Appendix — National Labor Relations Board v. J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Co.
Supreme Court brief1970
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1968
No. 925
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Petitioner,
—
J. H. Rutter REX MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.,
ET AL.,
Respondent.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
INDEX
Page
Chronological List of Relevant Docket Entries - Soe 1
Supplemental Decision and Order of the National Labor Re-
lations Board, dated June 6, 1966 - LSE 3
Preliminary Intermediate Report and Order of the Trial Ex-
aminer, dated January 23, 1963 .. keine . 18
Trial Examiner’s Supplemental Decision in Back Pay Pro-
ceeding, dated June 2, 1964... nn 39
Back Pay Specification and Notice of Hearing issued No-
vember 16, 1961, (pages 1 thru 6 and 213 thru 429) = 316
Respondent’s Answer to Back a onscacnarenees with Exhibit
A attached _ " 588
Respondent’s Amended Answer to Back Jrsindh nena
with Exhibits A thru F attached _ vive 601
ii INDEX
Excerpts from Transcript of Proceedings—
Witnesses:
Loren P. Jones
RE eae
Re-direct je
Philip Lampert
Bessie Cooper Lee
I ile peli hdd esicipipscnetlccscaincishaccnceinssach gia 653
J. J. Hooley
Direct 653
General Counsel’s Exhibit 7; the records of the following
employees :
vie... SGS RSE ELEC re ae ae 659
Sonora Barnes (Rochon)... 660
I I ina
Gloria Delpit 668
Mathilda Delpit.. .. 669
a ES Re RS tae ale 672
Pearl Ferguson iaaitneeanhsoa initia bana shdansies tic 674
Minnie Fernandez ____ 676
Gustavia Haynes (Gale). its 681
Victoria Henderson ___ 68
Rose Marie Hicks __ me 689
Louise Jackson i Dieee Selves - 693
Lela Mae Coston Landry... 696
Leonard Lewis a 698
i cee he ETRE es el Ce Oe 700
ue EE OR.
Gloria Matthews 709
Desideria Ocampo
Mildred Proctor _
Wilhelmina Ray (Blanchard)
_
INDEX
Dorothy B. Rubit
a. Tere
Cac se eccchininersierinetisensiciontonsnnunitinsntninnsion sotinceinstedane
Alma Wallace __------ UES
Fannie Watford —.. 2 eres ee Fee a ee eS
General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 8 _..
General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 9
General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 10
General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 11.
General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 12...
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 6
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 7...
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 10
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 13 _...._-_-_»______
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 18
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 30.
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 38
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 48 ____.
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 50
Deets Eee No. 2] eeeesSSC
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 52 =
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 66A...
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 66B ===
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 73
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 74
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 75
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 80
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 81 __
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 84...
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 86 __
1v INDEX
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 94
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 95
Respondent’s Exhibit No.96
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 97
Respondent’s Exhibit No.98
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 113
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 124
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 128 . :
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 180.0
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 133
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 134
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 187 ____
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 189
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 144
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 172
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 173
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 195
Respondent’s Exhibit No. 201 __. 809
Motion of J. H. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co. for an order directing
the Regional Director io refrain from proceeding with
Back Pay hearing with the following exhibits attached: ‘811
Exhibits B, C and D ca er, A 825, 826, 827
Supplemental Exhibit II(a) _ : 831
Supplemental Exhibit II(b) 899
Supplemental Exhibit II (c) ; 900
Appendices to brief of National Labor Relations Board on
motion to enjoin back pay proceeding:
Affidavit of John F. LeBus, dated March a 902
Letter to J. H. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co. from Charles M.
Paschal, Jr. dated August 21,1957... its 904
Letter to J. H. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co. from John F. LeBus,
t,t | i
—
INDEX
Brief in support of Motion to Stay filed by J. H. Rutter-
I IN cise fiictteciriaecniennientiniacemslcandeenahsemnnptsmntante
Supplemental Brief in — of Motion to Gaal filed .
J. H. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co... es
Excerpts from Transcript of Oral Argument before the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Opinion of the Court of Appeals, dated July 23, 1968
Judgment of the Court of Appeals, dated August 26, 1968 __
Order denying petitions for rehearing en banc, dated October
I cdieiaserchueabrhcatetsiiicccserinintsns tesla btihnisinpinthicstastneecestittie
Order granting certiorari...
