words which were actually spoken
by witnesses and me . Fortunately I was present, or I
might not have been able to interpret the record. Only
the last two or three pages of the record reported more
accurately what I said.
On the entire record in this case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BACKPAY SPECIFICATION
In accordance with the Board's formula for computing
backpay, the calendar net interim earnings is the differ-
ence between calendar quarter expenses.
Calendar quarter net backpay is the difference between
calendar quarter gross backpay and calendar quarter net
interim earnings . It is acknowledged that discriminatee
Barbara Pannell was paid interim earnings in the
amounts set forth in Appendix C.
Thus, the total net backpay due discriminatees Mary
Young and Barbara Pannell is the sum of the calendar
quarter net backpay amounts due them, less interim earn-
ings to Pannell, as set forth in Appendices A and C, re-
spectively; and contributions on behalf of Young to the
United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 545,
health and welfare fund , plus interest, as set forth in Ap-
pendix B . [Appendices A, B, C, and D have been re-
moved from this portion of case and placed after the
judge's recommended Order.]
Thus, in accordance with the above periods and Board
computation procedures, counsel for the General Coun-
sel established that the amount of backpay owed to each
discriminatee is as follows:
With no interim earnings , the total net backpay
for nine quarters due Mary Young is $15,752, with
interest.
Contributions for nine quarters to the health and
welfare fund, on behalf of Mary Young is $1172.35,
with interest minus, tax withholdings required by
law.
CALSON TOWER GERIATRIC CENTER
Less some interim earnings, the total net backpay
due Barbara Pannell is $8,673.66, with interest.
II. RESPONDENT'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO THE
SECOND AMENDED BACKPAY SPECIFICATION
Respondent admits that the backpay period for Mary
Young, as described in paragraph 1(a) of the second
amended backpay specification , is correct . Respondent
also admits that the backpay period for Barbara Pannell
is correct as described in paragraph 2(a) of the specifica-
tion. In view of the foregoing evidence , I conclude and
find that the sums of money as calculated and described
in Appendices A, B, and C were computed in reasonable
accordance with Board procedures for computing back-
pay and are correct as set forth therein.
A. Respondent 's First Affirmative Defense
Respondent contends that as its predecessor , Health
Enterprises advised it on June 1 , 1981 , that Enterprises
and the Charging Party had settled all outstanding claims
against each other , including the arbitration awards here
in issue, the settlement therefore runs to the benefit of
Respondent as alleged successor and thereby bars the al-
leged backpay award here in dispute . However, it is par-
ticularly noted by me that Health Enterprises telegram
(G.C. Exh. 2) sent to the General Counsel on March 8,
1983, contradicts this contention by Respondent. It is
clear from the language of Health Enterprises ' telegram
that it anticipated additional backpay liability, the un-
known amount of which Enterprises agreed to pay one-
half, on a determination of the amount thereof by the ad-
ministrative law judge . Counsel for Respondent does not
elaborate on or pursue this defense with any vigor. Nor
has he cited any authority in support of this position in
his brief. In any event , I do not find that the evidence of
record supports this defense as presented.
B. Respondent 's Second Affirmative Defense
Respondent contends that Mary Young and Barbara
Pannell failed to mitigate backpay due them, by failing to
actively and earnestly search for work during the back-
pay period ; and that the backpay due discriminatee
Young should be reduced by the amount of interim earn-
ings paid to her by Custom Maker , Inc. and Victory
Manufacturing Company.
In this regard, the evidence of record shows that Mary
Young was and presently is employed by Geriatric as a
nurses aide at night, from 7 p .m. to 7 a.m. She was dis-
charged by Health Enterprises on July 16, 1980 . Howev-
er, prior and subsequent to her discharge, she worked for
Custom Maker, 2, 3, 4 and some times 5 days a week, as
a fuse operator from 8 a .m. to 4 :30 p.m., until about
April 1981 , when Custom Maker went bankrupt. After
being laid off by Custom Maker in April 1981, Young
was recalled by the successor to Custom Maker , Victory
Manufacturing Company, on February 8, 1982. The
record shows that Victory Manufacturing Company was
an entity of Custom Maker for a number of years, and
was owned and operated by the same individuals who
owned and operated Custom Maker . Victory Manufac-
turing utilized the same equipment in the same location,
401
and performed the same work with the same manage-
ment and most of the same employees as did Custom
Maker . Young, nevertheless, continued to work part time
for Victory Manufacturing throughout the remainder of
the backpay period in 1982.
After being laid off from her night job at Health En-
terprises on July 16, 1980, Young would look for work
on days when she did not work, or when she only
worked a few hours on her day job at Custom Maker-
Victory Manufacturing. She was not able to look for
work at other times because , as she credibly stated, em-
ployers are generally not available for interviews and
hiring during evening hours.
In opposition to Respondent 's second affirmative de-
fense, counsel for the General Counsel presented docu-
mentary evidence of Mary Young 's work record (G.C.
