Triple A Fire Protection, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Feb 10, 2010

15-CA-011498 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 10, 2010)

JD(ATL)–02–10
Mobile, AL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
TRIPLE A FIRE PROTECTION, INC.
and CASE 15–CA–11498
UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN
AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING
AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE
UNITED STATES AND CANADA,
ROAD SPRINKLER FITTERS LOCAL
UNION NO. 669, AFL–CIO
Beauford Pines, Esq.,
for the General Counsel
Jason J. Valtos, Esq. and
William W. Osborne, Jr., Esq.,
for the Charging Party
Willis C. Darby, Jr., Esq. and
Elizabeth Darby Rehm, Esq.,
for the Respondent
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
Statement of the Case
Keltner W. Locke, Administrative Law Judge: Respondent, Triple A Fire
Protection, Inc., has been found guilty of committing certain unfair labor practices. This
proceeding determines Respondent’s liability to make its employees whole, by payments to
them and to certain benefit funds for the period April 22, 1991, through April 22, 2008 (the
“backpay period”). For brevity, this obligation will be called Respondent’s “backpay liability.”
Because Respondent had not remedied the unfair labor practices as of April 22, 2008, the
amount of backpay and benefits has continued to accrue. The computation of those additional
amounts must be left to further proceedings.
For the backpay period at issue here, Respondent will discharge its obligations by
making payment of $3,846,526.81 in backpay and $5,238,854.54 in back benefit fund
contributions, together with interest.
JD(ATL)–02–10
2
Procedural History
At all material times, the Union, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of
the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Road Sprinkler Fitters 5
Local Union No. 669, AFL–CIO, has represented a unit of Respondent’s employees.
On October 31, 1994, the Board issued a Decision and Order which found, among other
things, the following: (1) That by various acts in February 1991 and March 1993, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by bypassing the Union and dealing directly with 10
bargaining unit employees concerning wages, hours, and working conditions. (2) That
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when, effective April 22, 1991, it
unilaterally ceased making required fringe–benefit payments to established benefit plans. (3)
That Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when, effective April 22, 1993, it
unilaterally reduced the wage rates for bargaining unit employees hired on or after April 22, 15
1991.
The Board ordered Respondent to cease and desist from this unlawful conduct and to
take certain actions to remedy the unfair labor practices. These actions included the following,
if requested by the Union: Resuming participation in and making contributions to the fringe–20
benefit plans to which Respondent had stopped contributions effective April 22, 1991, and
rescinding any or all changes in wage rates or benefits which Respondent implemented
unilaterally effective April 22, 1991. The Board further ordered Respondent to make whole the
unit employees and fringe–benefit funds. Triple A Fire Protection, Inc., 315 NLRB 409
(1994).25
On March 3, 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit entered
its judgment enforcing the Board’s Order. National Labor Relations Board v. Triple A Fire
Protection, Inc., 136 F.3d 727 (1998), cert. den. sub nom. Triple A Fire Protection v. NLRB,
325 U.S. 1067 (1999).30
Thereafter, the Board initiated compliance proceedings. On July 1, 2008, the Regional
Director for Region 15 of the Board issued a Third Amended Compliance Specification and
Notice of Hearing (the “Specification”).
35
On August 18, 2008, Respondent filed an Answer to the Specification, admitting in part
and denying in part the allegations in the Specification, and raising certain affirmative defenses.
On November 12, 2008, the Union filed a motion to strike portions of Respondent’s
Answer. On November 21, 2008, the General Counsel filed a motion in support of the Union’s 40
motion. On December 5, 2008, the Board issued an Order granting in part the motion to strike
and granting in full the motion for partial summary judgment.
On December 11, 2008, Respondent filed a motion to file an out–of–time response to
the Union’s motion. On December 17, 2008, the Board issued an Order rescinding its 45
December 5, 2008, Order and a Notice to Show Cause why the Union’s motions should not be
JD(ATL)–02–10
3
granted. The Order further stated that in light of these rulings, Respondent’s motion to file a
response out of time was moot.
On December 19, 2008, Respondent filed a response to the Union’s motion for partial
summary judgment. The Union filed a brief in reply.5
On January 5, 2009, Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment. The General
Counsel and the Union thereafter, filed briefs in opposition.
On January 30, 2009, the Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Order which 10
granted portions of the Union’s motion to strike and portions of the Union’s motion for partial
summary judgment and denied Respondent’s motion for summary judgment. Triple A Fire
Protection, Inc., 353 NLRB No. 88 (January 30, 2009).
On May 4 and 5, 2009, I conducted a hearing in this matter in Mobile, Alabama. 15
Thereafter, the parties filed briefs.
The Board’s January 30, 2009 Decision
a. Allegations Deemed Substantiated20
Section 102.56(b) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations establishes the standard for
judging whether a respondent sufficiently has answered the allegations raised by a compliance
specification. Denials “shall fairly meet the substance of the allegations of the specification at
issue.” Moreover, as to “all matters within the knowledge of the respondent. . .a general denial 25
shall not suffice. As to such matters, if the respondent disputes either the accuracy of the
figures in the specification or the premises on which they are based, the answer shall
specifically state the basis for such disagreement, setting forth in detail the respondent’s
position as to the applicable premises and furnishing the appropriate supporting figures.”
30
If a respondent fails to comply with these requirements, the Board may, pursuant to
Section 102.56(c), “either with or without taking evidence in support of the allegations of the
specification and without further notice to the respondent, find the specification to be true and
enter such order as may be appropriate.”
35
In its January 30, 2009, Supplemental Decision and Order, the Board concluded that
Respondent did not answer paragraphs 7 through 10 of the Specification with the specificity
required by Section 102.56(b). In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered both
Respondent’s Answer to the Specification and the arguments it advanced in response to the
Union’s motion. However, these additional arguments and assertions did not cure the defects 40
in Respondent’s Answer.
Granting portions of the Union’s motion, the Board found substantiated the allegations
raised in Specification paragraphs 7 through 10. Based upon the Board’s grant of summary
judgment with respect to these paragraphs (which are identified by number below) I make the 45
following findings:
JD(ATL)–02–10
4
7. An appropriate measure of the backpay (wages) due the 423 employees
identified in the Specification’s appendices is the number of hours worked times
the wage differential (i.e., the difference between the contractual hourly wage
rate of $15.47 and the reduced rate paid by the Respondent).5
8. The wages due these employees are set forth in appendices to the Specification,
specifically, Appendix B – 1991 through Appendix B – 2008 (a year–by–year
account) and summarized in Appendix C.
10
9. Pursuant to Articles 19 through 21 of the collective–bargaining agreement, for
each hour worked the Respondent was obligated to remit the following amounts
for each employee to the funds named below:
National Automatic Sprinkler Industry Welfare Fund: $2.65 15
(per hour).
National Automatic Sprinkler Industry Pension Fund: $2.00 (per
hour).
20
NASI–Local 669 Industry Education Fund: $ 0.18 (per hour).
Total Hourly Funds Contribution Rate: $4.83 (per hour).
10. An appropriate measure of amounts owed the Union benefit funds for Sprinkler 25
Fitter Journeymen or Apprentices employed under the National Agreement of
1988–1991 at any time during the period beginning April 22, 1991, through
April 22, 2008 is the number of hours multiplied by the Total Hourly Funds
Contribution Rate of $4.83 an hour. Calculations are performed on a yearly
basis for each covered employee. An example of the amount owed to the three 30
funds for an individual employed in 1991, is the number of hours worked by a
covered employee in 1991 times $4.83 per hour.
b. Defenses Stricken
35
The Union moved to strike certain affirmative defenses raised by Respondent. The
Board granted portions of the motion to strike because these defenses raised issues which had
been litigated and decided in the underlying unfair labor practice proceeding. Specifically, the
Board struck the following defenses:
40
First Defense: That the Board’s regional director had no authority to include in
the underlying complaint paragraphs alleging that the Union was the Section 9(a)
representative of an appropriate unit and that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1).
45
Second Defense: That the Union terminated the parties’ contract at midnight,
March 31, 1991, and struck the Respondent.
Fourth Defense: That the union–security clause of the parties’ contract expired
on March 31, 1991. (That clause provides, among other things, that nonmember 50
JD(ATL)–02–10
5
employees shall be paid at the contractual journeyman’s rate with contributions to the
benefit plans.) This defense further asserted that the journeyman’s rate provision cited
in Respondent’s third defense “became inoperable” on April 1, 1991, when, according
to Respondent’s claim, the employees engaged in a strike of the Respondent.
5
Twelfth Defense: That the Union tried to force the Respondent to select the
National Fire Sprinkler Association as Respondent’s collective–bargaining
representative in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act and that the Union engaged
in piecemeal bargaining.
10
At this stage of the proceeding, Respondent may not resurrect and relitigate assertions
which the Board considered and rejected earlier. Accordingly, Respondent may not be heard to
assert that the Union was not the exclusive representative of bargaining unit employees
pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Act. Respondent also may not be heard to assert that the Union
terminated the parties contract at midnight, March 31, 1991 or that the Union engaged in a 15
strike against Respondent. Just as Respondent may not at this point assert that the Union
engaged in a strike, it may not be heard to claim that this (nonexistent) strike rendered the
collective–bargaining agreement “inoperable.”
The Board struck Respondent’s twelfth defense “insofar as it depends on the 20
contentions that the Union unlawfully engaged in piecemeal bargaining or that the Union
bargained in bad faith with no intention to agree to a contract other than one which mirrored the
national collective–bargaining agreement between the Union and the National Fire Sprinkler
Association.” Accordingly, these matters are not in issue in this proceeding.
25
Of course, Respondent may not be heard to deny that it violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act. The prior decisions of the Board and the United States Court of Appeals settle that
issue conclusively.
In addition to striking Respondent’s defenses discussed above, the Board also struck 30
paragraph 4 of Respondent’s Answer “insofar as it denies that the Respondent unilaterally
reduced wages or asserts that the Union commenced a strike against the Respondent at
midnight on March 31, 1991.”
c. Defenses Not Stricken35
The Board’s January 30, 2009, Decision and Order did not strike Respondent’s eighth
defense, which asserts that the Union lost its majority status on or before January 17, 1992.