588
G. C. 1(m)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FIFTEENTH REGION
Cases Nos. 15-CA-721, 15-CA-723
Received, NLRB 15th Reg., New Orleans, LA.,
Sep. 4, 3:28 P.M., 62 /s/al
J. H. RUTTER-REX MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INc.
and
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO
BACKPAY SPECIFICATION
Now comes J. H. RUTTER-REX MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC., respondent herein, and in reply to the
Backpay Specification filed herein on November 16, 1961,
avers:
1
That because of the illegal, unwarranted and prejudi-
cial delays of the Regional Director of the NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in this proceeding, and
because of the speculative premises relied upon by the
Regional Director in preparing the Backpay Specification
and the schedules to which it refers, respondent is un-
able to respond to the Backpay Specification in the fully
detailed manner apparently required by the literal pro-
visions of Section 102.54 of the Rules and Regulations of
the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. Re
spondent accordingly filed with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit a motion to stay the
backpay hearing which was set by the Regional Director
for January 29, 1962, and attaches hereto, as a part of
this answer as Exhibit A, a copy of the opinion of the
589
Court of Appeals in which the Court states that the
Board has ‘een guilty of inordinate delays in the han-
dling of this case. Respondent now files this answer re-
serving the right to supplement the same at such time
as the position of the Regional Director in the Backpay
Specification is clarified and as further details become
available to the respondent during the course of prepara-
tion for the hearing and during the course of the hearing
itself.
2
Answering Article I of the Backpay Specification, re-
spondent denies that any employee listed in Article I
thereof is entitled to the payment of any backpay what-
soever. Respondent admits that certain of its employees
in a strike which commenced on April 21, 1954.
Respondent further admits that applications for rein-
statement were received from some of the employees listed
in Article I of the Specification, but denies that any ap-
plication for reinstatement was received from the follow-
ing employees at any time between the date on which the
strike terminated and the date on which the Backpay
Specification was filed:
ALEXCEE, Irene LESENE, Amelia
ALLEN, Victoria LODGE, Kathleen
BARNES, Sonore (Rochon) MARTIN, Noel
BREAUD, Leonce MORRISON, Elouise (Epps)
COOPER, Bessie (Lee) OCAMPO, Desrderia
CORNISH, Estella TAYLOR, Mary
DAVIS, Georgiana THOMPSON, Lila Coston
FULTON, Vera THORNTON, Rosalie
GAMBLE, Indiana (Plummer) WALKER, Hattie
HAYNES, Ida WEATHERSBY, Dorothy
HOLDEN, Helen WALKER, Marjorie
SMITH, Leonardine WALLACE, Alma
3
Answering Article II of the Specification, respondent
objects to the method used by the BOARD in computing
backpay for the following reasons:
Respondent contends that if it should be determined
that backpay is due to any employee, which is denied,
590
the liability of respondent to that employee should be
computed by reference to the performance and earnings
of said employee before and/or after the strike, and not
be referring to the alleged average earned by other em.
ployees during the backpay period.
Even if it were relevant to compute backpay in thig
instance by averaging the earnings of other employees,
respondent objects to sub-part 1 of Article II of the Spe
cification because the selection of the 101 incumbent and
82 replacement employees referred to by the BOARD in
its computations is an inaccurate and prejudicial basis
for computing the liability of the company. The BOARD
has selected a majority of employees whose earnings are
above the plant average and has also selected employees
whose earnings are above the average earned by all of
the operators on the particular operation on which the
selected employees were employed. The result of the se
lection of above-average employees in determining the
amount which the BOARD claims would have been earned
by the alleged discriminatees is to increase the amounts
allegedly due to said discriminatees, many of whom were
untrained employees, many of whom were learners, and
many of whom were earning less than the guaranteed
minimum rate in effect in the plant for experienced oper-
ators on the date of the strike. The BOARD has not
considered the earning record of the alleged discrimina-
tees before the strike, and has assumed facts which lead
to the conclusion that the respondent paid higher wages
than any employer with whom any alleged discriminatee
found employment during the period covered by the
Specification.
With reference to sub-part 2 of Article II, respondent
objects to parts (b) and (c) because the BOARD has
assumed that a vacation payment was due each year to
any employee on the company payroll and has ignored
the actual details of the company’s vacation plan. Simi-
larly, the BOARD has assumed that a “bonus” was auto-
matically due to each alleged discriminatee at Christmas
without regard to the requirement in the company plan
that an employee be continuously employed during a 5-
year period before a second week’s vacation is due to
591
that employee, which second week is normally payable at
| Christmas time and has thus become popularly referred
to as a Christmas bonus.