Exh. 6) at Custom Maker and Victory Manufacturing,
showing Young worked 40-hour weeks regularly before
she was terminated by Health Enterprises on July 16,
1980, but that she worked only 2 to 3 days a week regu-
larly after her employment ended with Health Enter-
prises . Additionally, counsel for the General Counsel
presented the undisputed testimony of Mary Young, re-
citing spontaneously and convincingly numerous employ-
ers she contacted in applying for work without success
during the backpay period . Young related how she kept
a list of such employers where she went weekly and sub-
mitted them to the Missouri Division of Employment Se-
curity, as was required in order to receive unemploy-
ment compensation , which she received during the back-
pay period.
Counsel for Respondent contends that during hours
when Young was not working for Custom Maker prior
to January 19, 1981 , she stayed home to care for a dis-
abled father, which she could not do and look for work
at the same time. I find, however, that these contentions
are not supported by any evidence in the record and that
Young credibly explained her father's condition and how
she was able to look for work at times , while someone
else was in the home with her father . I find that her
search for work was neither limited nor perfunctory as
characterized by counsel for Respondent . Although
Young may not have filed an application at every em-
ployer she contacted seeking employment , this fact does
not mean that she did not earnestly seek employment at
every employer she visited . There are times when an em-
ployer will tell a person seeking employment that there
is no need to complete an application because the em-
ployer is not hiring . I am therefore satisfied that the
record evidence amply supports Young's testimony of
her contacts with the Division of Employment Security,
as well as with numerous individual employers within
the city of St. Louis. Young obviously satisfied the re-
quirement of submitting to the Division of Employment
Security weekly, the names and addresses of employers
whom she contacted, because she was eligible and did in
fact receive unemployment compensation after comply-
ing with such requirement.
On cross-examination by counsel for Respondent,
Mary Young was interrogated extensively about her
living arrangement and dependent obligations, and her
402 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
answers were prompt and responsive . I was persuaded
without reservations, in the absence of any probative evi-
dence produced by Respondent to the contrary, that
Young was telling the truth and that she did in fact ear-
nestly make reasonable efforts to obtain work as she tes-
tified. Consequently, I conclude and find that Mary
Young did earnestly make a reasonable search for work
unsuccessfully throughout her entire backpay period;
that she never declined an offer to work; that her second
less-than-full-time job at Custom Maker-Victory Manu-
facturing nor her home responsibilities rendered her un-
available for work during the backpay period, because
she had worked both jobs with Health Enterprises and
Custom Maker-Victory Manufacturing before she was
terminated by Health Enterprises, the predecessor of Re-
spondent; and that Respondent has failed to substantiate
its second affirmative defense by a preponderance of the
evidence that Young failed to mitigate backpay by failing
to look for work, or by any other established means.
Brown & Root, 132 NLRB 486, 495 (1961); Fibreboard
Corp., 180 NLRB 142, 147 (1969); NLRB v. Pilot Freight
Carriers, 604 F.2d 375 (5th Cir. 1979).
C. Respondent's Third Affirmative Defense
In its third affirmative defense, Respondent contends
the backpay due Young, as well as the benefits paid on
her behalf by Respondent, should be reduced by the
earnings she received from Custom Maker and Victory
Manufacturing as interim earnings . As pointed out by
counsel for the General Counsel, Respondent did not
raise this defense in its answers to the amended backpay
specification, and having failed to affirmatively plead
such defense, counsel for the General Counsel contends
Respondent is thereby foreclosed from asserting this de-
fense under Section 102.54 of the Board's Rules and Reg-
ulations. It is also noted that Respondent acknowledges
that it does not support this contention with any cited
legal authority. Although Respondent's defense in this
regard is properly dismissed pursuant to Section 102.54
of the Board's Rules and Regulations, as the Board's de-
cision herein will be reviewed by the court, Respond-
ent's defense regarding earnings received from Custom
Maker and Victory Manufacturing will be considered.
In this regard, counsel for the General Counsel never-
theless correctly argues that when an unlawfully dis-
charged employee worked two jobs prior to discrimina-
tory discharge from one employer, and continued to
work the second job after such discharge, the earnings
from the second job are not considered interim earnings
for purposes of calculating backpay. In support of his po-
sition, counsel for the General Counsel cites Isaac &
Vinson Security Services, 208 NLRB 47, 50, 51 (1973).
There, the Board stated: "Second job earnings normally
are not considered as interim earnings to be deducted
from gross backpay, particularly where, as here, the
claimant had a second job prior to his discharge." Con-
tinuing , the Board excluded as interim earnings that por-
tion of earnings which reflected what the claimant
would have continued to earn from his part-time second
job, if he had not been discharged from his "full-time"
job. Golay & Seal, Inc., 184 NLRB 241, 244-245 (1970),
enfd. 447 F.2d 290 (7th Cir. 1971); Kansas Refined
Helium Co., 252 NLRB 1156, 1158 (1980), enfd. 683 F.2d
1296 (10th Cir. 1982).
In view of the foregoing legal authority, I conclude
and find that Respondent has failed to substantiate by a
preponderance of the evidence that backpay due Mary
Young should be reduced by the earnings she received
from her second job (Custom Maker-Victory Manufac-
turing), as interim earnings.
