G4S Regulated Security Solutions, a Division of G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. f/k/a The Wackenhut

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Dec 20, 2018

12-CA-026644 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

JD─83─18
Turkey Point, FL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC.,
A DIVISION OF G4S REGULATED SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
f/k/a THE WACKENHUT CORPORATION
and Cases 12–CA–026644
12–CA–026811
THOMAS FRAZIER, an Individual
and
CECIL MACK, an Individual
John King, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Fred Seleman, Esq.,
for the Respondent.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ROBERT A. RINGLER, Administrative Law Judge. This supplemental compliance
proceeding was held in Miami, Florida on May 23, 2018, pursuant to an amended compliance
specification (the Specification). The Specification calculated backpay due under the National
Labor Relations Board’s (the Board) Decision and Order in G4S Regulated Security Solutions,
362 NLRB No. 134 (2015) (the Order).1 G4S objects, inter alia, to the Specification’s treatment
of Cecil Mack’s interim earnings and imposition of liability for his adverse tax consequences.
DISCUSSION
I. ORDER
The Order found that G4S Regulated Solutions, a Division of G4S Secure Solutions
(USA) Inc. (G4S) violated the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by firing Thomas Frazier
and Cecil Mack. It ordered a make-whole remedy for their lost wages and reimbursement for
any adverse tax consequences associated with receiving such backpay in a lump-sum payment.

1 On November 21, 2016, the Order was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in an
unpublished opinion, and judgment was entered. (GC Exh. 1(o-p)).
JD─83─18
2
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Litigation of Substantive Liability
On June 27, 2011, an Administrative Law Judge (the ALJ) issued an Initial Decision in 5
this case, which found that Mack and Frazier were supervisors and dismissed unfair labor
practice charges related to their firings. On September 28, 2012, the Board reversed the Initial
Decision, found that they were not supervisors and remanded the case to the ALJ. 358 NLRB
1701 (2012). On November 16, 2012, the ALJ issued a Supplemental Decision, which held that
G4S unlawfully fired them and ordered a make-whole remedy (the Supp. ALJD). On December 10
21, 2012, G4S filed exceptions.2
On January 11, 2013, the General Counsel (the GC) filed cross-exceptions, which
challenged the Supp. ALJD’s failure to require reimbursement for excess federal tax liability
under Latino Express, Inc., 359 NLRB 518 (2012). On April 30, 2013, the Board issued a 15
Supplemental Decision and Order, which affirmed the Supp. ALJD, but, modified the order to
include tax reimbursement under Latino Express, 359 NLRB 859, 859 fn. 1 (2013).
On May 13, 2013, G4S filed a petition for review of the Board’s Supplemental Decision
and Order in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (the D.C. Circuit). On June 27, 2014, the Board 20
issued an Order holding this case in abeyance, and setting aside its Supplemental Decision and
Order.3 On July 25, 2015, the Board issued a revised Decision and Order, which reviewed the
record de novo, reaffirmed the unlawful firings, and ordered a remedy that calculated damages
and interest under F. W. Woolworth and included excess federal tax reimbursement under Don
Chavas LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB 101 (2014).425
On July 23, 2015, G4S filed a petition for review in the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals. On August 26, 2015, the Board filed a cross-petition for enforcement. Although G4S
appealed the supervisory and termination issues, it did not appeal the remedy itself (i.e., the
application of F.W. Woolworth and Tortillas Don Chavas). On November 21, 2016, the Eleventh 30
Circuit issued an unpublished decision, which denied G4S’ appeal and affirmed the Board.5
B. G4S’ Partial Compliance
G4S, thereafter, partially complied with the Board’s Order. It offered reinstatement to Mack 35
and Frazier, posted a Notice citing its violations, and made a lump-sum payment of back wages to
Frazier.6 Regarding Mack, it refused, however, to tender a lump-sum payment and raised objections
to his interim earnings deductions and the remedial application of F.W. Woolworth and Tortillas
Don Chavas, which led to this compliance hearing.