The Board declined to strike this defense, “without prejudice to its raising these arguments
before the administrative law judge.”40
d. Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment
As noted above, the Board’s January 30, 2009, Supplemental Decision and Order
denied Respondent’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety.45
JD(ATL)–02–10
6
Withdrawn Allegation
During the hearing, the General Counsel withdrew Specification Paragraph 12, which
had alleged that Respondent also was required to make individuals whole for certain medical 5
expenses. Withdrawal of this paragraph removes it from my consideration and I make no
findings regarding it.
Analysis
10
Specification paragraph 1 alleges that the Board found that at least since October 1986,
the Union has been the Section 9(a) exclusive bargaining representative of the Respondent’s
employees in a bargaining unit described as:
All Journeymen Sprinkler Fitters and Apprentices employed by Triple A Fire Protection. 15
who are engaged in all work as set forth in Article 18 of the national agreement of 1988–
1991.
Respondent’s Answer admitted this allegation with the qualification that the collective–
bargaining agreement only applied to field construction employees and excluded shop 20
employees. The collective–bargaining agreement does not make a distinction between “shop
employees” and “field employees.”
Moreover, credible testimony establishes that Respondent’s “shop employees” also
performed work in the field. Conversely, no credible evidence suggests that any individual was 25
excluded from the bargaining unit because he or she primarily worked in the shop.
The Specification identifies those employees for whom the General Counsel seeks a
make whole remedy. Respondent has not proven that any of these workers was not a member
of the bargaining unit.30
In sum, I conclude that the General Counsel has proven the allegations raised by
Specification Paragraph 1.
Specification paragraph 2 alleges that the Board found that, effective April 22, 1991, 35
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when it ceased making the required
fringe benefit payments to established benefit plans. Respondent has admitted this allegation.
Moreover, because the Board already decided this matter in the underlying unfair labor practice
proceeding, it may not be relitigated now. Accordingly, I find that the General Counsel has
proven the allegations raised in Specification paragraph 2.40
Specification paragraph 3 alleges that the Board found that effective April 22, 1991,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when it unilaterally reduced wages
below the contractual wage rate of $15.47 per hour. In its Answer, Respondent partially
admitted this allegation but denied that it reduced the wages of any incumbent employee at any 45
time.
JD(ATL)–02–10
7
The Board already has found that Respondent violated the Act by unilaterally reducing
wage rates and that issue may not be relitigated here. Respondent might still, of course,
litigate whether individuals listed in the Specification were members of the bargaining unit and
therefore affected by the unlawful wage rate reduction. In theory, other grounds might exist to
support an argument that a certain listed individual was not affected by the unlawful wage rate 5
reduction. One hypothetical example might concern an employee whom the bookkeeping
department overlooked when it reduced the wage rates of other employees and whose wage
rate, therefore, was not reduced.
However, Respondent would know of any such instances because it has custody of its 10
own payroll records. Therefore, under Section 102.56(b) of the Board’s Rules, Respondent had
a duty to set forth in its answer the specific details and to provide supporting figures.
Respondent’s Answer did not. In the absence of such figures and persuasive evidence to
establish their accuracy, I conclude that the General Counsel has proven the allegations raised
in Specification paragraph 3.15
Paragraph 4 of the Specification alleges that the backpay period alleged in the
Specification begins April 22, 1991, when Respondent ceased remitting the fringe benefit
payments and unilaterally reduced wages. In its October 31, 1994 Supplemental Decision, the
Board found that Respondent made the unilateral changes on April 22, 1991 and that finding 20
may not be relitigated now. Specification paragraph 4 simply alleges that the backpay period
began the day after the unfair labor practices. I conclude that the General Counsel has proven
the allegations raised in Specification paragraph 4.
Specification paragraph 5 alleges that the backpay period is ongoing and will continue 25
until Respondent resumes the payment of the proper wage rates and the remittance of fringe
benefit contributions. It further alleges that the figures set forth in the Specification only cover
the period from April 22, 1991 through April 22, 2008. Respondent stipulated at hearing that it
had not resumed payment at these wage rates. I conclude that the General Counsel has proven
the allegations raised in Specification paragraph 5.30
Specification paragraph 6 alleges that during the period beginning April 22, 1991
through April 22, 2008, the Respondent, at various times, employed a total of 423 employees.
The Specification identified these employees in its Appendix A. Based upon the entire record,
and in the absence of credible evidence that any of the listed individuals did not work in the 35
bargaining unit during a portion of this period, I find that the General Counsel has proven the
allegations raised in Specification paragraph 6.
In its January 30, 2009 Supplemental Decision and Order, the Board granted summary
judgment with respect to the allegations in Specification paragraphs 7 through 10. 40
Accordingly, I conclude that the General Counsel has established these allegations.
One portion of Respondent’s backpay liability arises because Respondent failed to
make contributions, on behalf of employees, to certain benefit funds, as required by the
collective–bargaining agreement. One of these funds is an education fund.45
JD(ATL)–02–10
8
During the hearing, the General Counsel elicited testimony from the compliance officer
who performed the calculations described in the Specification. She testified that the
Specification assumes that Respondent should have paid 18 cents to the education fund for
every hour worked by an employee, but that the calculations instead should have been based on
a rate of 10 cents per hour.5
The General Counsel introduced into evidence, as General Counsel’s Exhibit 4,
corrected calculations based upon the 10 cents per hour rate. The compliance officer testified,
and I find, that this correction decreased the Respondent’s backpay liability (from the amount
described in the Specification) by $79,455.90.10
Respondent’s “Loss of Majority Status” Defense
Respondent’s eighth defense asserted that the Union lost its majority status on or before
January 17, 1992, that none of the employees hired after April 1, 1991 paid dues, that no 15
grievances were filed after April 8, 1991, and that on November 15, 1999, a decertification
petition was filed on behalf of 25 of 28 bargaining unit employees. The Board’s January 30,
2009 Supplemental Decision and Order denied the Union’s motion to strike this defense,
“without prejudice to its raising these arguments before the administrative law judge.”
20
During the hearing, Respondent sought to modify its eighth defense to correct what its
counsel indicated was an inadvertent error. Instead of asserting that the Union lost its majority
status on or before January 17, 1992, the defense, as modified, would aver that the Union lost
its majority status on or after January 17, 1992.
25
Respondent’s counsel represented that his use of the word “before” was an inadvertent
error: “I did not mean to say ‘before,’ but I surely said it.” Accepting counsel’s representation
that use of “before” was an unintended error, I will consider whether the Union lost its majority
status at any time, either before or after January 17, 1992.
30
Although the present facts are somewhat different from those before the Board in Levitz
Furniture Company of the Pacific, Inc., 333 NLRB 717 (2001), that decision reiterates two
well–established principles which are relevant here. First, an employer contesting an
incumbent union’s majority status must rebut the continuing presumption that the union enjoys
such status.35
Second, employers may not withdraw recognition in a context of serious unremedied
unfair labor practices tending to cause employees to become disaffected from the union. See,
e.g., Williams Enterprises, 312 NLRB 937, 939–940 (1993), enfd. 50 F.3d 1280 (4th Cir.
1995).40
No evidence indicates that the Union disavowed its status as exclusive bargaining
representative or otherwise abandoned the bargaining unit employees. To the contrary, the
evidence clearly demonstrates that the Union has continued its efforts to vindicate the
employees who have been harmed by Respondent’s unfair labor practices.45
JD(ATL)–02–10
9
Respondent’s unlawful unilateral changes in terms and conditions of employment
clearly signaled that the ordinary way a union represents employees – in negotiations with the
employer – was not working. Instead, the Union took legal steps to require Respondent to
bargain with it in good faith and to remedy the unfair labor practices which harmed that
relationship.5
The present case began when the Union filed the unfair labor practice charge against
Respondent almost two decades ago. Since then, the Union has sought justice on behalf of the
employees with remarkable tenacity. The Union participated, through its attorney, in the initial
unfair labor practice hearings before Judge Linton. After issuance of the Specification, the 10
Union moved to strike portions of Respondent’s Answer.
Union Counsel fully participated in the compliance hearing before me and filed a post–
hearing brief. It did not have to do so.
15
The General Counsel, acting on behalf of the government, has responsibility for
prosecuting an unfair labor practice case and a charging party – in this case the Union – has no
duty at all to retain counsel or incur legal expenses. If the Union had abandoned the bargaining
unit employees, as Respondent claims, it seems rather unlikely that it would have sent an
attorney from Washington, D.C. to Mobile, Alabama to represent the employees’ interests 20
vigorously during the compliance proceeding.
Moreover, Respondent’s violations of the Act – unilateral changes in terms of
employment without first bargaining with the Union – are precisely the type of unfair labor
practice likely to cause employees to be disaffected. Applying an objective standard, I 25
conclude that Respondent’s unlawful unilateral changes likely would make employees regard
the Union as ineffectual.
Respondent admits that it has not remedied these unfair labor practices. Accordingly, I
reject the Respondent’s argument that the Union had, at some point, lost its majority status. 30
Respondent has not carried its burden of rebutting the presumption that the Union’s majority
status continues.
Respondent’s Financial Inability Argument
35
Respondent argues that it lacks the financial ability to make the employees whole. Such
an argument addresses an issue not really before me. In a compliance proceeding, the judge
does not look in a respondent’s pocket but rather focuses on the harm caused by the unlawful
conduct to determine what the respondent must do to remedy it.
40
In a compliance proceeding, the judge does not impose any new burden on a
respondent. A respondent already bears a burden because it already has been found guilty of
violating the law in a way that caused harm. The compliance judge simply quantifies that
existing burden. Doing so – determining the cost of making whole those hurt by the unlawful
conduct – serves two purposes. It does justice to the discriminatees by assuring that they 45
ultimately suffer no loss, and it does justice to the respondent by assuring that the amount
JD(ATL)–02–10
10
which must be paid is remedial rather than punitive.
The compliance judge has no authority to increase or reduce a respondent’s liability but
simply has the responsibility to measure it. Therefore, a respondent’s argument that it cannot
pay essentially asks the judge to exceed the scope of his authority and consider information 5
irrelevant to his duty.