In his brief to me, counsel for Respondent also argues
that several arbitrators have specified that unemployment
compensation received by a grievant must be deducted
from an award of backpay, citing Saggs Super Center, 73
L.A. 544, 547 (Cohen, 1979). Although Arbitrator Cohen
and others might have held unemployment compensation
deductible from an award of backpay for arbitration pur-
poses, the question of deducting unemployment compen-
sation from backpay as interim earnings for Board pur-
poses has long been settled by the Supreme Court in
NLRB v. Gullett Gin Co., 340 U.S. 361 (1950). There, the
Court held the Board did not abuse its discretion in re-
fusing to deduct as interim earnings sums paid to em-
ployees as unemployment compensation, when the Board
found they were unlawfully discharged. The Court fur-
ther stated, "since no consideration has been given or
should be given to collateral losses in framing an order
to reimburse employees for lost earnings , manifestly no
consideration need be given to collateral benefits which
employees may have received."
Accordingly, I conclude and find that unemployment
benefits paid to discriminatee Young, during her backpay
period, are not deductible from Young's backpay as cal-
culated in the second amended backpay specification
herein . NLRB v. Gullets Gin Co., supra.
D. Respondent's Fourth Affirmative Defense
Barbara Pannell was discharged by Health Enterprises
on March 24, 1979. On September 12, 1980, she was or-
dered reinstated effective September 12, 1980, by Arbi-
trator McKenna. Shortly thereafter, Pannell was hired
by Grand Manor, Inc. Nursing Home, where she worked
until April 4, 1981. Pannell 's earnings record from Grand
Manor shows her earnings, which were deducted to
reach her net backpay as set forth in Appendix C herein.
The backpay set forth therein was computed in accord-
ance with the same Board formula for computing back-
pay as was used in computing the backpay for Mary
Young. A note dated March 23, 1981 (R. Exh. 4(a)),
from the personnel files of Grand Manor, purportedly
signed by Pannell, indicates that Pannell gave Grand
Manor 2 weeks ' notice of her resignation because she
had to leave for Jerome, Idaho, sooner than she thought,
and that her last day on the job would be April 4, 1981.
All parties to this proceeding made repeated efforts to
locate Barbara Pannell without success, and no one has
knowledge or evidence whether she earnestly looked for
work or had any other interim earnings during the back-
pay period. Although Respondent introduced evidence
from a representative of the State Employment Security
Division that there was no record that Pannell had ever
filed for unemployment compensation in St. Louis, or
possibly in the State of Missouri, such evidence was not
CALSON TOWER GERIATRIC CENTER
conclusive that Pannell had not filed for unemployment
benefits in the State of Missouri or in another State, or
that she has in fact worked in Idaho or any other State.
The evidence concerning Pannell 's availability for work
after her resignation from Grand Manor is, at best, spec-
ulative.
Counsel for Respondent contends that because Pannell
resigned her interim employment at Grand Manor on
April 4, 1981 , she has incurred a willful loss of earnings,
and backpay for her should be tolled . In support of his
position, he cites Knickerbocker Plastic Co., 132 NLRB
1209 (1961). There, the Board held:
Once these claimants had obtained jobs , they did
not voluntarily relinquish such employment under
the circumstances herein involved without incurring
what constitutes a willful loss of earnings for the
period subsequent to their quitting.
In reading the above case , however, there is one sig-
nificant observation which is not present in the instant
proceeding . In Knickerbocker, just about all the discharg-
ees had : (1) quit interim employment for a stated (testi-
fied) reason . (2) The reasons given by each of the dis-
chargees were not found to be sufficiently reasonable to
justify their voluntary termination of interim work and,
therefore, their voluntary separation from such work was
deemed willfully incurring loss of earnings for the period
subsequent thereto . Here, unlike there, the parties herein
were unable to locate Pannell and she did not appear and
testify in this proceeding. Nor does the note (R. Exh.
4(a)) found in her personnel file at Grand Manor state a
reason for her quitting, other than she had to be in Idaho
sooner than she thought. It is therefore difficult to know
whether Pannell was going to Idaho on a personal emer-
gency, whether she ever got to Idaho , whether her stay
in Idaho was temporary, whether her going to Idaho
was related to her health , whether she was leaving to
assume another job on a permanent basis , or whether she
in fact obtained another job in Idaho or elsewhere. It
would be highly speculative to ascribe any reason for
her resignation, not to mention a reason which would or
would not justify her resignation. Hence, although there
may not have been a justifiable reason for Pannell quit-
ting her employment at Grand Manor , it would be pre-
mature to conclude that she willfully incurred loss of
earnings as a result of her voluntary termination of em-
ployment with Grand Manor. I further conclude and
find that Knickerbocker Plastic Co., 132 NLRB 1209
(1961), and Midwest Hanger Co., 221 NLRB 911 (1975),
are distinguishable from the facts in the instant case be-
cause in each of the cases there was at least a stated
and/or a found reason for the discharged employees vol-
untarily terminating interim employment.
Since it is not established in the record why Barbara
Pannell voluntarily resigned her employment at Grand
Manor and what , if anything she did subsequent to her
resignation there , it is currently impossible to ascertain
whether she is entitled to all or any part of the backpay
as computed in Appendix C herein . Under such circum-
stances, the Board has long held that computed backpay
for such a dischargee as Pannell , should be paid by Re-
403
spondent to the Regional Director, to be held in an
escrow account for 1 year , in order to give the discharg-
ee an opportunity to come forward and be examined by
Respondent. Robert Haws Co., 161 NLRB 299 (1966),
enfd . in part 403 F .2d 979 (6th Cir . 1968). This proce-
dure is designed to protect the employer and the dis-
chargee . Steve Aloi Ford, 190 NLRB 661 (1971 ); Fibre-
board Corp., supra.