With regard to sub-part 3 of Article II, respondent
objects to part (a) thereof in which the Board has cate-
gorized cutters, spreaders, and clicking machine opera-
tors together in Group 1 in order to compute average
earnings, whereas in truth and in fact these classifica-
tions are paid on a separate and distinct basis.
With further reference to sub-part 3 of Article II, re-
spondent objects to the basis on which the average earn-
ings of the male utility employees was computed in that
the BOARD has included an assistant to the warehouse
manager who was not in the unit for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, one John J. Lais, thereby raising the
average above what any alleged discriminatee would have
earned.
With reference to sub-part 4 of Article II of the Speci-
fication, respondent objects to the grouping of all female
production employees in one group or classification with-
out regard to the different operations upon which the
said female production employees were employed. Re-
spondent contends that a more proper basis of computing
the earnings for the period covered by the Specification
is to compute the earnings of each operator separately,
and consider the results in relation to the actual earn-
ings of an alleged discriminatee before and/or after the
strike.
With regard to sub-part 5, and referring to Groups 1
through 4, inclusively, respondent objects to the exclu-
sion from the average of any employee employed for less
than six months, Such exclusion has the effect of elimi-
nating the earnings of irregular and irresponsible em-
ployees from the computation of the average and has the
further effect of increasing the vacation pay used in com-
puting the average in the Specification. With reference
to Group 5, respondent objects to the selection of the in-
cumbent and replacement employees on the arbitrary basis
assumed by the BOARD because it has the effect of in-
cluding in the average only those steady and experienced
employees whose earnings are not indicative of the aver-
age in the plant but whose earnings are above average.
—¥
Further answering sub-part 5 of Article II, respondent
alleges that the BOARD has computed average earnings
by reference to those employees who were predominantly
above average with the result that each alleged discrimi.
natee referred to in the schedules, even though employed
in plants which are in competition with respondent, and
in some instances in plants which are operating under
a contract with the AMALGAMATED CLOTHING
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, is alleged to have
earned less for a comparable period of employment than
the BOARD claims the same employees would have
earned in respondent’s non-union plant.
Answering sub-paragraph 6 of Article II, respondent
objects to the BOARD’s method of computing the alleged
gross backpay, in that the BOARD has divided the bi-
weekly wages of the incumbent and replacement employ-
ees in a particular group by the total number of em-
ployees in the group who show any earnings in the bi-
weekly pay period. Such a method of computation dis-
regards that number of employees who through absen-
teeism may have no earnings in a particular pay period.
Answering sub-paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article II of
the Specification, respondent objects to the method of com-
putation proposed by the BOARD in that such method
has the effect of according vacation bonus benefits to
employees who have not earned them simply because the
average of said vacation and bonus benefits are given
automatically to all employees under the BOARD’s method
of computation.
Further answering Article II, respondent objects to the
BOARD’s method of computation because the BOARD
does not take into consideration normal absenteeism in
the plant, which, on the average, amounts to approxi-
mately one day per employee per month, In addition, the
BOARD has assumed that the alleged discriminatees
would have worked steadily and without interruption for
the entire period referred to in the Backpay Specifica-
tion, which assumption is contrary to the experience of
the plant.
592
| 593
4
Answering Article III of the Specification, respondent
avers that it has complied in good faith with the obliga-
tions imposed by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit in enforcing the BOARD’s order in
this proceeding, and accordingly denies the correctness of
ten ea area bed NG NS
the computations set forth in the tables which are a part
of Article III of the Specification.
With regard to those columns in the schedules referred
to as “Remarks”, “Interim Earnings”, and “Expenses”,
respondent is without knowledge regarding any of the
information reflected in said columns. However, respond-
ent alleges on information and belief that in most, if not
all, the cases referred to in the schedule attached to Ar-
ticle III, the net interim earnings of the alleged discrim-
_ inatees were higher than reflected in the schedule.
eo
SH Nicee RGA Aas ane
5
Answering Article IV of the Specification, respondent
denies that it is indebted to any of the persons named
therein for any amounts whatsoever, and further denies
that any of the persons named in said article are entitled
to reinstatement as of this date.
And now further answering, respondent avers:
6
(1) Respondent had no obligation to rehire any striker
who did not in good faith submit an application for re-
instatement. In numerous instances, which will be point-
ed out at the hearing, applications were received from
strikers who were not serious about returning to work
but who submitted an application merely on instructions
from the union. In other instances strikers refused em-
ployment when it was offered to them. In addition, no
application was ever received from the employees listed
in Article II of the answer.
(2) Respondent is not obligated to rehire any em-
ployee who engaged in improper conduct during the strike.