A respondent’s inability to pay does not constitute a defense to the determination of
backpay liability. Star Grocery Co., 245 NLRB 196, 197 (1970); Coal Rush Mining, Inc., 341
NLRB 32, 33 fn. 2 (2004). Accordingly, the evidence Respondent offered to support its 10
inability–to–pay argument is immaterial to any issue properly before me and I reject
Respondent’s defense without regard to that evidence.
However, were I to examine the evidence which Respondent presented to support its
inability–to–pay argument, I would conclude that if fell short of establishing such inability. 15
Although Respondent called two accountants to testify, neither based his opinion solely on
evidence verified by audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles. Rather, much of the information used by the accountants resulted from “reviews” of
the documentation which Respondent provided.
20
A “review” is a less exacting accounting procedure which relies upon documents which
Respondent provided to its accountant. In an audit, the accountant’s own independent efforts to
verify the information results in a degree of trustworthiness which a mere review lacks.
In any case, I would accord less weight to an accountant’s opinion based on a “review” 25
than to an accountant’s opinion based on an audit. Additionally, based upon the present record,
I have some particular concerns about the reliability and completeness of financial documents
which Respondent furnished to its accountants.
My concerns arise, in part, because Respondent provided at least some of this 30
information to the accountants in connection with the present litigation and, it appears, in
anticipation of their testimony at hearing. Moreover, Respondent’s past actions in this case
have not inspired me to conclude that ordinary caution should be suspended. In other words,
Respondent bore the burden of persuasion that its witnesses, the accountants, based their
opinions on accurate and complete information about its financial situation. Respondent did 35
not carry this burden.
In addition to doubts about the quality and completeness of the information considered
by the accountant witnesses, another factor affects the weight to be accorded their opinions. It
is appropriate to consider whether an accountant conducting a review has brought to that task a 40
critical and questioning frame of mind. Other things being equal, the opinion of a skeptical and
probing accountant weighs more than the opinion of one who is content to accept on faith the
verity of a client’s unsubstantiated revelations.
One of the accountants, James Hecker, testified that he did not review Respondent’s 45
bank statements. Based upon this and other parts of Hecker’s testimony, I conclude that he
JD(ATL)–02–10
11
made little effort to confirm the accuracy of the information Respondent provided him. It
appears that a doubting and inquisitive attitude did not temper Hecker’s analysis.
Moreover, as I noted at trial, the evidence was insufficient to establish that the
unsigned, unverified financial documents which Respondent provided to Hecker were accurate. 5
Because I have no confidence in the information upon which Hecker based his opinion, I
likewise have no confidence in his opinion itself.
The other accountant who testified, Jerome Olsen, described an analysis he performed
based upon financial information provided by Respondent and the financial reports he had 10
prepared using such information. Some of these financial reports were audited and others, he
testified, were unaudited.
His analysis involved computing the length of an “operating cycle,” determining the
amount of working capital required for that operating cycle, and comparing that with the 15
amount of actual working capital available. Olsen testified that he “did an analysis of about ten
jobs” and used that information, together with the information from Respondent’s 2008
financial statement, to compute the length of an operating cycle, which he concluded was
133.91 days.
20
Olsen testified that he calculated that $2,656,382 in working capital would be required
for one operating cycle. He further testified that “the actual working capital that Triple A had
as of December 31 was $1,196,228, so the shortfall was $1,460,154.”
For several reasons, Olsen’s testimony falls short of establishing a financial inability to 25
pay. Most fundamentally, Olsen based his calculations on information supplied by
Respondent, but, based upon the present record, I cannot conclude that such information was
accurate and complete. Thus, Olsen’s opinion turns on an unknown, the quality of the
information. Because of the principle “garbage in, garbage out,” I cannot simply assume that
some kind of accounting wizardry miraculously made up for any defects in the information 30
itself.
Olsen testified that he analyzed “about ten jobs” and used that information in his
determination of the length of an operating cycle. However, the record does not establish that
he selected these jobs at random or that they otherwise are a representative sampling. This 35
reason alone casts some doubt on the reliability of his calculation.
Moreover, Olsen did not explain, and the record otherwise does not establish, why a
shortfall in working capital at one particular instant in time would support the conclusion that
Respondent would remain in that financial condition indefinitely or be unable to satisfy its 40
obligations in the future.
The particular instant in time chosen by Olsen – December 31, 2008 – is not
representative. At least, we all may hope that conditions on this particular date do not predict
the future health of American businesses. Rather, December 31, 2008 came at the peak, or 45
approximately the peak, of a serious nationwide financial crisis which now may be abating.
JD(ATL)–02–10
12
This financial crisis deeply affected the real estate sector, which Respondent serves by
the provision of fire prevention systems and services. Therefore, I cannot assume without
evidence that the crisis had no transient effect on Respondent’s financial condition. Even
assuming that Olsen’s testimony supported a finding of inability to pay on December 31, 2008 5
– a conclusion subject to considerable doubt – it does not establish a continuing inability to pay
thereafter, as the economy improved.
In sum, even were I to consider Respondent’s inability–to–pay defense, which is not
within my purview, I would reject it as unsupported by credible evidence.10
The Issue of “Liquidated Damages”
Based on the credited testimony of the Board’s compliance officer, Debra Warner, and
of the trust funds’ administrator, Michael Jacobson, as well as supporting documentary 15
evidence, I find that Respondent had agreed both to make payments to the trust funds on behalf
of its employees and, when it delayed those payments to the point of untimeliness, to pay a
delinquency penalty. The parties have referred to this latter assessment as “liquidated damages
and interest.” Further, I find that on occasions in the past, Respondent had made such
payments.20
Contrary to Respondent, I conclude that such “liquidated damages and interest”
properly should be included as part of Respondent’s backpay obligation. In reaching this
conclusion, I rely on long– and firmly–established precedents.
25
The Act confers upon the Board broad authority to fashion a make whole remedy, but
this broad authority does not extend to the imposition of punitive measures. Republic Steel
Corp. v. NLRB, 311 U.S. 7, 12 (1940); Aneco, Inc. v. NLRB, 285 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2002).
Each backpay remedy “must be sufficiently tailored to expunge only the actual, and not merely
speculative consequences of the unfair labor practices.” Sure–Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883, 30
900, 902–904 (1984) (emphasis in original).
In fashioning a backpay order, the objective is to restore “the situation, as nearly as
possible, to that which would have obtained but for the illegal discrimination.” Phelps Dodge
Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 177, 194 (1941). See also Oil Capitol Sheet Metal, Inc., 349 NLRB 35
No. 118 (May 31, 2007). Accordingly, in determining whether an order to pay “liquidated
damages” is punitive, it is appropriate to look to the terms and conditions of employment in
effect before Respondent unlawfully changed them.
Respondent had a contractual obligation to make contributions to the employee benefit 40
trust funds in accordance with its agreement with the Union. Under well–established Board
law, this obligation continued even after the expiration date of the collective–bargaining
agreement because this term and condition of employment constituted a mandatory subject of
bargaining. In general, an employer may not change such a term and condition of employment
except by reaching agreement with the union, reaching a lawful impasse during negotiations, or 45
after the union representing the affected employees has waived its right to bargain. (A very
JD(ATL)–02–10
13
narrow exception does allow a unilateral change in certain exigent circumstances.) See United
Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 653 (Freeman Decorating Company) 335 NLRB
No. 3 (August 24, 2001).
Respondent had agreed to the contractual provision requiring the payment of 5
“liquidated damages” to the trust funds and thus this obligation had become a term and
condition of employment. It concerned a mandatory subject of bargaining.
This term and condition of employment wasn’t simply to pay a trust fund a certain
specified amount for every hour worked by the bargaining unit employee. Rather, the term and 10
condition of employment was that Respondent would make payments to the trust funds in
accordance with its agreement. Failure to satisfy any particular obligation created by the
agreement constituted a unilateral change in the term and condition of employment.
Thus, requiring Respondent to comply with the liquidated damages portion of its 15
agreement is not punitive. Rather, holding Respondent to the terms of the agreement it made is
necessary to restore the status quo ante.
In other cases, the Board has required respondents to pay liquidated damages and/or
interest where the respondent has entered into an agreement (either in the collective–bargaining 20
agreement itself or in the separate trust fund agreement) to make such payments under specified
circumstances. Merryweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB 1213, 1217 fn. 7 (1979); J.R.R. Realty
Co., 301 NLRB 473, 475 fn. 16 (1991). It is similarly appropriate and necessary in the present
case.
25
Specification Paragraph 11
Specification paragraph 11 alleges that the total due the Union benefit funds for period
April 22, 1991 through April 22, 2008 is set forth in the Specification’s Appendix C. However,
as discussed above, the amounts for education fund contributions should have been calculated 30
at the rate of $0.10 per hour rather than $0.18. Corrected calculations appear in the record in
General Counsel’s Exhibit 4.
Disputing the General Counsel’s calculations, Respondent has raised arguments which
the Board already addressed in its January 30, 2009, Supplemental Decision and Order. For 35
example, Respondent asserted that none of the Specification’s paragraphs states a cause of
action for payments to fringe benefit fund because the Specification does not aver that any
employee has a “nonspeculative economic interest” in any of the funds. The Board considered
and rejected this argument.
40
Respondent also had argued that the Specification did not allege that the funds are
mandatory subjects of bargaining and that the Specification did not state when any employee
obtained an economic interest in any of the funds. The Board considered and rejected these
arguments. The Board’s January 30, 2009 Supplemental Decision and Order stated, in part:
45
[T]he Respondent’s argument appears to rely in part on the assumption that the
Respondent is only required to make fringe benefit payments for employees who have a
JD(ATL)–02–10
14
vested interest in receiving the benefits that the funds provide. However, the Board has
never made such a distinction in awarding a make–whole remedy to benefit funds.
Rather, if a respondent unilaterally stops making required payments to benefit funds on
behalf of any employee, the standard remedy is to require that the funds be made whole
for the missed payments, without regard to the “eligibility status” of the employees to 5
actually receive benefits from the funds.
353 NLRB No. 88, slip op. at 3. It is neither necessary nor proper for me to entertain
arguments which the Board already has considered and rejected.
10
Based on the record as a whole, I conclude that the General Counsel has proven the
allegations raised in Specification paragraph 11, as modified by General Counsel’s Exhibit 4.