2 The exceptions did not challenge the remedy, including the calculus of damages under F. W. Woolworth
Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950).
3 The Board took this action under NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014). It later requested
dismissal of the petition for review in the D.C. Circuit, which was granted.
4 Tortillas Don Chavas essentially reaffirmed Latino Express.
5 On January 24, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit denied G4S’ request for a panel rehearing.
6 Frazier has been made whole, and is not at issue in this litigation.
JD─83─18
3
C. Specification
On April 17, 2018, Region 12 of the Board issued the Specification. On April 24, 2018,
G4S filed its Amended Answer. 5
D. Motion to Strike Parts of G4S’ Amended Answer
On May 11, 2018, the GC moved to strike parts of the Amended Answer (the Motion).7
The GC asserted that: the Amended Answer improperly denied matters that were litigated before 10
the Board and Eleventh Circuit (e.g., supervisory status and the validity of firings); and G4S is
barred from objecting to backpay calculations under F.W. Woolworth and Tortillas Don Chavas
because it failed to previously raise such objections before the Board and Eleventh Circuit.
III. RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE15
The Motion is granted. In American Eagle Protective Services Corp., the Board held:
“Issues litigated and decided in an unfair labor practice proceeding may not be
relitigated in the ensuing backpay proceeding.” …. By choosing not to file 20
exceptions … Respondents chose not to question whether … a different make-
whole remedy [is warranted]…. Accordingly,… [they are] barred from raising
these affirmative defenses at the compliance stage of this proceeding….
366 NLRB No. 144, slip op. at 2 (2018) (citations and footnotes omitted). Paragraphs 1, 2 and25
6(a), (d), (e), (f) and (h) of the Amended Answer are, accordingly, stricken to the extent that they
deny supervisory status and the invalidity of the firings. The Motion is also sustained to the
extent that it challenges backpay calculations under F.W. Woolworth and compensation for tax
consequences under Tortillas Don Chavas, inasmuch as G4S failed to previously object to these
remedies. Aroostook County Regional Ophthalmology Center, 332 NLRB 1616 (2001). 30
IV. REMAINING ISSUES
Although the Motion resolved several issues, other matters remain open. These open
issues involve, inter alia: Mack’s interim earnings calculations for various quarters; his search-35
for-work efforts; and whether he engaged in gross misconduct in losing an interim job.
V. COMPLIANCE PROCEEDING RECORD8
A. Introduction 40
On February 2, 2010, G4S unlawfully terminated Mack. In August 2017, he was
reinstated to his lieutenant position, in accordance with the Board’s Order.