Those strikers who were not employed for this reason
were the following:
naa
594
BICKMAN, Amanda LANIER, Elmarie
BROWN, Elvera M. LANIER, Ernestine
DANDRIDGE, Dorothy LARRIEU, Louis
GREEN, Jimmie Lou LEWIS, Doris
GRIFFIN, Audry LEWIS, Leonard T., Jr.
HICKS, Rose Marie SMITH, Leonardine
JOHNSON, Maybelle SMITH, Octavia
WASHINGTON, Lula Mae
(3) Respondent had no obligation to rehire any em-
ployee on the basis of the union’s letter of April 4, 1955,
which terminated the strike. In many instances the
schedule accompanying Article III of the Backpay Speci-
fication lists April 5, 1955, as the date upon which an
alleged discriminatee applied for reinstatement. As a
matter of fact, the Company received no applications
whatsoever on this date and accordingly denies that it
had any obligation to rehire a striker unless and until
an application was submitted.
(4) Respondent is not obligated to hire any employee
for whom respondent had no work on the date upon
which such employee applied. In order to maintain pro-
duction at an efficient level it was necessary to avoid
disrupting respondent’s balanced line operation by the
indiscriminate placing of inexperienced learners in key
positions in the line. This would have destroyed the effi-
ciency of the line, and resulted in less production and
fewer jobs.
(5) Respondent was not obliged to rehire any striker
who did not seek reinstatement within a reasonable time
following the termination of the strike.
(6) During all the time covered by the Specification,
the respondent maintained a standing order for employ-
ees with the United States Employment Service and from
time to time inserted advertisements in the local press
seeking employees. Respondent alleges that any of its
employees who went on strike and who seriously sought
reemployment would have maintained contact with re
spondent in order to obtain work when work was avail-
able. On information and belief, respondent alleges that
many of the alleged discriminatees were not serious about
returning to work for respondent, but rather submitted
595
an application upon suggestion from the union in the
hope that at some future date they would be found eligi-
ble for the payment of backpay.
(7) Respondent further avers that the Regional Direc-
tor and/or the BOARD, by delaying for approximately
41% years the filing of the Backpay Specification, has
failed to discharge the duty placed upon it by Section
102.52 of the Rules and Regulations of the BOARD, and
has failed to comply with the affirmative requirement of
Section 6 of the Administrative Procedure Act. By such
failure to comply with the dtuies placed upon it by law,
the Regional Director and/or the BOARD has prejudiced
the rights of the respondent by permitting the accrual
of excessive backpay and, through the passage of time,
rendering difficult, if not impossible, an adequate defense
to the facts alleged in the 428 pages of the Backpay
Specification. Because of the illegal, unwarranted, and
prejudicial delay which has occurred, all to the detriment
of respondent, and in spite of respondent’s request for
the cooperation of the BOARD in the matter of compli-
ance with its Order as enforced by the Court of Appeals,
the Regional Director and the Board should be estopped
from construing the Order which has been enforced in
this case as a punitive Order requiring respondent to pay
backpay for the period of the BOARD’s own delays.
(8) Respondent further avers that the Court of Ap-
peals for the Fifth Circuit, in enforcing the BOARD’s
Order in this proceeding, did not contemplate literal com-
pliance with the requirement in the BOARD’s Order that
each striker who reapplied be given employment within
the 5-day period referred to in the BOARD’s Order. On
the contrary, respondent avers that the Circuit Court of
Appeals recognized the practical difficulties which had
been urged to the Court by respondent in support of its
contention that the original BOARD Order was a puni-
tive and not remedial one, and intended that the BOARD
consider these difficulties in determining respondent’s ob-
ligations under the Decree.
Respondent avers that it has made a good faith effort
to rehire all of the strikers who applied for reinstatement
within a reasonable time after the termination of the
By
ae
a MES
a oie ian : :
s <P eg *
596
strike, with the exception of those who had engaged in
improper conduct during the strike, and consistent with
the work which was available in the plant and the re
spondent’s need to maintain a balanced operation in the
plant, and that it has accordingly discharged its obliga-
tion under the BOARD Order as enforced by the Court
of Appeals.
WHEREFORE respondent asks that the Backpay Spe
cification which has been filed herein be dismissed, and
that respondent be accorded such other relief as may be
proper under the circumstances.