Calculations
15
As already noted, although backpay and benefits continue to accrue, this supplemental
decision addresses only the period alleged in the Specification: April 22, 1991 through April
22, 2008. Respondent will satisfy its make whole obligations for this period by payment of the
following amounts, together with interest:
20
Employee Total
Backpay
H & W
Fund
Pension
Fund
Education
Fund
Total Fund
Contributions
Total
Backpay &
Fund
Contributions
Joseph William Adair $ 30,845.06 $ 14,846.63 $ 11,205.00 $ 560.25 $ 26,611.88 $ 57,456.94
John R. Albritton 9,721.37 3,103.15 2,342.00 117.10 5,562.25 15,283.62
Robert Scott Albritton 3,612.69 1,290.55 974.00 48.70 2,313.25 5,925.94
Chance Corbett Alday 637.30 259.70 196.00 9.80 465.50 1,101.80
Dustin Aaron Allen 329.97 135.15 102.00 5.10 242.25 572.22
Joshua A. Allen 672.88 275.60 208.00 10.40 494.00 1,166.88
Lakendrick D. Allen 451.94 160.33 121.00 6.50 287.83 739.77
Ryan Christopher Allen 12,818.54 5,726.65 4,322.00 288.18 10,336.83 23,155.37
Joshua Lee Amundson 3,142.37 983.15 742.00 37.10 1,762.25 4,904.62
Adam N. Andrews 735.34 270.30 204.00 10.20 484.50 1,219.84
Gerald J. Andrews 0.00 4,025.35 3,038.00 151.90 7,215.25 7,215.25
Justin Clay Andrews 556.42 227.90 172.00 8.60 408.50 964.92
John Henry Arendall 61,393.70 20,564.00 15,520.00 776.00 36,860.00 98,253.70
William Daniel Armstrong 50,296.60 33,860.38 25,555.00 1,277.75 60,693.13 110,989.73
Joshua Matthew Arnold 6,774.46 2,704.33 2,041.00 102.05 4,847.38 11,621.84
Jeffrey Kyle Averette 4,894.88 4,780.60 3,608.00 180.40 8,569.00 13,463.88
Jonathan Royce Averette 9,224.62 4,621.60 3,488.00 174.40 8,284.00 17,508.62
Randolph P. Bacchus 19,085.44 6,321.58 4,771.00 238.55 11,331.13 30,416.57
Bradley Allen Bailey 203.28 63.60 48.00 2.40 114.00 317.28
Christopher W. Bailey 5,871.53 2,143.85 1,618.00 80.90 3,842.75 9,714.28
Coty Jared Bailey 6,714.24 2,683.13 2,025.00 101.25 4,809.38 11,523.62
Phillip Edward Bailey 19,719.03 10,230.33 7,721.00 386.05 18,337.38 38,056.41
Robert Paul Bailey 934.92 352.45 266.00 13.30 631.75 1,566.67
Steven C. Bailey 0.00 283.55 214.00 10.70 508.25 508.25
Willie S. Baines, Jr. 1,822.68 646.60 488.00 24.40 1,159.00 2,981.68
Carlton D. Barker, Jr. 19,283.31 8,008.30 6,044.00 302.30 14,354.60 33,637.91
JD(ATL)–02–10
15
Employee Total
Backpay
H & W
Fund
Pension
Fund
Education
Fund
Total Fund
Contributions
Total
Backpay &
Fund
Contributions
Burney C. Barnes IV 0.00 328.60 48.00 12.40 389.00 389.00
Donald L. Barnette 88,390.16 44,990.38 33,955.00 1,697.75 80,643.13 169,033.29
Javier Barrera 14,096.88 9,628.78 7,267.00 363.35 17,259.13 31,356.01
Richard Allen Beckham 0.00 26.50 20.00 1.00 47.50 47.50
Eric Shane Beech 1,093.43 447.85 338.00 16.90 802.75 1,896.18
Joey L. Beech 1,245.09 389.55 294.00 14.70 698.25 1,943.34
Michael Chad Bennett 222.72 84.80 64.00 3.20 152.00 374.72
Jason K. Black 1,672.80 540.60 408.00 20.40 969.00 2,641.80
Henry Williams Blevins 3,761.10 1,669.50 1,260.00 63.00 2,992.50 6,753.60
Lovevan Bolden 19,514.55 6,488.53 4,897.00 244.85 11,630.38 31,144.93
Gregory Scott Boles 0.00 503.50 380.00 19.00 902.50 902.50
Dale Russell Booth 1,282.67 1,939.80 1,464.00 73.20 3,477.00 4,759.67
Nicolas Ryan Boothe 2,886.79 1,342.23 1,013.00 50.65 2,405.88 5,292.67
Paul Emmett Botter, Jr. 5,674.90 1,775.50 1,340.00 67.00 3,182.50 8,857.40
John S. Bowden 4,565.76 1,576.75 1,190.00 59.50 2,826.25 7,392.01
James Eric Bozone 533.61 166.95 126.00 6.30 299.25 832.86
Gregory Bramlett 53,006.31 22,786.03 17,197.00 859.85 40,842.88 93,849.19
Gerry E. Brannon 5,722.02 2,029.90 1,532.00 76.60 3,638.50 9,360.52
Alan L. Branton 5,998.06 14,062.23 10,613.00 530.65 25,205.88 31,203.94
Craig Michael Breland 2,992.52 837.40 632.00 31.60 1,501.00 4,493.52
Henry Michael Breland 8,102.78 5,314.58 4,011.00 200.55 9,526.13 17,628.91
Matthew Breland 8,285.88 3,142.90 2,372.00 118.60 5,633.50 13,919.38
Darrell K. Brewer 4,249.09 15,738.35 11,878.00 593.90 28,210.25 32,459.34
Charles Dwight Briggs 4,192.43 1,714.55 1,294.00 64.70 3,073.25 7,265.68
Elbert B. Briggs, Jr. 1,546.64 734.05 554.00 27.70 1,315.75 2,862.39
Troy P. Brock 1,701.61 641.30 484.00 24.20 1,149.50 2,851.11
John Wesley Brock, Jr. 11,246.75 3,843.83 2,901.00 145.05 6,889.88 18,136.63
Richard S. Bromley 1,314.72 466.40 352.00 17.60 836.00 2,150.72
Byron B. Brooks 2,466.69 947.38 715.00 35.75 1,698.13 4,164.82
Justin Curtis Brooks 8,510.63 3,211.80 2,424.00 121.20 5,757.00 14,267.63
Chad Austin Brown 2,597.24 993.75 750.00 37.50 1,781.25 4,378.49
Jerome Brown 2,943.18 1,044.10 788.00 39.40 1,871.50 4,814.68
Michael Anthony Brown 51,644.77 62,555.90 47,212.00 2,360.60 112,128.50 163,773.27
William C. Browne 1,151.92 360.40 272.00 13.60 646.00 1,797.92
Seth Adam Buckles 1,823.52 694.30 524.00 26.20 1,244.50 3,068.02
Jeremy D. Burns 516.41 222.60 168.00 8.40 399.00 915.41
Andrew Scott Burt 48,027.85 58,091.98 43,843.00 2,192.15 104,127.13 152,154.98
Dewuane Lamar Busby 2,027.22 598.90 452.00 22.60 1,073.50 3,100.72
William Anthony Byrd 7,934.53 3,470.18 2,619.00 130.95 6,220.13 14,154.66
Gregory DeWayne Byrge 355.55 159.00 120.00 6.00 285.00 640.55
Quarre S. Calhoun 0.00 609.50 460.00 23.00 1,092.50 1,092.50
Elmer E. Callhan III 143.52 42.40 32.00 1.60 76.00 219.52
Chad Daniel Calloway 2,678.00 950.03 717.00 35.85 1,702.88 4,380.88
Steven Michael Campbell 718.17 275.60 208.00 10.40 494.00 1,212.17
James L. Cansler 4,722.03 1,477.38 1,115.00 55.75 2,648.13 7,370.16
Steven Ross Caraway 1,911.89 739.35 558.00 27.90 1,325.25 3,237.14
Robert D. Carpenter 0.00 1,832.48 1,383.00 69.15 3,284.63 3,284.63
Tyler Stacey Carpenter 902.94 535.30 404.00 20.20 959.50 1,862.44
JD(ATL)–02–10
16
Employee Total
Backpay
H & W
Fund
Pension
Fund
Education
Fund
Total Fund
Contributions
Total Backpay
& Fund
Contributions
Jerry Douglas Carr 8,104.32 3,731.20 2,816.00 140.80 6,688.00 14,792.32
Daryle Edward Carter 347.27 108.65 82.00 4.10 194.75 542.02
Tracy Delaney Chambers 1,548.77 8,071.90 6,092.00 304.60 14,468.50 16,017.27
Beau James Chautin 3,384.30 1,270.68 959.00 47.95 2,277.63 5,661.93
Timothy Chestang 1,927.15 539.28 407.00 20.35 966.63 2,893.78
Ricky Shane Clark 56,219.12 44,186.76 33,348.50 1,667.43 79,202.69 135,421.82
William Blake Clark 1,106.64 421.35 318.00 15.90 755.25 1,861.89
Steve L. Clark, Jr. 25,643.03 8,301.13 6,265.00 313.25 14,879.38 40,522.41
Herman Wesley Clary III 80,809.21 48,830.23 36,853.00 1,842.65 87,525.88 168,335.09
George Cobb 151.52 42.40 32.00 1.60 76.00 227.52
Rodney I. Connell 8,386.80 3,125.68 2,359.00 117.95 5,602.63 13,989.43
James Dustin Cook 6,520.44 2,329.35 1,758.00 87.90 4,175.25 10,695.69
Benjamon Ok Cooley 5,667.72 2,196.85 1,658.00 82.90 3,937.75 9,605.47
James D. Cooper 440.73 156.35 118.00 5.90 280.25 720.98
James Harvey Cowart 1,581.66 588.30 444.00 22.20 1,054.50 2,636.16
William Scott Cowling 2,360.93 16,946.75 12,790.00 639.50 30,376.25 32,737.18
Kevin Cramer 8,283.80 2,447.28 1,847.00 92.35 4,386.63 12,670.43