Since after diligent efforts of counsel for the General
Counsel and counsel for Respondent to obtain the avail-
ability and appearance of Barbara Pannell were unsuc-
cessful, and her whereabouts are unknown , I will recom-
mend, in accordance with established Board law, that
Respondent pay to the Regional Director for Region 14
the amount of the backpay as computed for Barbara Pan-
nell and described in Appendix C of the backpay specifi-
cation to be held in an escrow account for 1 year in
order to give Pannell an opportunity to come forward,
or to be located by Respondent and/or the General
Counsel, and be examined by Respondent.
Respondent's argument with respect to adjusting the
backpay in Appendices A, B, C, and D , in accordance
with Section 10584.2 of the Board 's compliance manual,
is not considered by me because , presumably, as counsel
for the General Counsel stated , such manual provisions
are an internal guideline procedure, which is not binding
on the General Counsel. To the knowledge of the admin-
istrative law judge , such provisions are not a part of the
Board's Rules and Regulations and he has no knowledge
of the existence or the applicability of them. Moreover, I
am satisfied that the sums as computed in the backpay
specification set forth in Appendices A, B, C, and D
were properly carried out in accordance with the
Board's established standard computation procedures.
Respondent does not present a persuasive argument sup-
ported by legal authority , in support of its fourth affirm-
ative defense.
Hence, I conclude and find that Respondent has failed
to substantiate its fourth affirmative defense by a prepon-
derance of the evidence.
E. Respondent 's Fifth Affirmative Defense
Respondent also argues that because Respondent and
the Union agreed on the net amount of sums due the sev-
eral discharged employees described in section II, Ap-
pendix D of the backpay specification , and in paragraph
1 of the August 12, 1982 consent decree, a deduction
(setoff) should be made against the respective backpay
figures for union dues during the backpay periods of the
discriminatees which were not paid to the Union by Re-
spondent . Respondent does not contend that the compu-
tation of these figures are otherwise incorrect. On the
contrary, counsel for the General Counsel contends Re-
spondent is not entitled to such a deduction (setoff) be-
cause Respondent agreed in paragraph 12 of the United
States district court judgment, which is incorporated by
reference in paragraph 4 of the consent decree, that it
would not "seek reimbursement from its employees for
dues and initiation fees owed during the period June
1981 through June 1982." (G.C. Exh. 3(b).)
404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It appears to be clear from the language in the court
judgment (G.C. Exh. 3(b)) that an agreement not to seek
reimbursement for dues of employee-discriminatees is an
agreement not to seek such reimbursement in any form
by way of direct payment from the employees, or by a
reduction or setoff against backpay owing to them. Be-
cause such an agreement was in fact made, We Protec-
tion Service, 183 NLRB 682, 683 (1970), cited by Re-
spondent, is distinguishable from and not applicable to
the facts as found herein. Thus, there being no manifest
discrepancy or dispute with respect to the propriety of
the computations set forth in section II, Appendix D of
the backpay specification, I conclude and find on the
foregoing evidence and reasons that Respondent has not
demonstrated that it is entitled to any reimbursement, re-
duction, or setoff against the sums properly computed in
Appendix D. If the court intends such a setoff, it will
make such intent known in its final review of the Board's
decision herein.
F. Respondent's Sixth Affirmative Defense
Back Contributions to the Health & Welfare Fund
on Behalf of Discriminatee Young
Although Respondent denies the allegation that sums
of money are due to the United Food and Commercial
Workers, Local 545, Health & Welfare Fund on behalf
of discriminatee Young, it does not contest the calcula-
tions set forth in Appendix B of the second amended
backpay specification. In this regard, Compliance Officer
Roy Hayden testified that he made the health & welfare
calculations on behalf of Young because she was reinstat-
ed by Respondent Geriatric and therefore had a continu-
ing interest in the fund and the contributions thereto,
which should have been made during the backpay
period. Geriatric Administrator Ellen Ellerbusch testified
that, in the consent decree, Geriatric settled the total
amount of health and welfare contributions due the
Union as a result of Respondent's failure to comply with
the collective-bargaining agreement. However, on cross-
examination, as pointed out by counsel for the General
Counsel, Ellerbusch acknowledged that Mary Young
had not been employed by Health Enterprises during the
period covered by the consent decree, because she had
not yet been reinstated. She further acknowledged that
no specific contributions to the health and welfare fund
were or could have been made on behalf of Mary Young
by Respondent during her backpay period.
Counsel for Respondent argues that since the parties
(Respondent and the Union) agreed that the total indebt-
ed contributions to the health and welfare fund was
$58,165.23, which amount has been paid in full, Respond-
ent should not be held responsible for any additional
contributions. Although this contention sounds fair and
reasonable as presented, it apparently ignores the explicit
language of paragraph 4 of the consent decree, which
orders Respondent to:
Comply with any final judgment after all appeal
rights have been exhausted that may be entered in
Case Nos. 81-0030-C(C) and 81-1162-C(C), pend-
ing in the United States District Court for the East-
em District of Missouri, to the extent that said final
judgment orders Geriatric Center of St. Louis, Inc.,
or Rudy Nail to pay union dues or health and wel-
fare payments for any portion of the period begin-
ning July 1, 1981, and ending May 31, 1982.