BROWN HERMAN SCOTT
& YOUNG
By /s/ John M. Scott
JOHN M. SCOTT
203 Ft. Worth Club Bldg.
Ft. Worth, Texas
MONTGOMERY BARN=TT BROWN
& READ
By /s/ H. J. Read
HENRY J. READ
806 N B C Bldg.
New Orleans 12
Attorneys for
J. H. RUTTER-REX
MANUFACTURING Co., INC.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Docket 15-CA-721, 15-CA-723, Official Exhibit No. GC-1m.
Disposition Identified, Received, in the matter of |
Rutter Rex
Date, 11-13-62, Reporter, Lyon.
597
AFFIDAVIT
ORLEAN: PARISH
LOUISIANA
Personally came and appeared EUGENE J. RUTTER,
who after being duly sworn deposed and said that he is
the President of J. H. RUTTER-REX MANUFACTUR-
ING COMPANY, INC., respondent in the above and fore-
going answer; that he has read the same and knows the
contents thereof and that the same are true and correct.
In any instance in which an allegation is made on infor-
mation and belief, respondent believes said allegation to
be true.
/s/ Eugene J. Rutter
EUGENE J. RUTTER
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED
September 4th, 1962.
/s/ Wood Brown, Jr.
Notary Public
[SEAL]
Received, NLRB 15th Reg., New Orleans, I.A.,
Sep. 4, 3:28 P.M., ’62 /s/al
CERTIFICATE
I CERTIFY that I have filed an original and four
copies of the above and foregoing answer with the Re-
gional Director for the Fifteenth Region of the NA-
TIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by causing the
same to be delivered to his office in New Orleans this 4th
day of September, 1962.
/s/ H. J. Read
HENRY J. READ
598
EXHIBIT A
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16422
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, PETITIONER
versus
J. H. RUTTER-REX MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.
RESPONDENT
On Motion of J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Company,
Inc. to Enjoin the National Labor Relations Board
from Conducting a Back Pay Proceeding.
(July 19, 1962)
Before CAMERON, JONES and GEWIN, Circuit Judges:
GEWIN, Circuit Judge: On January 3, 1962, upon
the application of J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Com-
pany, Inc., the employer, this Court issued an order tem-
porarily staying all further actions pending before the
National Labor Relations Board, Fifteenth Region, involv-
ing hearing with respect to back pay specification, until
this Court could determine whether the motion to stay
the proceedings permanently should be granted. This case
arises as a sequel to our decision and order in N. L. R. B.
v. J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Company, Inc., June
10, 1957, 245 F. 2d 594. The question now is whether
the stay order should be made permanent.
We will not undertake to detail all facts involved except
to say that the difficulties resulted from a strike which
began in April 1954 and ended in April 1955, out of
which arose our decision above mentioned. The employer
2 LEDS IAS SE sical lai
PS naa iene WEE inh hw
aes
a
7"
599
claims good faith compliance with the judicially enforced
Board order; that it reported to the Board; and further,
that on November 7, 1957, it wrote a letter to the Board
in which it stated:
“If any instance of a failure to fully comply with
the order is brought to your attention, we would
appreciate your contacting us promptly so that such
corrective measures as may be necessary can be im-
mediately taken in order to assure full compliance
with the decree.”
The employer complains that nothing was heard from the
Board until about three years later when the Board de-
manded detailed information covering approximately 400
employees. On November 16, 1961, more than four years
after our decree, a formal back pay specification and noti-
fication was issued by the Board which involved numer-
ous detailed figures, dates, wage rates, weekly earnings,
probable earnings, etc. In summary, the employer con-
tends that because of such unwarranted delay by the
Board, the proceedings are invalid, are arbitrary and in
violation of law.
The Board on the other hand relies upon its letter to
the employer dated August 21, 1957, which contains the
following statement:
“When you have fully complied with the affirmative
terms of the Decree and there are no violations of
its negative provisions, you will be notified that the
case has been closed. Until you receive such notice
you will know that the case still remains open for
all purposes as awaiting compliance.”
Further, the Board asserts that the employer is thorough-
ly familiar with the type of letter written by the Board
when there has been satisfactory compliance with the af-
firmative requirements and negative provisions of a de
cree and the file in the case finally closed. No such clos-
ing letter was written in this case and therefore, says
the Board, the employer knew the matters involved were
still pending.
pipes _
| ar eennas BAIN
600
The employer candidly admits that the relief herein
sought by it has never been granted, or perhaps consid-
ered by the Federal Appellate Judiciary. The employer
specifically calls our attention to the “All Writs Act”, 28
U.S.C.A. § 1651; the Administrative Procedure Act, 5
U.S.C.A. §1005(a), §1008(b) and §1009(c); § 102.52
of the Rules of the Board relating to Back Pay Specifi-
cation*; $10 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29
U.S.C.A. § 160(b) ; numerous decisions commenting upon
unusual and unreasonable delay; and the Five Year Stat-
ute of Limitations, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3282.