John Roland Criswell III 31,423.28 10,993.53 8,297.00 414.85 19,705.38 51,128.66
Shane Powell Crowson 7,744.58 3,215.78 2,427.00 121.35 5,764.13 13,508.71
Kenneth Lee Cushman 429.84 190.80 144.00 7.20 342.00 771.84
Tommy Dahl 9,662.45 4,143.28 3,127.00 156.35 7,426.63 17,089.08
Gary A. D’Angelo 5,691.84 1,780.80 1,344.00 67.20 3,192.00 8,883.84
Brent Colin Daughdrill 4,683.69 2,241.91 1,692.00 84.60 4,018.51 8,702.20
Cecil P. Davidson 0.00 1,499.90 1,132.00 56.60 2,688.50 2,688.50
Donald Wayne Davidson 248.22 333.90 252.00 12.60 598.50 846.72
Jason Bernard Davis 2,679.04 1,154.08 871.00 43.55 2,068.63 4,747.67
Jeffrey B. Davison 515.04 196.10 148.00 7.40 351.50 866.54
Joshua Aaron Deakle 1,931.54 2,053.75 1,550.00 77.50 3,681.25 5,612.79
Cecil L. Daw, Jr. 534.11 189.48 143.00 7.15 339.63 873.74
Scott J. DeRouen 7,027.40 4,978.03 3,757.00 187.85 8,922.88 15,950.28
Keith Alan Dickerson 355.37 210.68 159.00 7.95 377.63 733.00
Lance Eliott Diehl 310.56 127.20 96.00 4.80 228.00 538.56
Samuel David Doggett 6,319.68 2,395.60 1,808.00 90.40 4,294.00 10,613.68
Jerry Mason DuBoise, Jr. 3,092.66 1,150.10 868.00 43.40 2,061.50 5,154.16
Michael Shane Duckworth 67,903.96 53,328.60 40,248.00 2,012.40 95,589.00 163,492.96
Robert Allen Duke 3,744.48 1,401.85 1,058.00 52.90 2,512.75 6,257.23
Edward Lee Dunlap 13,708.49 4,837.58 3,651.00 182.55 8,671.13 22,379.62
James L. Dykes, Jr. 0.00 830.78 627.00 31.35 1,489.13 1,489.13
Michael Shane Easterling 430.56 127.20 96.00 4.80 228.00 658.56
Philip L. Edmonds 42,673.34 25,913.03 19,557.00 977.85 46,447.88 89,121.22
Vance C. Edwards 17,079.97 10,675.53 8,057.00 402.85 19,135.38 36,215.35
Brian James Ellis 1,646.04 622.75 470.00 23.50 1,116.25 2,762.29
Frankie L. Ellis 2,265.73 708.88 535.00 26.75 1,270.63 3,536.36
Michael R. Ellis 7,273.12 5,554.40 4,192.00 209.60 9,956.00 17,229.12
Marcus Heath Emerson 14,147.64 5,734.60 4,328.00 216.40 10,279.00 24,426.64
James Kevin Emmons 1,843.95 692.98 523.00 26.15 1,242.13 3,086.08
Charles M. Farley 26,215.88 11,853.45 8,946.00 447.30 21,246.75 47,462.63
Noah A. Farley 5,742.13 2,175.65 1,642.00 82.10 3,899.75 9,641.88
Richard Chad Faulkner 12,122.69 9,260.43 6,989.00 349.45 16,598.88 28,721.57
JD(ATL)–02–10
17
Employee Total
Backpay
H & W
Fund
Pension
Fund
Education
Fund
Total Fund
Contributions
Total
Backpay &
Fund
Contributions
Fred W. Ficklin 203.28 63.60 48.00 2.40 114.00 317.28
Corey Lee Finley 0.00 185.50 140.00 7.00 332.50 332.50
Robert Samuel Fleming 7,890.30 2,623.50 1,980.00 99.00 4,702.50 12,592.80
Matthew L. Flint 7,890.30 2,623.50 1,980.00 99.00 4,702.50 12,592.80
Russell A. Flowers 56,004.21 100,381.34 75,759.50 3,787.98 179,928.82 235,933.03
Steve D. Foster 14,580.84 5,115.83 3,861.00 193.05 9,169.88 23,750.72
Gordon Wayne Fowler 3,314.52 2,957.40 2,232.00 111.60 5,301.00 8,615.52
Markal G. Fowler 5,377.01 2,604.95 1,966.00 98.30 4,669.25 10,046.26
Kenneth Paul Foxhall 511.13 209.35 158.00 7.90 375.25 886.38
Joey Wayne Freeman 18,539.57 5,812.78 4,387.00 219.35 10,419.13 28,958.70
Aaron James Frye 7,629.33 3,021.00 2,280.00 114.00 5,415.00 13,044.33
Bradley G. Gartman 4,981.22 1,393.90 1,052.00 52.60 2,498.50 7,479.72
Adrian Garza 8,747.37 2,867.30 2,164.00 108.20 5,139.50 13,886.87
Joel Garza 14,559.34 5,783.63 4,365.00 218.25 10,366.88 24,926.22
Manuel Garza 7,253.55 2,938.85 2,218.00 110.90 5,267.75 12,521.30
Manuel Garza Garza 23,803.89 9,434.00 7,120.00 356.00 16,910.00 40,713.89
Eric LaShaun Gibson 11,452.79 4,387.08 3,311.00 165.55 7,863.63 19,316.42
John Gindle 1,370.04 4,135.33 3,121.00 156.05 7,412.38 8,782.42
Frank W. Glass 1,965.04 614.80 464.00 23.20 1,102.00 3,067.04
Jimmie Jerome Goggins 0.00 18,934.38 14,290.10 714.51 33,938.99 33,938.99
Leonard Bruce Goldman 3,850.91 1,995.45 1,506.00 75.30 3,576.75 7,427.66
Jimmy Wayne Goodman 769.13 726.10 548.00 27.40 1,301.50 2,070.63
John David Grant Goodman 1,824.25 863.90 652.00 32.60 1,548.50 3,372.75
James Payton Goodwin 10,577.10 4,022.70 3,036.00 151.80 7,210.50 17,787.60
Benjamin Adam Gordon 7,298.18 2,683.13 2,025.00 101.25 4,809.38 12,107.56
Andrew Douglas Gore 3,497.04 1,391.25 1,050.00 52.50 2,493.75 5,990.79
Joshua Earl Grantham 4,995.40 2,004.73 1,513.00 75.65 3,593.38 8,588.78
Michael Lamar Griffin 1,902.18 779.10 588.00 29.40 1,396.50 3,298.68
Shawn Kyle Griffin 2,211.65 1,054.70 796.00 39.80 1,890.50 4,102.15
Curtis Lamar Grimes 33,413.81 15,058.63 11,365.00 568.25 29,991.88 60,405.69
Jason A. Guy 4,862.85 1,360.78 1,027.00 51.35 2,439.13 7,301.98
James Floyd Guy II 3,244.65 16,732.10 12,628.00 631.40 29,991.50 33,236.15
Bradley Ray Hall 2,907.29 813.55 614.00 30.70 1,458.25 4,365.54
Duffy W. Hall 12,904.64 9,457.85 7,138.00 356.90 16,952.75 29,857.39
Randal Shane Hamblin 1,340.88 874.50 660.00 33.00 1,567.50 2,908.38
Terry A. Hamilton 142.89 54.33 41.00 2.05 97.38 240.27
Terry Allen Hamilton 611.42 250.43 189.00 9.45 448.88 1,060.30
Timothy Paul Hammac 338.80 106.00 80.00 4.00 190.00 528.80
Timothy Jason Harbin 7,977.96 2,830.20 2,136.00 106.80 5,073.00 13,050.96
Charles Edward Harrell 4,751.67 1,486.65 1,122.00 56.10 2,664.75 7,416.42
Dustin Elliott Harrell 303.59 140.45 106.00 5.30 251.75 555.34
Terrell Lane Harris 4,417.80 1,696.00 1,280.00 64.00 3,040.00 7,457.80
James Howard Harrison 440.73 156.35 118.00 5.90 280.25 720.98
Dana Edward Hartley 984.88 275.60 208.00 10.40 494.00 1,478.88
Walter B. Harvison 504.66 206.70 156.00 7.80 370.50 875.16
Todd Edison Hawkins 0.00 42,150.23 31,811.50 1,590.58 75,552.31 75,552.31
Richard Leo Headrick 5,293.08 1,958.35 1,478.00 73.90 3,510.25 8,803.33
Robert Keith Hedgepeth 0.00 44,447.80 33,545.50 1,677.28 79,670.58 79,670.58
JD(ATL)–02–10
18
Employee Total
Backpay
H & W
Fund
Pension
Fund
Education
Fund
Total Fund
Contributions
Total
Backpay &
Fund
Contributions
John Hedrick 1,861.02 3,354.90 2,532.00 126.60 6,013.50 7,874.52
Aaron Michael Hedstrom 11,120.07 4,497.05 3,394.00 169.70 8,060.75 19,180.82
Jonathan D. Herring 871.01 418.70 316.00 15.80 750.50 1,621.51
Russell Lee Herring 51,163.38 83,511.44 63,027.50 3,151.38 149,690.32 200,853.70
Matthew M. Hess 675.12 257.05 194.00 9.70 460.75 1,135.87
Kenneth Higdon, Jr. 0.00 612.15 462.00 23.10 1,097.25 1,097.25
Jesse B. Higginbotham 563.41 272.95 206.00 10.30 489.25 1,052.66
John Cecil Hill 4,140.18 1,555.55 1,174.00 58.70 2,788.25 6,928.43
Wesley P. Hodge 517.60 212.00 160.00 8.00 380.00 897.60
Eric D. Holderfield 5,856.84 2,222.03 1,677.00 83.85 3,982.88 9,839.72
Michael Jack Holliman 30,669.98 12,881.66 9,722.00 486.10 23,089.76 53,759.74
John T. Holloman 14,442.50 7,310.03 5,517.00 275.85 13,102.88 27,545.38
Garrett Homan 733.24 243.80 184.00 9.20 437.00 1,170.24
Clifton Reed Horn 1,558.00 503.50 380.00 19.00 902.50 2,460.50
Tracy Jerome Horn 6,435.98 1,901.38 1,435.00 71.75 3,408.13 9,844.11
Levi Horn, Jr. 107,570.23 42,147.59 31,809.50 1,590.48 75,547.57 183,117.80
Jason Marlin Hoven 35,354.75 33,287.98 25,123.00 1,256.15 59,667.13 95,021.88