7 Although the Motion was filed before the May 23, 2018 compliance hearing, the parties were advised at a
pre-hearing conference that my ruling would be incorporated in this Supplemental Decision.
8 Unless otherwise stated, factual findings arise from joint exhibits, stipulations, and undisputed evidence.
JD─83─18
4
B. Work History and Interim Employment
1. Unemployment Benefits: February 2010 to August 2010
5
Mack initially received state unemployment benefits (UI). He received such benefits
until August 2010, when he was hired by Rent-A-Wheel, his first interim employer.
2. Rent-A-Wheel Employment: August 2010 to June 2011
10
In August 2010, Mack started working for Rent-A-Wheel. He began in a full-time
collections specialist job, which he held for about 2 weeks. He was then promoted to an assistant
store manager slot, which he held for another 2 weeks. Around mid-September 2010, he was
promoted to a full-time store manager position at a $44,000 annual salary. In June 2011, he was
fired for allegedly taking an improper payment, i.e., depositing an early payment into the wrong 15
customer account. He said that he thought that his actions were valid and was trained to handle
transactions this way by a former manager. He stated that the payment at issue always remained
in the customer’s name (i.e., was never deposited under his name).
3. UI Benefits Rejection20
Following this separation, he applied for UI benefits, which Rent-A-Wheel challenged.
He averred that he did not receive his hearing notice, and that his UI claim was consequently
rejected.
25
4. Rent-A-Center Acceptance (RAC) Employment: February 2012 to March 2013
In February 2012, Mack began at RAC as a collection specialist. He worked 40 hours per
week for $13 per hour. He continued to search for a better job during this period and eventually
accepted a slot with the United States Postal Service (USPS). 30
5. USPS Employment: March 2013 to July 2017
In March 2013, Mack began as a USPS city carrier; he worked about 60 hours per week
at $14.10 per hour. In mid-2015, he became a full-time city carrier earning $17.25 per hour. He 35
also received improved health coverage and a thrift savings retirement plan (TSP) (i.e., a 401K
plan benefit). He continued to work for the USPS until his July 31, 2017 reinstatement to G4S.
6. Search-For-Work Efforts
40
a. General Counsel’s Position
Mack applied for dozens of law enforcement, civil service, security, retail and other jobs,
while he was unemployed. (Tr. 24-57; GC Exhs. 4-5). He filed job applications in person, via
email and on company websites. He made multiple phone calls in furtherance of his job search. 45
He attempted to maximize his interim earnings by seeking out higher-paying jobs even when he
JD─83─18
5
was already employed, as exemplified by his pursuit of the USPS job. He also attempted to
increase his marketability by receiving state training in cable technician and splicer work. As a
result of such efforts, he remained gainfully employed during the majority of his backpay period.
b. G4S’ Stance5
Claude Seltzer, a certified vocational rehabilitation counselor, testified that he has
expertise regarding the southern Florida job market.9 He prepared for his testimony by
reviewing Mack’s background (i.e., his employment application and training certificates) and
help wanted ads for security guards listed in the Miami Herald. (R. Exh. 4). He opined that, 10
from 2010 to 2013, there were several open security officer and supervisory jobs that Mack
could perform. (Tr. 107). He added that, in May 2014, the Miami area had 19,420 security
guard positions averaging $11 per hour. (R. Exh. 3). He claimed that Mack’s job search was
deficient because he should have filed more applications in person, with the goal of obtaining
impromptu interviews. However, he conceded, on cross-examination, that the newspaper ads 15
relied upon in forming his opinion did not describe how many available jobs, if any, existed, and
agreed that he did not know many other unemployed licensed security guards were competing
against Mack during the relevant period. (Tr. 120–23). He also denied knowing how many
nuclear security officer jobs existed in southern Florida during the relevant period (i.e., Mack’s
G4S job), and agreed that G4S’ Turkey Point facility is the only nuclear plant in the area that he 20
was aware of.
VI. ANALYSIS
A. Compliance Proceeding Standards25
Compliance proceedings restore the status quo ante existing before the unfair labor
practice. Hubert Distributors, Inc., 344 NLRB 339, 341 (2005). An unfair labor practice finding
is presumptive proof of backpay liability. Beverly California Corp., 329 NLRB 977, 978 (1999).
The GC must first adduce the gross backpay amount due. Hansen Bros. Enterprises, 313 NLRB 30
599, 600 (1993). Thereafter, the burden shifts to the respondent to reduce its liability. Church
Homes, Inc., 349 NLRB 829, 838 (2007). The GC need only show that his gross backpay
amounts are reasonable and non-arbitrary. Performance Friction Corp., 335 NLRB 1117 (2001).
B. Specification and Contentions35
1. Rent-A-Wheel
a. Interim Earnings: Third Quarter of 2010
40
The Specification reasonably calculated third quarter 2010 interim earnings. G4S made
this argument concerning this quarter:
Mack was credited with only $901.94 of interim earnings for the third quarter of
2010, which resulted in net backpay of $18,941.28 for that quarter…. [H]e 45

9 He has testified as an expert in cases involving lost earnings, labor markets and transferable skills.
JD─83─18
6
started with Rent A Wheel “right in the middle” of August 2010, … [i.e.] on or
about August 16, 2010. Based on annual compensation of approximately $44,000
per year, he had interim earnings … [of] $846.15 per week from August 16, 2010
through September 30, 2010, for total interim earnings in that quarter of
$5,923.08 (rather than the $901.94 of interim earnings shown in the Compliance5
Specification). That means the net back pay for the third quarter of 2010 should
be $13,920.14 (rather than $18,941.28).
(Br. at 2).10
10
G4S mischaracterizes the record. It avers that the Specification’s accounting of third
quarter earnings are invalid because Mack started a $44,000 per year job in mid-August 2010,
which is incorrect. In fact, Mack did not start the $44,000 per year manager job until mid- to
late-September 2010, after first working as a collections specialist and assistant store manager at
lower wages. G4S, thus, failed to show that this calculation was unreasonable.15
b. Interim Earnings: First Quarter of 2011
G4S demonstrated that the Specification’s first quarter interim earnings for 2011 are
unreasonable. It asserted that: 20
Mack … ma[de] … $44,000 per year [at] … Rent A Wheel (Tr. at 34), … [i.e.,]
approximately $846.15 per week. Although the first quarter of 2011 consisted of
thirteen weeks, the Compliance Specification, Appendix H, only lists interim
earnings of $9,230.75 for that quarter, rather than $10,999.95 (13 weeks x 25
$846.15 per week). As such, the net backpay for the first quarter of 2011 should
be $9,011.21 (rather than $10,780.40).
(Br. at 2).
30
This argument is persuasive; the Specification failed to account for Mack earning
$44,000 per year in salary during this quarter. This matter was not addressed by the GC’s brief.
Mack’s interim earnings for the first quarter of 2011 should, thus, be elevated from $9,230.75 to
$10,999.95, and his net backpay for this quarter should be reduced accordingly.
35
c. Interim Earnings: Second Quarter of 2011
G4S failed to show that the Specification’s second quarter interim earnings for 2011 are
unreasonable. It G4S asserted that:
40
Mack was terminated from Rent A Wheel in “about the middle” of June 2011.
(Tr. at 35.) Assuming that … [he] was terminated no earlier than June 17, then he
was making … $846.15 per week from the start of the third quarter of 2011 until
June 17, which is … eleven weeks. That results in total interim earnings for that
quarter of $9,307.65 (rather than $8,557.60). As such, the net backpay for the 45