The above language makes it clear that Respondent's
ultimate liability may not become final before a final
judgment of the court, after all appeal rights (including
this backpay proceeding) have been exhausted. It is
therefore very unlikely that the parties' agreement, by in-
tention or oversight, would have the authority to negoti-
ate a settlement which in effect would negate the plain
order of the consent decree to make discriminatee Young
"whole" for her unlawful discharge. To adopt Respond-
ent's argument in this regard would prevent Respond-
ent's full compliance with the order of the decree to
make Young "whole," by not making the contributions
to the health and welfare fund on her behalf, to which
she would have been entitled and enjoyed, had Respond-
ent not discharged her unlawfully.
Respondent's contention that the health and welfare
fund does not suffer a loss because contributions were
made on behalf of an employee who replaced Young is
without merit. Even though contributions may have been
made to the fund on behalf of an employee who replaced
Young, it would appear that such contributions were
made on behalf of that particular employee. I find it dif-
ficult to conceive how such contributions can now be
substituted on behalf of Young, and Respondent cites no
legal authority for this proposition.
Counsel for Respondent further argues that both the
arbitrator's award and the consent decree merely state
that Young was to be "reinstated with backpay," without
any reference to remit back contributions to the health
and welfare fund. He further contends that the omission
to provide for remittance of back contributions to the
health and welfare fund in the language of the arbitra-
tor's award and the consent decree inferentially excluded
it.
A review of the arbitrator's awards and the consent
decree reveals that in pertinent part Geriatric was or-
dered to comply with the collective-bargaining agree-
ment between the Union (Local 545) and Health Enter-
prises, its predecessor, "and to make whole all employees
for any loss of wages they may have suffered by reason
of Geriatric's noncompliance with the agreement from
June 1, 1981, together with interest." Further, the
amounts, unless agreed on, shall be fixed by the Board,
subject to further review by the court.
However, paragraph 5, in pertinent part, further
orders Respondent Geriatric to abide by the arbitration
awards, by offering Mary Young and Barbara Pannell
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or,
if such jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
or privileges previously enjoyed, and by making them whole
for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of
their discharge, in Pannell's case, September 12, 1980,
plus interest; the amounts, unless agreed on, to be fixed
by the Board subject to further review by the court.
CALSON TOWER GERIATRIC CENTER
I do not construe the above language in either the ar-
bitrator's awards or in the consent decree , as having an
import of inferentially excluding contributions to the
health and welfare fund , as counsel for Respondent con-
tends . If any inference at all may be drawn from the
above language , the more logical inference would be that
discriminatee Young is entitled to everything to which
she would have been entitled and would have received,
had she not been unlawfully discharged by Respondent.
Thus, it may be reasonably inferred from the language in
the arbitrator's awards as well as the language in the
consent decree , which is essentially identical to the
standard language in Board remedies , that back contribu-
tions to the health and welfare fund of Local 545 on
behalf of Young should not be excluded from consider-
ation in computing her entitlements to make her
"whole." Such contributions are generally required as a
part of Board remedy in making a discriminatee whole.
F.M.L. Supply, 258 NLRB 604 (1981).
I therefore conclude and find, in view of the foregoing
evidence and language of the consent decree , that Re-
spondent Geriatric should make contributions to the
health and welfare fund on behalf Mary Young , as pro-
vided in Appendix B of the backpay specification herein.
Respondent has availed itself of a hearing before a
duly designated admininstrative law judge in the original
administrative proceeding . The Board 's Decision and
Order, including the backpay provisions in the original
proceeding , were enforced on July 12, 1981 , by a con-
sent decree of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit on July 28, 1981 . Disputing the amount of
the backpay due under the terms of the Board's Order in
this proceeding, Respondent has failed to substantiate its
six affirmative defenses, or to establish any error in the
computations of the specification, or any misrepresenta-
tion in the premises on which they are based . Conse-
quently, Respondent is liable for the amount of backpay,
contributions to the health and welfare fund , and back
dues as set forth in the second amended backpay specifi-
cation herein.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
Mary Young
1980-3 Gross Backpay 7/17/80 through 9/30/80
1 week x $271.081
per week ........................................................ 271.08
4 weeks x $283 .042 .......................................