Leonard Chapman Hoven 33,920.84 19,774.30 14,924.00 746.20 35,444.50 69,365.34
Emmanuel Lamar Howle 847.85 408.10 308.00 15.40 731.50 1,579.35
Eric Shane Hubbert 12,581.78 5,061.50 3,820.00 191.00 9,072.50 21,654.28
Jeremy Michael Hudson 4,014.18 1,495.93 1,129.00 56.45 2,681.38 6,695.56
John Austin Huggins 8,190.18 2,990.53 2,257.00 112.85 5,360.38 13,550.56
Justin Cole Hyatt 1,021.52 483.63 365.00 18.25 866.88 1,888.40
Anthony Curtis Ingram 9,830.04 3,381.40 2,552.00 127.60 6,061.00 15,891.04
James Danny Ivy 1,229.30 503.50 380.00 19.00 902.50 2,131.80
Ricky D. Ivy 1,745.43 580.35 438.00 21.90 1,040.25 2,785.68
Robert T. Jernigan 511.29 151.05 114.00 5.70 270.75 782.04
Charles U. Jockisch 6,596.26 12,525.23 9,453.00 472.65 22,450.88 29,047.14
Jerry L. Jockisch 10,839.91 4,910.45 3,706.00 185.30 8,801.75 19,641.66
David Maurice Johnson 8,545.92 4,312.88 3,255.00 162.75 7,730.63 16,276.55
Jason Johnson 8,545.92 4,312.88 3,255.00 162.75 7,730.63 16,276.55
Jearl Morris Johnson 0.00 4,495.73 3,393.00 169.65 8,058.38 8,058.38
Jonathan C. Johnson 2,084.07 895.70 676.00 33.80 1,605.50 3,689.57
Bobby C. Jones 6,190.76 2,116.03 1,597.00 79.85 3,792.88 9,983.64
Gary L. Jones 1,966.88 805.60 608.00 30.40 1,444.00 3,410.88
Joseph R. Jones 220.22 68.90 52.00 2.60 123.50 343.72
Michael J. Jones 30,278.07 30,249.75 22,830.00 1,141.50 54,221.25 84,499.32
Randolph Vernon Jones 21,684.51 8,523.73 6,433.00 321.65 15,278.38 36,962.89
Robert Anthony Jones 674.90 445.20 336.00 16.80 798.00 1,472.90
Curtis William Jordan 8,655.58 2,422.10 1,828.00 91.40 4,341.50 12,997.08
James T. Keebler 745.36 233.20 176.00 8.80 418.00 1,163.36
Brian David Kennedy 4,871.52 1,990.15 1,502.00 75.10 3,567.25 8,438.77
Kenneth D. Kilburn 6,538.49 2,966.68 2,239.00 111.95 5,317.63 11,856.12
Johnny A. Kinbrough, Jr. 135.52 42.40 32.00 1.60 76.00 211.52
Michael Len Kirksey 7,089.50 4,538.13 3,425.00 171.25 8,134.38 15,223.88
Albert E. Kittrell 0.00 5,232.43 3,949.00 197.45 9,378.88 9,378.88
David Leon Kling 82,623.64 38,837.08 29,311.00 1,465.55 69,613.63 152,237.27
George Norman Kling, Jr. 81,185.01 44,025.78 33,227.00 1,661.35 78,914.13 160,099.14
JD(ATL)–02–10
19
Employee Total
Backpay
H & W
Fund
Pension
Fund
Education
Fund
Total Fund
Contributions
Total
Backpay &
Fund
Contributions
Jeremi R. Knapp 3,271.20 1,156.73 873.00 43.65 2,073.38 5,344.58
Joshua Lewayne Knapp 4,206.40 1,497.25 1,130.00 56.50 2,683.75 6,890.15
Marcus Allen Koester 1,242.24 498.20 376.00 18.80 893.00 2,135.24
Nick Kofonis 0.00 657.20 496.00 24.80 1,178.00 1,178.00
Gregory Glen Kohn 835.20 318.00 240.00 12.00 570.00 1,405.20
Charles C. Kyle 9,462.83 2,620.85 1,978.00 98.90 4,697.75 14,160.58
Edward M. Kyle 57,905.96 19,481.48 14,703.00 735.15 34,919.63 92,825.59
Charles R. LaCombe II 39.40 53.00 40.00 2.00 95.00 134.40
Matthew Thomas Ladner 181.16 74.20 56.00 2.80 133.00 314.16
Jeremy Lane Ladnier 15,674.93 8,065.26 6,087.00 304.35 14,456.61 30,131.54
David Lahman 1,677.06 524.70 396.00 19.80 940.50 2,617.56
Brian Steven Lane 135.52 42.40 32.00 1.60 76.00 211.52
Bradley L. Latham 151.52 42.40 32.00 1.60 76.00 227.52
Harold Lawshe 0.00 1,669.50 1,260.00 63.00 2,992.50 2,992.50
Harold Lee Lawshe 0.00 177.55 134.00 6.70 318.25 318.25
Joseph R. Lawshe 4,693.50 2,782.50 2,100.00 105.00 4,987.50 9,681.00
Samuel Alex Lawson 1,373.58 13,391.78 10,107.00 505.35 24,004.13 25,377.71
Paul Samuel Leckie 135.93 182.86 138.00 6.90 327.76 463.69
Daniel Charles Ledbetter 948.64 296.80 224.00 11.20 532.00 1,480.64
Richard A. Lee 631.22 219.95 166.00 8.30 394.25 1,025.47
Justin Haas Lins 6,362.47 2,440.65 1,842.00 92.10 4,374.75 10,737.22
Homer Jason Lloyd 306.24 116.60 88.00 4.40 209.00 515.24
Gene Ray Lloyd, Jr. 3,936.43 1,184.55 894.00 44.70 2,123.25 6,059.68
Daryl Wayne Loper 4,569.24 1,688.05 1,274.00 63.70 3,025.75 7,594.99
John Carl Lott 8,981.88 3,124.35 2,358.00 117.90 5,600.25 14,582.13
Michael R. Lott 11,772.12 3,523.18 2,659.00 132.95 6,315.13 18,087.25
Cleveland Lee Mack 5,907.00 2,282.98 1,723.00 86.15 4,092.13 9,999.13
Jeremy Dewayne Malone 1,175.61 696.95 526.00 26.30 1,249.25 2,424.86
Kerry M. Manning 449.03 219.95 166.00 8.30 394.25 843.28
William Barkley Markham 1,287.36 763.20 576.00 28.80 1,368.00 2,655.36
Trae Kelley Marlow 0.00 270.30 204.00 10.20 484.50 484.50
Stephen Ryan Massey 1,608.08 897.03 677.00 33.85 1,607.88 3,215.96
Donald W. Matthews, Jr. 1,259.26 418.70 316.00 15.80 750.50 2,009.76
William Thomas Mayo 1,136.40 318.00 240.00 12.00 570.00 1,706.40
Ryan Eugene McAll 4,541.40 1,592.65 1,202.00 60.10 2,854.75 7,396.15
Michael C. McCord 303.40 98.05 74.00 3.70 175.75 479.15
Brandon Antoine McCoy 2,841.72 1,158.05 874.00 43.70 2,075.75 4,917.47
Broderick Lexar McCoy 1,435.79 590.95 446.00 22.30 1,059.25 2,495.04
Chris McDonald 22,890.66 7,963.25 6,010.00 300.50 14,273.75 37,164.41
Mark Wayne McDonald 0.00 901.00 680.00 34.00 1,615.00 1,615.00
Chad Wayne McDuffie 1,536.63 604.20 456.00 22.80 1,083.00 2,619.63
Joshua Ray McDuffie 4,941.60 1,788.75 1,350.00 67.50 3,206.25 8,147.85
Craig James McEachrom 12,036.56 8,905.33 6,721.00 336.05 15,962.38 27,998.94
Tillman Roland McGeehee 4,603.22 1,521.10 1,148.00 57.40 2,726.50 7,329.72
Chris E. McGinnis 2,032.80 636.00 480.00 24.00 1,140.00 3,172.80
Edward McGrew 6,334.22 14,840.00 11,200.00 560.00 26,600.00 32,934.22
Teddy D. McIlwain 7,958.76 5,586.20 4,216.00 210.80 10,013.00 17,971.76
William Anthony McIlwain 6,049.96 2,300.20 1,736.00 86.80 4,123.00 10,172.96
JD(ATL)–02–10
20
Employee Total
Backpay
H & W
Fund
Pension
Fund
Education
Fund
Total Fund
Contributions
Total
Backpay &
Fund
Contributions
George Douglas McKensie 4,398.72 1,616.50 1,220.00 61.00 2,897.50 7,296.22
James L. McKensie 2,816.70 874.50 660.00 33.00 1,567.50 4,384.20
Gary A. McLain 2,570.65 776.45 586.00 29.30 1,391.75 3,962.40
Joshua Blake McLaughlin 9,326.40 3,423.80 2,584.00 129.20 6,137.00 15,463.40
William Chase McNair 9,824.22 3,635.80 2,744.00 137.20 6,517.00 16,341.22
Myles Joseph McNichol 8,452.31 2,998.48 2,263.00 113.15 5,374.63 13,826.94
Christopher M. Miller 75.76 21.20 16.00 0.80 38.00 113.76
Steven Eugene Millsaps 411.51 1,649.63 1,245.00 62.25 2,956.88 3,368.39
Vincent M. Minar 2,554.30 808.25 610.00 30.50 1,448.75 4,003.05
Abraham Mitchell 23,604.39 8,766.20 6,616.00 330.80 15,713.00 39,317.39
Jerry Wayne Mohren, Jr. 44,886.10 66,958.88 50,535.00 2,526.75 120,020.63 164,906.73
Jack R. Moiren 0.00 2,140.54 1,615.50 80.78 3,836.82 3,836.82
Jerome David Moiren 14,623.61 7,952.66 6,002.00 300.10 14,254.76 28,878.37
Donald Jason Morgan 69.70 26.50 20.00 1.00 47.50 117.20
Bobby L. Mosley 5,050.11 1,491.95 1,126.00 56.30 2,674.25 7,724.36
Christopher Aaron Mudd 32,160.22 15,986.13 12,065.00 603.25 28,654.38 60,814.60
Fred Gene Murphy 167.16 74.20 56.00 2.80 133.00 300.16
Timothy Earl Murray 849.12 323.30 244.00 12.20 579.50 1,428.62
Michael William Myles 5,611.50 2,007.38 1,515.00 75.75 3,598.13 9,209.63