In effect, counsel for the Board has admitted the obvi-
ous assertion of the employer that there has been inordi-
nate delay in this case. While the delay is regrettable,
we are unwilling to exercise the power of this Court to
permanently stay the administrative proceedings insti-
tuted by the Board and therefore, the motion for a per-
manent stay is hereby DENIED. It seems appropriate to
comment that the administrative proceedings involved re-
main subject to judicial review. At this time we simply
conclude that we should not take any further action with
respect to the proceedings before the Board prior to such
time as a final order is entered by the Board, or other
final action taken, without passing upon the question of
the court’s jurisdiction to grant such permanent stay or
whether the court has or ought to exercise the power to
stay such administrative proceedings.
*“We begin by stating to the Court that no decision of the Fed-
eral appellate judiciary has heretofore considered a motion of this
type, asking that the National Labor Relations Board be stayed from
holding a back pay hearing where the Board had ordered that em-
ployees be reinstated and the Court had enforced the order.”
* “SEC. 102.52 Initiation of proceedings—After the entry of a
court decree enforcing an order of the Board directing the payment
of back pay, if it appears to the regional director that there has
arisen a controversy between the Board and a respondent concerning
the amount of back pay due which cannot be resolved without a
formal proceeding, the regional director shall issue and cause to
be served upon the respondent a backpay specification in the name
of the Board. The specification shall contain or be accompanied
by a notice of hearing before a trial examiner at a place therein
fixed and at a time not less than 15 days after the service of the
specification.”
601
G. C. 4(j)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF TRIAL EXAMINERS
WASHINGTON, D. C.
Cases Nos. 15-CA-721, 15-CA-723
J. H. RUTTER-REX MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.
and
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
RESPONDENT’S AMENDED ANSWER
TO BACKPAY SPECIFICATION
Now comes J. H. RUTTER-REX MANUFACTURING
CO., INC., respondent herein, and in reply to the Back-
pay Specification filed herein on November 16, 1961, here-
with files its amended answer thereto, and avers:
1
Respondent denies that the persons listed in Article I
of the Specification are entitled to any payments of any
amounts whatsoever under the terms of the BOARD’S
Order of February 13, 1956. Except to the extent here-
inafter noted in the amended answer, it is submitted that
the persons listed in Article 1 of the Specification were
respondent’s employees who went out on strike on or after
April 21, 1954. Except to the extent hereinafter ad-
mitted, it is denied that applications for reinstatement
were received from the said striking employees at any
time between the date on which the strike terminated
and the date on which the Backpay Specification was filed.
2
Answering Article II of the Specification, respondent
objects to the method used by the BOARD in computing
602
backpay for the reasons stated in detail in the memoran-
dum heretofore filed in these proceedings. Briefly stated,
respondent objects to the BOARD’S method of selecting
only experienced and superior employees in Groups 1
through 5 who show earnings in each bi-weekly period
for use in determining the gross interim earnings of the
claimants in lieu of computing an average based upon
$
3
J
3
q
3
4
i the earnings of all employees in each group who show
4 earnings during the quarterly payroll periods. Respond-
3 ent attaches hereto as part of this amended answer Sched-
ule covering the period from March 1955 to December
1961 and reflecting the actual average earnings on a
quarterly basis of all of the employees in each group.
Respondent reiterates its denial that any amounts are
due to any claimants named in the Specification under
é the terms of the BOARD Order, but alleges, in the al-
: ternative, that should any individual in any of the groups
referred to in the Specification be held to have been en-
titled to reinstatement prior to the date on which rein-
statement occurred, then that gross backpay in the case
4 of that individual should be determined for the period
; in question in accord with the attached schedule for the
4 group in which the claimant falls.
3
Answering Article III of the Specification, respondent
i denies the correctness of the computations set forth in
3 Article III, and denies that it is indebted to any claimant
in any amount for the reasons hereinafter stated. With
regard to those columns in the schedules referred to as
“Remarks”, “Interim Earnings” and “Expenses”, respond-
ent is without knowledge regarding any of the informa-
tion reflected in said columns, but alleges on information
and belief that in most, if not all, of the cases referred
to in the schedule in Article III, the interim earnings of
the alleged claimants were higher than reflected in the
schedule.