per week ........................................................ 1,132.16
Total Gross Backpay .................................... $1,403.24
Interim Earnings ........................................... None
Total Interim Earnings ......................... None
Net Backpay Due .................................. $1 ,403.24
1980-4 Gross Backpay 10/1/80 through
12/31/80
6 weeks x $283 .04 per week $1 ,698.24
Total Gross Backpay ............................ $ 1,698.24
Interim Earnings ........................................... None
Total Interim Earnings ......................... None
Interim Expenses .......................................... None
Net Interim Earnings ............................ None
APPENDIX A-Continued
405
Net Backpay Due .................................. $1 ,698.24
1981- 1 Gross Backpay 1/1/81 through 3/31/81
6 weeks x $318 .923 per week $1,913.52
Total Gross Backpay ............................ $ 1,913.52
Interim Earnings ........................................... None
Total Interim Earnings ......................... None
Interim Expenses .......................................... None
Net Interim Earnings ............................ None
Net Backpay Due .................................. $1,913.52
1981-2 Gross Backpay 4/1/81 through 6/30/81
6 weeks x $318.92 per week ........................ $ 1,913.52
Total Gross Backpay ............................ $ 1,913.52
Interim Earnings ........................................... None
Total Interim Earnings ......................... None
Interim Expenses .......................................... None
Net Interim Earnings ............................ None
Net Backpay Due .................................. $1 ,913.52
1981-3 Gross Backpay 7/1/81 through 9/30/81
1 week x $318 .92 per week .......................... $1,318.92
5 weeks x $326.894 per week ....................... $ 1,634.45
Total Gross Backpay ............................ $ 1,953.37
Interim Earnings ........................................... None
Total Interim Earnings ......................... None
Interim Expenses .......................................... None
Net Interim Earnings ............................ None
Net Backpay Due .................................. $1 ,953.37
1981-4 Gross Backpay 10/1/81 through
12/31/81
6 weeks x $326.89 per week ........................ $1,961.34
Total Gross Backpay ............................ $ 1,961.34
Interim Earnings ........................................... None
Total Interim Earnings ......................... None
Interim Expenses .......................................... None
Net Interim Earnings ............................ None
Net Backpay Due .................................. $1 ,961.34
1982-1 Gross Backpay 1/1/82 through 3/31/82
6 weeks x $334.875 per week .......:............... $2,009.20
Total Gross Backpay ............................ $2,009.20
Interim Earnings ........................................... None
Total Interim Earnings ......................... None
Interim Expenses .......................................... None
Net Interim Earnings ............................ None
Net Backpay Due .................................. $2,009.20
1982-2 Gross Backpay 4/1/82 through 6/30/82
6 weeks x $334 . 87 per week ........................ $2,009.20
Total Gross Backpay ............................ $2,009.20
Interim Earnings ........................................... None
Total Interim Earnings ......................... None
Interim Expenses .......................................... None
Net Interim Earnings ............................ None
Net Backpay Due .................................. $2,009.20
1982-3 Gross Backpay 7/1/82 through 8/10/82
2.66 weeks x $334.87 per week .................... $890.75
Total Gross Backpay ............................ $890.75
Interim Earnings ........................................... None
Total Interim Earnings ......................... None
Interim Expenses .......................................... None
Net Interim Earnings ............................ None
Net Backpay Due .................................. $890.75
Total Backpay Due ............................... $ 15,752.00
1 79.73 average hours x $3.40 per hour.
2 79.73 average hours x $3.55 per hour effective 8/2/80.
5 79.73 average hours x $4 per hour effective 12/31/80.
4 79.73 average hours x $4.10 per hour effective 8/2/81.
406
Hours Worked Times Rate Per Hour of
Contribution
79.73 average hours x $4.20 per hour effective 12/31/81.
APPENDIX B
Health & Welfare (Mary Young)
Yr./Qtr.
1980-3
1980-4
1981-1
1981-2
1981-3
1981-4
1982-1
1982-2
1982-3
399 hours x 154 per hour ............................
478 hours x 15$ per hour ............................
478 hours x 30$ per hour ............................
478 hours x 304 per hour ............................
478 hours x 304 per hour ............................
478 hours x 304 per hour ............................
478 hours x 404 per hour ............................
478 hours x 404 per hour ............................
212 hours x 404 per hour ............................
Grand Total .........................................
Total Health & Welfare Due ..............
Barbara Pannell
1980-3 Gross Backpay 9/12/80 through 9/30/80
1.1 pay periods x $307.68'
per pay period ...............................................
1980-4
1981-1
1981-2
1981-3
1981-4
Interim Earnings
Total Gross Backpay ............................
Interim Earnings
Grand Manor, Inc .........................................
Net Backpay Due ..................................
Gross Backpay 10/1/80 through
12/31/80
6 day periods x $307.68
per pay period ...............................................
Total Gross Backpay ............................
Interim Earnings ...........................................
Grand Manor , Inc .........................................
Net Backpay Due ..................................
Gross Backpay 1/1/81 through 3/31/81
5.5 pay periods x $346.682
per pay period ...............................................
.5 pay periods x $355.353
per pay period ...............................................
Total Gross Backpay ............................
Interim Earnings ...........................................
Grand Manor, Inc .........................................
Net Backpay Due ..................................
Gross Backpay 4/1/81 through 6/30/81
6 pay periods x $355.35 per pay period......
Total Gross Backpay ............................
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX C
...........................................
Grand Manor , Inc .........................................
Net Backpay Due ..................................
Gross Backpay 7/1/81 through 9/30/81
6 pay periods x $355 . 35 per pay period......
Total Gross Backpay ............................
Interim Earnings ...........................................
Total Interim Earnings .........................
Interim Expenses ..........................................
Net Interim Earnings ............................
Net Backpay Due ..................................
Gross Backpay 10/1/81 through
12/31/81
6 pay periods x $355 .35 perpay period .......