Deundrak Leshun Napier 11,136.00 4,070.40 3,072.00 153.60 7,296.00 18,432.00
Joshua Quentin Napier 1,306.09 559.15 422.00 21.10 1,002.25 2,308.34
Tracy Napier 7,471.62 6,071.15 4,582.00 229.10 10,882.25 18,353.87
Adam Lane Neighbors 897.00 265.00 200.00 10.00 475.00 1,372.00
Dustin Baker Nelson 14,666.46 8,807.28 6,647.00 332.35 15,786.63 30,453.09
Jessie Frank Nelson 16,615.69 9,222.00 6,960.00 348.00 16,530.00 33,145.69
Samuel Wade Nelson 20,325.20 36,933.05 27,874.00 1,393.70 66,200.75 86,525.95
Ronald Allen Newman II 101.20 49.03 37.00 1.85 87.88 189.08
Grant C. Nichols 66,743.77 63,153.48 47,663.00 2,383.15 113,199.63 179,943.40
Robert Nichols 243.54 217.30 164.00 8.20 389.50 633.04
Jeremy Richard Nolan 1,360.68 500.85 378.00 18.90 897.75 2,258.43
Michael Ryan Nolen 1,014.69 491.58 371.00 18.55 881.13 1,895.82
Jatten R. Norris 6,525.00 2,435.35 1,838.00 91.90 4,365.25 10,890.25
Jonathan Reeves Odom 299.28 113.95 86.00 4.30 204.25 503.53
Salomon Vasquez Olguin 15,268.28 5,990.33 4,521.00 226.05 10,737.38 26,005.66
Daniel Lee Oliveira 857.31 325.95 246.00 12.30 584.25 1,441.56
Joseph Edward Owens 1,112.73 311.38 235.00 11.75 558.13 1,670.86
Joseph Hayden Owens 537.01 206.70 156.00 7.80 370.50 907.51
Anthony Jabari Owes 922.20 328.60 248.00 12.40 589.00 1,511.20
Jerome C. Page 868.18 271.63 205.00 10.25 486.88 1,355.06
Alan Fank Parden 103.52 42.40 32.00 1.60 76.00 179.52
Carlton W. Parker 0.00 1,007.00 760.00 38.00 1,805.00 1,805.00
Matthew Brent Parnell 1,910.52 702.25 530.00 26.50 1,258.75 3,169.27
Dwight D. Patteson 1,956.04 837.40 632.00 31.60 1,501.00 3,457.04
Edward Harold Pegg III 2,727.45 1,018.93 769.00 38.45 1,826.38: 4,553.83
Marvin Peterson 9,456.90 3,337.68 2,519.00 125.95 5,982.63 15,439.53
James Glenn Philen 23,841.08 31,146.78 23,507.00 1,175.35 55,829.13 79,670.21
Steven Blake Phillips 30,467.41 13,325.53 10,057.00 502.85 23,885.38 54,352.79
Thomas Chad Phillips 16,131.03 6,181.13 4,665.00 233.25 11,079.38 27,210.41
JD(ATL)–02–10
21
Employee Total
Backpay
H & W
Fund
Pension
Fund
Education
Fund
Total Fund
Contributions
Total
Backpay &
Fund
Contributions
Zachary E. Phillips 13,352.76 4,788.55 3,614.00 180.70 8,583.25 21,936.01
Anthony Dewayne Pierce 0.00 7,443.85 5,618.00 280.90 13,342.75 13,342.75
Jason A. Pierce 6,304.68 1,998.10 1,508.00 75.40 3,581.50 9,886.18
Justin Carl Pierce 9,802.25 4,481.16 3,382.00 169.10 8,032.26 17,834.51
Samuel L. Pierce 407.12 144.43 109.00 5.45 258.88 666.00
Daryl Lynn Poole 11,314.53 13,866.13 10,465.00 523.25 24,854.38 36,168.91
Dustin Ray Powell 769.93 315.35 238.00 11.90 565.25 1,335.18
Ronald Dale Price, Jr. 601.71 246.45 186.00 9.30 441.75 1,043.46
Michael Price–Williams 3,418.67 956.65 722.00 36.10 1,714.75 5,133.42
Timothy W. Primm 2,710.40 848.00 640.00 32.00 1,520.00 4,230.40
Latonio K. Pritchett 993.51 320.65 242.00 12.10 574.75 1,568.26
Kevin Ronald Pugh 7,695.00 2,407.53 1,817.00 90.85 4,315.38 12,010.38
Joseph Patrick Ray 0.00 35.78 27.00 1.35 64.13 64.13
Donald Gordon Reed 20,048.34 7,047.68 5,319.00 265.95 12,632.63 32,680.97
Douglas Alan Reed 10,319.36 17,988.20 13,576.00 678.80 32,243.00 42,562.36
Jonathan D. Reed 522.06 348.48 263.00 13.15 624.63 1,146.69
Ronald V. Reed 17,561.39 34,814.38 26,275.00 1,313.75 62,403.13 79,964.52
David G. Reed III 51,273.00 23,131.85 17,458.00 872.90 41,462.75 92,735.75
David Gordon Reed, Jr. 5,621.94 23,166.30 17,484.00 874.20 41,524.50 47,146.44
Michael Shane Rester 1,051.17 294.15 222.00 11.10 527.25 1,578.42
Jacob K. Reynolds 2,446.47 916.90 692.00 34.60 1,643.50 4,089.97
Dale Rayburn Richard II 634.06 251.75 190.00 9.50 451.25 1,085.31
James Steven Richardson 2,898.87 1,142.15 862.00 43.10 2,047.25 4,946.12
Joshua Keith Richardson 4,639.39 3,221.08 2,431.00 121.55 5,773.63 10,413.02
John C. Rimmer 6,625.00 2,615.55 1,974.00 98.70 4,688.25 11,313.25
Keith Allen Robinson 592.90 185.50 140.00 7.00 332.50 925.40
Timothy M. Robinson 2,533.44 906.30 684.00 34.20 1,624.50 4,157.94
Michael W. Rodgers 59.40 53.00 40.00 2.00 95.00 154.40
Joshua Ryan Rogers 2,115.84 777.78 587.00 29.35 1,394.13 3,509.97
Harvey Rogers, Jr. 2,644.71 1,053.38 795.00 39.75 1,888.13 4,532.84
Richard Howard Roper 2,561.28 975.20 736.00 36.80 1,748.00 4,309.28
Jerome M. Roscoe 0.00 1,682.75 1,270.00 63.50 3,016.25 3,016.25
Richard Roscoe 708.76 796.33 601.00 30.05 1,427.38 2,136.14
Eric Bradley Rush 0.00 14,127.16 10,662.00 771.62 25,560.78 25,560.78
Kevin Wayne Rush 5,796.60 14,604.82 11,022.50 806.77 26,434.09 32,230.69
Justin H. Safarin 2,825.76 1,036.15 782.00 39.10 1,857.25 4,683.01
Julio Sanchez 7,458.29 2,900.43 2,189.00 109.45 5,198.88 12,657.17
Joshua L. Sanders 37,321.11 22,328.90 16,852.00 842.60 40,023.50 77,344.61
Steven Gerard Schwent 1,697.40 1,081.20 816.00 40.80 1,938.00 3,635.40
Charles Jason Scott 7,496.15 2,659.28 2,007.00 100.35 4,766.63 12,262.78
Johah Lasagne Scott 5,261.61 3,009.08 2,271.00 113.55 5,393.63 10,655.24
Jamie Ryan Seale 57.34 312.70 236.00 11.80 560.50 617.84
James A. Serritelli, Jr. 254.10 79.50 60.00 3.00 142.50 396.60
Grady D. Sexton 1,567.36 592.28 447.00 22.35 1,061.63 2,628.99
Marc Lee Shamp 1,685.44 633.35 478.00 23.90 1,135.25 2,820.69
John Benjamin Shelby 5,048.87 2,811.65 2,122.00 106.10 5,039.75 10,088.62
Zachary Shontreal Shell 1,883.54 760.55 574.00 28.70 1,363.25 3,246.79
James Monroe Shinkle 12,382.61 4,666.65 3,522.00 176.10 8,364.75 20,747.36
JD(ATL)–02–10
22
Employee Total
Backpay
H & W
Fund
Pension
Fund
Education
Fund
Total Fund
Contributions
Total
Backpay &
Fund
Contributions
David Mitchell Shirah 0.00 17,437.00 13,160.00 977.20 31,574.20 31,574.20
Billy Joe Simmons 5,590.20 1,749.00 1,320.00 66.00 3,135.00 8,725.20
Josh T. Simmons 7,048.83 2,418.13 1,825.00 91.25 4,334.38 11,383.21
Fred Douglas Sims, Jr. 42,314.12 14,922.15 11,262.00 563.10 26,747.25 69,061.37
David W. Smith 3,603.57 1,347.53 1,017.00 50.85 2,415.38 6.018.95
Jamie Hunter Smith 608.18 225.25 170.00 8.50 403.75 1,011.93
Lawrence S. Smith 7,630.72 3,115.08 2,351.00 117.55 5,583.63 13,214.35
Sedrick L. Smith 3,189.69 1,131.55 854.00 42.70 2,028.25 5,217.94
Thomas Ray Smith 4,450.90 1,245.50 940.00 47.00 2,232.50 6,683.40
Vaudy Scott Smith 51.76 21.20 16.00 0.80 38.00 89.76
Clayton P. Smith, Jr. 19,102.39 17,089.85 12,898.00 987.14 30,974.99 50,077.38
Carlos Jose Socorro 23,866.18 10,394.63 7,845.00 525.93 18,765.56 42,631.74
Joshua T. Southerland 18,517.90 7,243.78 5,467.00 273.35 12,984.13 31,502.03
Samuel E. Southerland, Jr. 28,630.89 38,740.36 29,238.00 2,445.74 70,424.10 99,054.99
Brandon Grant Starling 108.78 174.90 132.00 6.60 313.50 422.28
Wm Randall Starling 0.00 174.90 132.00 6.60 313.50 313.50
David Scott Stearman, Jr. 2,785.01 1,094.45 826.00 41.30 1,961.75 4,746.76
Ronnie Sterling 0.00 1,538.33 1,161.00 58.05 2,757.38 2,757.38
Jason H. Sterns 465.85 145.75 110.00 5.50 261.25 727.10
Jesse Scott Stewart 2,924.63 1,028.20 776.00 38.80 1,843.00 4,767.63
Marlon Elliot Stiers 2,549.47 776.45 586.00 29.30 1,391.75 3,941.22
