Extract
Patterson-Stevens, Inc., 1072 (1998)
Patterson-Stevens, Inc. and Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union No. 210.
Case 3-CA-17899July 9, 1998SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDERBY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN AND HURTGENThe principal issue we address in this case1 iswhether the judge correctly found that the conduct of the Respondent's attorney in this compliance proceeding warrants a Board reprimand. The Board has considered the record in light of the exceptions,2 cross-exceptions,3 and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,4 and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this decision and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.We agree with the judge that the formula used by the General Counsel in calculating the backpay owed to the discriminatees produced a reasonable approximation of the amount due. We further agree with the judge that the formula was appropriate in light of the uncooperative conduct of the Respondent's attorney, Thomas S. Gill, in withholding relevant payroll records from the General Counsel during the backpay investigation and instructing employees of the Respondent not to assist the General Counsel in interpreting the limited financial information that was provided. We do not agree with the judge that Gill's conduct warrants a Board reprimand.In order to compute the backpay owed to the discriminatees, the General Counsel requested by letter dated June 28, 1995,5 that Gill assemble for examination the Respondent's ''job lists'' of its various construction jobs during the backpay period as well as the ''date of hire'' records of current and former employees. On June 29, Gill responded by letter that the Respondent ''does not maintain 'date of hire' records for employees.'' Gill did not respond in his letter to the request for job lists. At the hearing, however, Gill introduced the requested job lists as well as W-4 income tax statements of its employees which the judge found were the date of hire records requested by the General Counsel. Hence, the judge concluded that Gill falsely claimed in his letter of June 29 that date of hire records did not exist and ''did not tell . . . the truth'' about the job lists.Contrary to the judge, we find that Gill did not lie with respect to the job lists in his June 29 letter. In fact, as noted above, the letter failed to respond to the request for job lists. We find no sufficient grounds for discrediting Gill's statement that the lack of response was simply an inadvertent omission. We also find that Gill did not m...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