Total
Contribu-
tion
$ 59.85
71.70
143.40
143.40
143.40
143.40
191.20
191.20
84.80
$1,172.35
$1,172.35
$338.45
$338.45
$125.19
$213.26
$1,846.08
$1,846.08
$2,104.01
$0.00
$1,906.74
$177.68
$2,084.42
$1,984.24
$100.18
$2,132.10
$2,132.10
$392.00
$1,740.10
$2,132.10
$2,132.10
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
$2,132.10
$2,132.10
APPENDIX C-Continued
Total Gross Backpay ............................ $2,132.10
Interim Earnings ........................................... Unknown
Net Interim Earnings ............................ Unknown
Net Backpay Due .................................. $2, 132.10
1982-1 Gross Backpay 1/1/82 through 3/31/82
5.5 pay periods x $354.014
per pay period ............................................... $2,002.06
.5 pay periods x $381.355
per pay period ............................................... $190.68
Total Gross Backpay ............................ $2,192.74
Interim Earnings ........................................... Unknown
Total Interim Earnings ......................... Unknown
Interim Expenses .......................................... Unknown
Net Interim Earnings ............................ Unknown
Net Backpay Due .................................. $2, 192.74
1982-2 Gross Backpay 4/1/82 through 6/30/82
6 pay periods x $381.35
per pay period ............................................... $2.288.10
Total Gross Backpay ............................ $2,288.10
Interim Earnings ........................................... Unknown
Total Interim Earnings ......................... Unknown
Interim Expenses .......................................... Unknown
Net Interim Earnings ............................ Unknown
Net Backpay Due .................................. $2,288.10
1982-3 Gross Backpay 7/1/82 through 8/13/82
3 pay periods x $381.35
per pay period ............................................... $ 1,144.05
Total Gross Backpay ............................ $1,144.05
Interim Earnings ........................................... Unknown
Total Interim Earnings ......................... Unknown
Interim Expenses .......................................... Unknown
Net Interim Earnings ............................ Unknown
Net Backpay Due .................................. $1,144.05
Total Backpay Due ............................... $11,942.63
' 86.67 average hours x $3.55 per hour.
2 86.67 average hours x $4 per hour.
8 86.67 average hours x $4.10 per hour.
4 86.67 average hours x $4.20 per hour.
5 86.67 average hours x $4.40 per hour.
APPENDIX D
Covering Periods for 6/1/81 through 12/31/81 and 1/1/82
through 8/15/82
Name
Actual Contract
Gross Gross
Earnings Earnings
Differ-
ence
Net
Back-
pay
Due
Em-
ployee
Mary Koss ................................. $3,997.51
5,359.32 89,588.25 $231.42
$9,356.83
Barbara Robinson ..................... $4,393.00
4,544.50 9,181 .53 244.03
$8,937.50
Lola Harris ................................ $4,332.93
5,397.47 9,853.93 123.53
$9,730.40
CALSON TOWER GERIATRIC CENTER
APPENDIX D-Continued
Covering Periods for 6/1/81 through 12/31/81 and 1/1/82
through 8/15/82
Name
Mary Willis ...............................
Louise McPherson....................
Janet Stewart ............................
Agatha Warren .........................
Wirda Bynum............................
Celestine Early..........................
Belinda Pike ..............................
Mamie Hamilton .......................
Juanita Diel ...............................
Penelope Sterling ......................
Gloria Whitfield .......................
Evaline Fisher ...........................
Sarah Moseby ...........................
Linda Stanford ..........................
Actual Contract
Gross Grass
Earnings Earnings
DjOer-
ence
Net
Back-
Due
Em-
ployee
$2,094.90
3,594.69 5,690.05 .46
$5,689.59
$3,802.00
3,808 .00 7,472.40 137.60
$7,610.00
$3,797.00
5,277.72 9,179.60 104.88
$9,074.72
$4,083.00
5,453.68 9,934.44 397.76
$9,536.68
$4,572.00
5,095 .00 9,934.44 246.75
$9,667.00
$3,766.00
2,296.40 6,087.95 25.55
$6,062.40
$4,050.72
5,642 .20 9,754. 18 61.26
$9,692.92
$2,472.81
2,763 .00 5,268 .35 32.54
$5,235.81
$4,070.66
5,536.00 9,665.46 58.80
$9,606.66
$3,587.38
4,580.00 8,178 .43 11.05
$8,167.38
$3,432.21
2,833 .01 6,346.85 81.63
$6,265.22
$3,815.79
4,762 .50 8,595 .39 17.10
$8,578.29
$3,992.56
4,914. 38 8,939 .66 32.72
$8,906.94
$3,654.10
4,438 .04 8,113 .51 21.37
$8,092.14
APPENDIX D-Continued
407
Covering Periods for 6/1/81 through 12/31/81 and 1/1/82
through 8/15/82
Name
Actual Contract
Grass Grass
Earnings Earnings
Differ-
ence
Net
Back-
pay
e
Em-
ployee
Lynette Briscoe ........................ $3,408.21
4,210.96 7,641.72 22.55
Rochelle Travis
Bobbie Straughter.....................
Lorine Stratton .........................
Dorothy Tucker .......................
Ocie Bolden ..............................