10 “Brief” refers to G4S’ post-compliance hearing brief dated July 9, 2018.
JD─83─18
7
second quarter of 2011 should be $10,703.51 (rather than $11,453.56).
(Br at 2–3).
Given that the record is unclear on the exact firing date, and Mack vaguely set it as, 5
“probably about the middle” of June, G4S failed to show that the GC setting this date as
occurring earlier in June was unreasonable. (Tr. 35). G4S was consistently able to address this
ambiguity by subpoenaing Mack’s records from Rent-A-Wheel, which was never done. This
omission estopped it from challenging the Specification’s reasonableness for this quarter.
10
d. Effect of the Rent-A-Wheel Firing on Interim Earnings
G4S failed to show that Mack’s Rent-A-Wheel firing should toll backpay. The Board has
held that a discharge, in isolation, is insufficient to establish a willful loss of employment that
tolls backpay. The employer has the burden of showing that a discriminatee “engaged in 15
deliberate or gross misconduct” that warrants the tolling of backpay. See, e.g., Nationwide, 297
NLRB 454, 454–455 (1989); Cassis Management Corp., 336 NLRB 961, 966–967
(2001)(“deliberate courting of discharge”). The Board has, consequently, found that a firing
based upon poor performance is not a willful job loss. Barberton Plastics Products, Inc., 146
NLRB 393, 396 (1964), enf. denied on other grounds 354 F.2d 66 (6th Cir. 1965). 20
G4S failed to meet its burden of showing that Mack “deliberately courted” his firing. He
was fired for placing funds in an incorrect account. He did not attempt to steal, was never
charged with theft by a local law enforcement agency, and never placed the funds in his name.
He provided unrebutted testimony that a former supervisor told him to handle transactions in the25
manner that got him fired. In sum, G4S failed to show a deliberate loss of employment.11
2. Search-for-Work Efforts: December 2011
G4S failed to show that Mack was unavailable for employment in December 2011 and 30
that his backpay should be tolled for this period. The Board has held that short delays in
beginning a job search should not to be held against an employee, and that one’s efforts during
the entire backpay period are relevant. Colorado Forge Corp., 285 NLRB 530, 538 (1987).
Moreover, backpay is not precluded solely because a discriminatee stopped filing applications
for a quarter. Cornwell Co., 171 NLRB 342, 343 (1968). The Board, instead, reviews “the 35
entire backpay period … to determine whether … in light of all circumstances, a reasonable
continuing search” occurred. Id.
G4S failed to show that Mack was unavailable for employment in December 2011. First,
when Mack was asked at the hearing whether he searched for work in December 2011, he 40
replied, “it was the holidays, so I can’t recall to the best of my knowledge.” (Tr. 50–51). This
lack of recall from 7 years ago is not an expression of an unwillingness to work. Second, the
record contrarily shows that Mack was willing to work during this period, as demonstrated by the
quantity of job applications he filed shortly before December 2011. (Tr. 42–50). Third, even

