# National Labor Relations Board v. Pugh & Barr, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · October 14, 1953 · 207 F.2d 409

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/232545

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. PUGH & BARR, Inc.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 14, 1953
- **Citations:** 207 F.2d 409; 33 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2006; 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3599
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Parker, Soper, Dobie
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/232545

## Opinion text

PER CURIAM.
This is a petition by the National Labor Relations Board to enforce an order fixing the back pay of a discharged employee, Benjamin S. Bramer, in a case in which a general enforcement order was heretofore entered by this court. N. L. R. B. v. Pugh & Barr, Inc., 4 Cir., 194 F.2d 217 . Bramer was discharged on May 16, 1949 and declined re-employment on April 3, 1952. The Board’s order was arrived at by taking the wages paid during this period to Trader, another employee of similar grade, which amount to $7,361.42 and subtracting therefrom the interim earnings of Bra-mer on a quarterly basis, leaving a difference of $5,381.40, which is the amount respondent was ordered to pay Bramer. Bramer was an ordinary unskilled laborer and it appears that the large amount of back pay awarded him was due to the fact that the earnings credited for a period of two years was only $294.20. It is incredible that Bramer could not have earned more than this during that period if he had made reasonable efforts to find employment, when the evidence
*410
shows that Trader during the same period was earning $5133.61. The Board seems to have reached the conclusion that it did on the basis that Bramer, having registered with the state unemployment agency, was not bound to make any further showing of diligence. We do not think that this is sufficient. The awarding of so large a sum as back pay without the finding of special circumstances justifying it cannot be sustained. We shall accordingly set aside the Board’s order and remand the case to the Board with direction that it make specific findings of fact with respect to the matter and award to Bramer no more than the difference between what he could have earned by working for respondent if he had not been wrongfully discharged and what he could have earned elsewhere if he had used due diligence to secure other employment.
Order set aside and case remanded.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/232545. Public record. Not legal advice.