Terrell Harlan Still 1,132.25 413.40 312.00 15.60 741.00 1,873.25
Bennett Raye Stoker 8,128.42 3,937.90 2,972.00 148.60 7,058.50 15,186.92
Daniel Ryan Stokley 3,841.92 1,356.80 1,024.00 51.20 2,432.00 6,273.92
Timothy James Stormer 0.00 13,296.38 10,035.00 788.95 24,120.33 24,120.33
Jason P. Strickland 2,121.74 634.68 479.00 23.95 1,137.63 3,259.37
Charles J. Stringer 25,156.00 9,975.93 7,529.00 376.45 17,881.38 43,037.38
Stringfellow, Chad Allen 2,822.85 2,125.30 1,604.00 80.20 3,809.50 6,632.35
Michael A. Stringfellow 932.88 275.60 208.00 10.40 494.00 1,426.88
Stephen T. Stringfellow 15,830.98 5,837.95 4,406.00 220.30 10,464.25 26,295.23
James Ronald Stroud 0.00 11,632.18 8,779.00 438.95 20,850.13 20,850.13
Cbase Allen Sweatt 1,543.28 1,103.73 833.00 41.65 1,978.38 3,521.66
Jonathan W. Sullivan 424.83 765.85 578.00 28.90 1,372.75 1,797.58
Johnny D. Tapper, Jr. 45,785.66 80,801.15 60,982.00 5,314.06 147,097.21 192,882.87
Christopher M. Taylor 28,440.66 13,954.90 10,532.00 757.72 25,244.62 53,685.28
Patrick Lee Taylor 401.14 164.30 124.00 6.20 294.50 695.64
Steven Mark Taylor, Jr. 1,861.00 618.78 467.00 23.35 1,109.13 2,970.13
Thomas Lloyd Temple 5,722.02 2,029.90 1,532.00 76.60 3,638.50: 9,360.52
Philip Alan Thames 15,009.68 102,517.90 77,372.00 3,868.60 183,758.50 198,768.18
John H. Thomas 0.00 2,567.86 1,938.00 96.90 4,602.76 4,602.76
John Houston Thomas 0.00 1,058.68 799.00 39.45 1,897.13 1,897.13
Phillip E. Thornberg 14,240.16 5,191.35 3,918.00 195.90 9,305.25 23,545.41
George Kevin Thornton 3,224.57 1,515.80 1,144.00 57.20 2,717.00 5,941.57
Robert L. Tolito, Jr. 0.00 596.25 450.00 22.50 1,068.75 1,068.75
Mark Ellis Tuberville, Jr. 3,245.10 1,221.65 922.00 46.10 2,189.75 5,434.85
Charles Brady Tucker 13,749.48 5,016.45 3,786.00 189.30 8,991.75 22,741.23
Chris Kelly Tucker 18,636.75 7,618.75 5,750.00 287.50 13,656.25 32,293.00
James Tucker 1,628.64 583.00 440.00 22.00 1,045.00 2,673.64
JD(ATL)–02–10
23
Employee Total
Backpay
H & W
Fund
Pension
Fund
Education
Fund
Total Fund
Contributions
Total
Backpay &
Fund
Contributions
Adrian W. Turner 2,906.40 7,671.75 5,790.00 289.50 13,751.25 16,657.65
Levon Ray Turner 1,558.82 1,646.98 1,243.00 62.15 2,952.13 4,510.95
Michael David Turner 38,672.76 19,564.95 14,766.00 738.30 35,069.25 73,742.01
Russell Patrick Turner 2,625.35 896.36 676.50 33.83 1,606.69 4,232.04
Chad Guy Tyler 965.79 1,521.10 1,148.00 57.40 2,726.50 3,692.29
Aric Lee Vertrees 36,358.80 32,846.75 24,790.00 2,024.70 59,661.45 96,020.25
John T. Wade 283.75 88.78 67.00 3.35 159.13 442.88
Charles Kennedy Walters 5,129.01 92,800.35 70,038.00 3,501.90 166,340.25 171,469.26
Roy C. Ward 890.88 336.55 254.00 12.70 603.25 1,494.13
Jack T. Ward, Jr. 27,890.47 14,000.61 10,566.50 801.21 25,368.32 53,258.79
Michael Ware 508.20 159.00 120.00 6.00 285.00 793.20
Roderick Mortez Wash 0.00 1,540.98 1,163.00 58.15 2,762.13 2,762.13
Anthony Blake Wasylow 4,635.76 1,771.53 1,337.00 66.85 3,175.38 7,811.14
Jesse Steven Watkins 26,940.54 10,531.10 7,948.00 397.40 18,876.50 45,817.04
Shane Wesley Watson 8,360.90 3,682.18 2,779.00 138.95 6,600.13 14,961.03
Vincent Earl Watts 2,446.55 795.00 600.00 30.00 1,425.00 3,871.55
Robert J. Weatherly III 3,571.10 1,131.55 854.00 42.70 2,028.25 5,599.35
Phillip A. Weatherspoon 0.00 6,920.48 5,223.00 110.65 12,254.13 12,254.13
Anthony Elliott Weaver 7,784.76 2,932.23 2,213.00 199.17 5,344.40 13,129.16
Douglas Allen Weaver 571.88 324.63 245.00 12.25 581.88 1,153.76
James Weaver 5,387.58 1,942.45 1,466.00 73.30 3,481.75 8,869.33
Kimmie Rogers Weaver 1,973.95 700.26 528.50 26.43 1,255.19 3,229.14
Tony Elliott Weaver 1,155.36 439.90 332.00 16.60 788.50 1,943.86
Louis G. Weaver, Jr. 4,784.54 1,697.33 1,281.00 64.05 3,042.38 7,826.92
Brandon Michael Wells 889.63 352.45 266.00 13.30 631.75 1,521.38
Thomas Jerald Wells 0.00 43,677.30 32,964.00 2,780.92 79,422.22: 79,422.22
Earl E. Wheeler 34,846.43 23,751.95 17,926.00 1,435.10 43,113.05 77,959.48
Milton James Wheeler 2,644.75 1,136.85 858.00 42.90 2,037.75 4,682.50
Michael James White, Jr. 2,358.03 659.85 498.00 24.90 1,182.75 3,540.78
Christopher K. Wiggins 926.28 328.60 248.00 12.40 589.00 1,515.28
Randall Eric Wilbur 34,059.61 12,180.73 9,193.00 459.65 21,833.38 55,892.99
David A. Wilkerson, Jr. 478.78 196.10 148.00 7.40 351.50 830.28
Michael B. Willard 420.55 159.00 120.00 6.00 285.00 705.55
Adam Matthew Williams 1,357.20 516.75 390.00 19.50 926.25 2,283.45
Eric Shane Williams 14,167.98 6,366.63 4,805.00 240.25 11,411.88 25,579.86
Johnnie Russell Williams 167.04 63.60 48.00 2.40 114.00 281.04
Joshua Colby Williams 7,762.38 3,038.23 2,293.00 114.65 5,445.88 13,208.26
Michael Shane Williams 8,740.16 4,049.20 3,056.00 152.80 7,258.00 15,998.16
Patrick Henry Williams 18,437.28 17,993.50 13,580.00 1,036.84 32,610.34 51,047.62
Stephen Shea Williams 376.74 111.30 84.00 4.20 199.50 576.24
Timothy M. Williams 446.43 182.85 138.00 6.90 327.75 774.18
Treavor Brown Williams 0.00 821.50 620.00 31.00 1,472.50 1,472.50
Brandon Taylor Wilson 3,740.11 1,737.08 1,311.00 65.55 3,113.63 6,853.74
Charles Wade Wilson 57,538.16 55,822.91 42,130.50 2,106.53 100,059.94 157,598.10
John Asher Wilson 3,250.32 1,181.90 892.00 44.60 2,118.50 5,368.82
John Franklin Wilson 2,256.45 3,630.50 2,740.00 137.00 6,507.50 8,763.95
Dell Lee Wright 719.72 201.40 152.00 7.60 361.00 1,080.72
JD(ATL)–02–10
24
Employee Total
Backpay
H & W
Fund
Pension
Fund
Education
Fund
Total Fund
Contributions
Total
Backpay &
Fund
Contributions
James Terrell Yates 8,590.62 2,586.40 1,952.00 97.60 4,636.00 13,226.62
Brian Franklin Yell 3,455.64 1,645.65 1,242.00 62.10 2,949.75 6,405.39
Brian Dewyan Young 597.60 212.00 160.00 8.00 380.00 977.60
Donnie Ray Zundel, Jr. 1,082.56 360.40 272.00 13.60 646.00 1,728.56
TOTAL BALANCE 3,846,526.81 2,918,291.18 2,202,284.10 118,278.26 5,238,854.54 9,085,381.35
 Grand total backpay: 3,846,526.81
 Grand total funds contributions: 5,238,854.54
 Grand total backpay and funds contributions: 9,085,381.355
Conclusions
Respondent will discharge its make whole obligations, for the period alleged in the
Compliance Specification, April 22, 1991 through April 22, 2008, by payment of the amounts 10
described above, together with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987).
This Supplemental Decision does not address Respondent’s further obligations to make
employees whole for backpay and benefits accruing after April 22, 2008.15
On the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue
the following recommended
ORDER20
It is hereby ordered that Respondent, Tripe A Fire Protection, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors and assigns, shall pay the individuals named above under the heading
“Calculations” the amounts specified therein, together with interest as prescribed in New
Horizons for the Retarded, above.25
Dated at Washington, D.C., February 10, 2010
30
________________________________
Keltner W. Locke
Administrative Law Judge
35