11 Mack, at worst, lost his job through negligence, and, at best, was unjustly fired for doing what he had been
told. Neither option is a willful employment loss.
JD─83─18
8
assuming arguendo that he temporarily stopped applying for work during the holiday season, this
temporary cessation of application filing is insufficient to toll backpay. Cornwell, supra.
Finally, a review of Mack’s entire backpay period demonstrates an individual, who consistently
sought work and remained employed to the best of his ability.
5
3. Interim Earnings: USPS Retirement Benefits
G4S failed to show that Mack’s vested TSP retirement benefit from the USPS should be
deducted from interim earnings. G4S contended that:
10
[T]he USPS made contributions to a retirement plan … [of] $5,000.00, … which
he was 100% vested at the time of his separation …. Since this was a substantial
benefit … he would not have been entitled had he been employed by Respondent
… , total net backpay calculation should be reduced by $5,000.
15
(Brief at 10).
G4S’ contention is invalid. First, fringe benefit contributions paid by an interim
employer generally do not offset gross wages. Tualatin Electric, Inc., 331 NLRB 36, 42–43
(2000), enfd. 253 F.3d 714 (D.C. Cir. 2001); NLRB Casehandling Manual, Part 3, Compliance 20
Proceedings, §10552.4 (“contributions to a retirement fund are not normally treated as interim
earnings and offset against gross backpay.”). Second, even assuming arguendo that the TSP is an
offset, G4S failed to meet its burden of proof on this issue. Specifically, although the record
reveals that Mack was vested in a TSP account valued at around $5,000, the record does not
indicate what percentage of this vested TSP benefit was paid by him directly and deducted from 25
his wages, or whether he might also be subject to extensive early withdrawal penalties, if the
vested TSP balance were withdrawn and treated as interim earnings. Given these evidentiary
lapses on a subject where G4S held the burden of proof, it would be unreasonable to treat the
TSP as interim earnings.12 United Enviro Systems, 323 NLRB 83 (1997).
30
4. Working Less than 50 Hours Per Week for Interim Employers
G4S failed to show that Mack working for interim employers for less than the 50 hours
per week he worked for G4S should result in a deduction from his backpay. The Board has
specifically rejected this contention. See, e.g., United Supermarkets, Inc., 287 NLRB 394, 398 35
(1987)(discriminatee should not be penalized for accepting part-time employment rather than
waiting for a full-time offer); Lundy Packing Co., 286 NLRB 141, 144 (1987)(same); Be-Lo
Stores, 336 NLRB 950, 950 fn. 1 (2001)(no off-set where record failed to show that
discriminatee was offered or refused to accept additional employment to make up for lost hours);
F. E. Hazard, Ltd., 303 NLRB 839 (1991)(no duty to continue to search for a more lucrative job 40
or search for the most lucrative interim employment); Fugazy Continental Corp., 276 NLRB
1334, 1338 (1985), enfd. 817 F.2d 979 (2d Cir. 1987) (same).

12 For example, treating monies that Mack deducted from his wages and deposited into his TSP as interim
earnings would be double-counting interim earnings (i.e., counting wages once, and TSP deductions twice).
JD─83─18
9
5. Search-for-Work: February 2010 to August 2010, and June 2011 to February 2012
G4S failed to show that Mack’s efforts to find interim employment from February 2010
to August 2010, and from June 2011 to February 2012 were insufficient, and warrant reducing
his net backpay. It avers that security jobs were plentiful during these periods and that his efforts 5
to secure employment were deficient because he applied to several jobs electronically and did
not apply in-person unless invited to interview. See (Tr. at 107–111)(Seltzer testimony).
The Board has held that a discriminatee is entitled to backpay, as long as they make a
“reasonably diligent effort to obtain substantially equivalent employment.” Moran Printing, 330 10
NLRB 376 (1999). A “good faith” job search effort is:
[C]onduct consistent with an inclination to work and to be self-supporting and
that such inclination is best evidenced not by a purely mechanical examination of
the number or kind of applications for work which have been made, but rather by 15
the sincerity and reasonableness of the efforts made by an individual in his
circumstances to relieve his unemployment.
Flannery Motors, Inc., 330 NLRB 994, 995 (2000). Valid mitigation does not require success; it
only requires an honest, good faith effort. Fabi Fashions, 291 NLRB 586, 587 (1988). Job 20
search efforts are evaluated in light of all of the circumstances, and are measured over the
complete backpay period, as opposed to isolated portions. First Transit Inc., 350 NLRB 825 fn.
8 (2007). Any doubt or uncertainty is resolved in favor of the innocent employee claimant, and
not the respondent wrongdoer. NLRB v. NHE/Freeway, Inc., 545 F.2d 592, 594 (7th Cir.
1976); NLRB v. Miami Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 360 F.2d 569, 572-573 (5th Cir. 1966). In sum, 25
an employer does not meet its burden of showing an inadequate job search by showing lack of
employee success in obtaining interim employment or low interim earnings. United Food &
Commercial Workers Local 1357, 301 NLRB 617 (1991).
Mack’s made a “reasonably diligent effort to obtain substantially equivalent 30
employment.” He submitted volumes of applications, worked for three different employers
outside his area of expertise, worked during the vast majority of his backpay period, received
promotions from two of his three employers, and even continued to search for higher-paying
work at the USPS while employed at RAC. In reviewing his backpay period as a whole, it
becomes readily apparent that he made an honest effort to find work and remain employed. 35
Although G4S’ expert witness Seltzer opined that he could have been even more successful in
his pursuit of interim employment, this contention does not undercut his strong overall
commitment to remaining employed during his backpay period. Thus, I find that his limited
inability to procure interim employment between 2010 and 2012 does not warrant a backpay
reduction. 40
6. Summary
Mack shall receive backpay in accordance with the following table, which incorporates
corrected interim earnings for the first quarter of 2011 and a ministerial correction:13 45