4
Answering Article IV of the Specification, respondent
denies that it is indebted to any of the persons named
ROR Boe et WS Gott Oe ET
_—
603
therein for any amounts whatsoever, and further denies
that any of the persons named in said Article are en-
titled to reinstatement as of this date, all for the reasons
to be more definitely stated hereinafter.
5
Further answering, respondent avers the following as
special defenses to the allegations of the Specification:
(a) Respondent is in compliance with the Order of the
BOARD dated February 138, 1956 in that the Order re-
quired reinstatement of the returning strikers upon ap-
plication for reinstatement, and none of the alleged claim-
ants in the Specification applied for reinstatement on any
date subsequent to the BOARD Order which has been
enforced in these proceedings.
(b) Respondent has no obligation to rehire any striker
who did not in good faith submit an application for rein-
statement, since applications were received from and on
behalf of many strikers who were not serious about re-
turning to work, but who submitted or permitted the
submission of an application in their names upon instruc-
tions from the union without an intention of accepting
employment in respondent’s plant.
(c) Respondent is not obligated to rehire any employee
who engaged in improper conduct during the strike.
(d) Respondent had no obligation to rehire any em-
ployee on the basis of the union’s letter of April 4, 1955,
which terminated the strike.
(e) Respondent is not obligated to rehire any employee
for whom respondent had no job available.
(f) Respondent was not obligated to rehire any appli-
eant for reinstatement who did not seek reinstatement
within a reasonable time.
(g) Under the terms of the Order, respondent is and
was unable to determine which replacements should have
been dismissed in order to reinstate a striker who ap-
plied for reinstatement, since the BOARD did not de-
termine the date upon which the strike which was eco-
nomic in origin became an unfair labor practice strike,
and since persons hired before the strike became an un-
604
4 fair labor practice strike were not subject to dismissal
5 in order to create an opening for strikers applying for |
i reinstatement.
| (h) Respondent, in complying with the BOARD Order,
was entitled to consider the nature of its balanced line
operation and the need to maintain production at an effi-
cient level in order to avoid disrupting respondent’s plant
by the indiscriminate use of inexperienced personnel in
key positions in the individual lines, a practice which
would have destroyed efficiency and resulted in less pro-
duction and fewer jobs.
é (i) The Regional Director and/or the BOARD, by
A delaying for approximately 414 years the filing of the
; Backpay Specification, and by failing to cooperate with
respondent in working out the details of compliance, has
failed to discharge the duty placed upon the BOARD by
Section 102.52 of the Rules and Regulations of the
BOARD, and has failed to comply with the affirmative
requirements of Section 6 of the Administrative Proce-
dure Act. By such failure to comply with the duties im-
posed by law, the Regional Director and/or the Board
has prejudiced the rights of the respondent by permitting
the accrual of excessive backpay claims and has made
difficult, if not impossible, an adequate defense to the
facts alleged in the Backpay Specification. Claimants and
witnesses and other evidence which would have been
available if this matter had been timely handled are not
available at this late date. In support of this defense,
respondent sets forth the chronology of the case since the
termination of the strike in April of 1955:
(i) On June 29, 1955, the union filed a charge
against respondent in Case No. 15-CA-843 of the
docket of the BOARD for the Fifteenth Region, con-
taining the following allegation:
“On or about April 5, 1955, the Employer, by
its officers, agents, and representatives, has dis-
criminatorily refused to reinstate or reemploy
striking employees, whose names are attached
hereto, in order to discourage membership in
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
I ———————
_"
605
CIO, or because of their activity and/or mem-
bership in the said labor organization, and at all
times since said date, the Employer has refused
and does now refuse to reinstate or reemploy
the said employees.”
This charge was amended on August 2, 1955 and
amended again on January 12, 1956. The original
charge and the amendments were accompanied by a
list of the names of the striking employees allegedly
discriminated against.
(ii) On February 13, 1956, the BOARD issued an
Order directing respondent to reinstate the striking
employees, which Order reads in part as follows:
“(b) Upon application, offer immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions to all those employees who
went on strike on April 21, 1954, or thereafter
without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and priivleges, dismissing if necessary all
persons hired on or after that date, and make
such applicants whole for any loss of pay suf-
fered by reason of the respondent’s refusal, if
any, to reinstate them, in the manner set forth
in the section of the Intermediate Report en-
titled ‘The Remedy’ ;”
(iii) On June 10, 1957, the Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit rendered its opinion enforcing the
BOARD Order of February 13, 1956.