Michelle Adams ........................
Henrietta Thomas .....................
Debra Hope ..............................
Pamela Maxie ............................
Shiela Foots ..............................
John Brown ...............................
4,743.57 8,814.57 21.32
$7,619.17
$4,049.68
$8,793.25
$3,771.39
4,545 . 10 8,367 .62 51.13
$8,316.49
$1,916.23
3,427.88 5,382.12 38.01
$5,344.11
$3,534.14
4,850.77 8,405.13 20.22
$8,384.91
$3,690.70
3,569 .39 7,264.87 4.78
$7,260.09
$3,334.60
4,755.61 8,168 .35 78.14
$8,090.21
$3,600.38
4,060.34 7,717.98 57.26
$7,660.72
$2,956.21
4,137.49 7,148 .84 55.14
$7,093.70
$3,136.65
5,057 .16 8,212.78 18.97
$8,193.81
$2,881.72
4,341.14 7,266.39 43.53
$7,222.86
$3,218.45
4,836.24 8,058.77 4.08
$8,054.69
Kimberly Smith ........................ $2,456.84
4,059.00 6,558 .59 42.75
$6,515.84
Raymond Smith ........................ $2,543.08
4,042 .07 6,631.30 46.15
$6,585.15
408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX D-Continued
Covering Periods for 6/1/81 through 12/31/81 and 1/1/82
through 8/15/82
Name
Actual
Gross
Earnings
Contract
Gross
Earnings
Differ-
ence
Net
Back-
pay
Due
Em-
ployee
Patricia Williams .......................
Charlotte Nash ..........................
Elzora Hooker ..........................
Marlene Lee ..............................
Beverly Crockett ......................
Leroy Mayes .............................
Stanley Andrews ......................
George Roberts ........................
Bernice Easley ..........................
Melvin Echols ...........................
Lois Geans ................................
Jimmie Davis ............................
$561.00
197.20
$758.20
$446.25
28.29
$474.54
$669.80
29.20
$699.20
$1,318.68
4,835.37
$6,154.05
$904.36
4,024.60
$4,928.96
$1,035.30
4,805.40
$5,840.70
$5,478.02
6,220.56
$11,698.58
$5,325.35
6,072.38
$11,397.73
$4,614.56
5,947.70
$10,562.26
$3,837.50
5,658.23
$9,495.73
$5,212.50
5,851.47
$11,063.97
$1,663.08
4,805.95
772.70 14.50
476.93 2.39
699.40 .20
6,197.73 43.68
4,966.53 37.57
5,842.35 1.65
11,808.35 109.77
11,614.32 216.59
10,752.37 190.11
9,859 .70 363.97
11,360.30 296.33
6,651.34 182.31
$6,469.03
Beatrica Liddell ........................ $4,590.67
5,505.44 10,341.93 245.82
$10,096.11
Melvin Crawford ...................... $3,637.64
4,173.77 7,862.09 50.68
$7,811.41
Alonzo Green ........................... $4,241.19
4,599 .39 7,862.09 47.50
$8,840.58
APPENDIX D-Continued
Covering Periods for 6/1/81 through 12/31/81 and 1/1/82
through 8/15/82
Name
Actual Contract
Gross Gross
Earnings Earnings
Differ-
ence
Net
Back-
pay
Due
Em-
ployee
Larry Jackson ...........................
Henry Williams .........................
$4,104.70
350.40 4,478.54 23.44
$4,455.10
$2,906.54
1,322 .22 4,242 .60 13.84
$4,228.76
$4,001.00
5,355.62 9,423.60 66.98
$9,356.62
$4,160.00
5,485.12 9,688 .80 43.68
$9,645.12
$1,532.22
4,420.03 6,016.98 64.73
Bertha Sandlin ..........................
Patricia Ball...............................
Karen Harvey ...........................
Evelyn Echols ..........................
Catherine Neal ..........................
Emma Rush ...............................
Frances Alexander ....................
Geraldine Spencer ....................
Antonette Brooks .....................
Twanda Lawrence ...................
Alvin Clark ...............................
Grace Claybourne ....................
$5,952.25
$3,994.69
5,539. 58 9,536 . 16 1.89
$9,534.27
$3,841.00
4,947.67 8,810.45 21.78
$8,788.67
$4,422.46
5,336 .00 9,814.96 56.50
$9,758.46
$3,720.00
5,042.10 9,104.40 342.30
$8,762.10
$3,994.69
5,521.66 9,504.91 357.00
$9,147.91
0
753.10 774.99 21.89
$753.10
0
2,547. 51 2,605 .47 57.96
$2,547.51
0
2,139.02 2,191.54 52.52
$2,139.02
0
778.55 783.15 4.60
$778.55
CALSON TOWER GERIATRIC CENTER 409
APPENDIX D-Continued
Covering Periods for 6/1/81 through 12/31/81 and 1/1/82
through 8/15/82
ame
ctual
Grass
Earnings
ontract
Grass
Earnings
Differ-
ence
Net
Back-
pay
Due
Em-
ployee
Annie Thomas ........................... 0
1,747.87 1 ,793.38 45.51
$1,747.87
Derrick Harvey ........................ 0
2,690.46 2,757.70 67.24
$2,690.46