13 Gross backpay for the first quarter of 2016 has been corrected from $22,688.13 to $22,698.13.
JD─83─18
10
Year Quarter Gross Backpay Interim Earnings Net Backpay
2010 1 $12,211.21 $0.00 $12,211.21
2010 2 $19,843.22 $0.00 $19,843.22
2010 3 $19,843.22 $901.94 $18,941.28
2010 4 $19,843.22 $11,157.58 $8,685.64
2011 1 $20,011.16 $10,999.95 $9,011.21
2011 2 $20,011.16 $8,557.60 $11,453.56
2011 3 $20,011.16 $0.00 $20,011.16
2011 4 $21,550.48 $0.00 $21,550.48
2012 1 $20,214.97 $4,178.58 $16,036.39
2012 2 $20,214.97 $8,174.52 $12,040.45
2012 3 $20,214.97 $8,623.02 $11,591.95
2012 4 $20,214.97 $8,958.13 $11,256.84
2013 1 $22,303.37 $11,609.59 $10,693.78
2013 2 $22,303.37 $10,367.15 $11,936.22
2013 3 $22,303.37 $7,993.18 $14,310.19
2013 4 $22,303.37 $7,993.18 $14,310.19
2014 1 $22,159.28 $10,879.96 $11,279.32
2014 2 $22,159.28 $10,879.96 $11,279.32
2014 3 $22,159.28 $10,879.96 $11,279.32
2014 4 $22,159.28 $10,879.96 $11,279.32
2015 1 $20,679.81 $12,074.66 $8,605.15
2015 2 $20,679.81 $12,074.66 $8,605.15
2015 3 $20,679.81 $12,550.54 $8,129.27
2015 4 $20,679.81 $13,574.06 $7,105.75
2016 1 $22,698.13 $13,400.18 $9,297.95
2016 2 $22,698.13 $13,684.80 $9,013.33
2016 3 $22,698.13 $11,847.16 $10,850.97
2016 4 $24,444.14 $13,068.57 $11,375.57
2017 1 $21,247.31 $12,972.05 $8,275.26
2017 2 $21,247.31 $12,972.05 $8,275.26
2017 3 $4,903.23 $2,993.55 $1,909.68
TOTAL: $360,434.39
CONCLUSION
Based upon the findings and analysis set forth above, and on the record as a whole, I 5
issue the following recommended supplemental14

14 If no exceptions are filed as provided by §102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings,
JD─83─18
11
ORDER
The Respondent, G4S Regulated Solutions, a Division of G4S Secure Solutions (USA)
Inc., West Palm Beach, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall consistent with 5
the Specification as modified by the foregoing findings, satisfy its obligation to make whole
Cecil Mack by paying him backpay in the amount of $360,434.39 in accordance with F.W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987), that is compounded daily as set forth in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356
NLRB 6 (2010), plus compensation for the adverse tax consequences of receiving a lump-sum 10
backpay award in accordance with Don Chavas LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB 101
(2014), minus tax withholdings required by Federal and State laws. It shall also file a report with
the Social Security Administration allocating backpay to the appropriate calendar quarters.
Dated Washington, D.C. December 20, 201815
Robert A. Ringler
Administrative Law Judge20

conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in §102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all
objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
7Z_e_# 4 Z5a_