(iv) On October 31, 1957, the BOARD approved the
union’s withdrawal of the charges filed by the union
in Case No. 15-CA-843 on June 29, 1955, August 2,
1955 and January 12, 1956, in which respondent had
been charged with having discriminatorily refused to
reemploy the striking employees. The BOARD’s let-
ter approving the withdrawal of said charges is at-
tached hereto and marked Exhibit A.
(v) On September 11, 1957, respondent’s representa-
tive responded to the BOARD’s request for informa-
606
tion concerning the rehiring of returning strikers in
the form of the letter attached hereto and marked
Exhibit B.
(vi) By letter dated October 24, 1957, in further
response to the BOARD’S request for information
regarding the progress made in rehiring the strikers,
respondent’s representative mailed to the BOARD a
list of employees on the payroll of respondent at the
time the strike was called who applied for work after
the strike terminated. The list submitted by respond-
ent also reflected the date that each employee sub-
mitted an application for work and the date each
was returned to work. The letter written by respond-
ent’s representative is attached hereto and marked
Exhibit C. The list of employees to which the letter
refers is attached and marked Exhibit C°,
(vii) On October 31, 1957, again responding to the
BOARD’S REQUEST, respondent, through its rep-
resentative, submitted a copy of its payroll for April
17, 1954, reflecting the rate per hour and the earn-
ings of the employees for the payroll period. This
letter is attached hereto and marked Exhibit D.
(viii) On November 7, 1957, after respondent had
furnished to the BOARD all of the information which
the BOARD had requested concerning the names of
the employees on the strike payroll, the names of
the strikers who had applied for reinstatement, the
dates on which certain applicants had been rehired,
and the earnings of said employees, respondent’s rep-
resentative addressed to the BOARD a letter in the
form attached hereto and marked Exhibit E. This
letter contained the following request to the BOARD:
“If any instance of a failure to fully comply
with the order is brought to your attention, we
would appreciate your contacting us promptly
So that such corrective measures as may be nec-
essary can be immediately taken in order to as-
sure full compliance with the decree,”
A i
™
—7—7—_—_—
607
This letter was written so that respondent, which has
at all times and in good faith attempted to comply
with the BOARD’s Order as enforced by the Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, might have the
cooperation of the BCARD in promptly acting upon
any contention that respondent had not complied with
its obligation to offer employment to any strikers
seriously seeking reemployment for whom a job was
‘ available. Respondent’s purpose was, of course, to
avoid incurring a backpay obligation in any instance
in which respondent might consider that its inability
or unwillingness to rehire or delay in rehiring a par-
ticular striker or strikers was justified under the
opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
If the BOARD did not agree, respondent wanted to
be informed of that disagreement so that appropriate
remedial action might be taken promptly.
(ix) Following the BOARD’S approval of the with-
drawal of the charges of discrimination against the
returning strikers, and following the BOARD’S re-
ceipt of the letter from respondent’s representative
asking the BOARD’S cooperation in working out the
details of compliance, respondent heard nothing from
the BOARD with regard to this question of compli-
ance. From November 7, 1957, on which date re-
spondent requested the BOARD to bring any instance
of non-compliance to its attention so that corrective
measures could be taken, nothing whatsoever was
heard from the BOARD with regard to enforcement
until March 22, 1960, on which date the BOARD
addressed a letter to respondent in the form reflected
in Exhibit F, in which the BOARD admitted that
it had delayed action in this case “over a period of
several years”, On November 16, 1961, 4 years and
5 months after the date of the opinion of the Court
of Appeals, without any prior presentation of its
claim to the respondent, and without any attempt to
work out an amicable settlement of any claim with
respondent or its representatives (in spite of the fact
that under customary BOARD practice an effort
would be made to work out the details of compliance
zac Deaitiaatany ”y
Pesce iid MER G Aca esS
608
amicably), the BOARD filed the Specification in this
case claiming that liability in the sum of $342,744.07
had accrued against the respondent, and that the
said sum was increasing day by day.
Because of the chronology set forth in sub-paragraphs
(i) through (ix) herein, respondent avers, first, that the
Regional Director and the BOARD should be estopped
from proceeding with the Backpay Hearing for the reason
that the amounts of money put at issue by the filing of
the Backpay Specification were increased from a figure
which would have been nominal to a figure which threat-
ens the existence of respondent’s business by one fact
alone, and that is the inordinate delay of the Regional
Director and the BOARD in these proceddings, all in
violation of the reasonable promptness required by the
Rules and Regulations of the BOARD and by the Ad-
ministrative Procedure Act, 5 USC Section 1005 (a),
which required the BOARD to proceed with reasonable
dispatch to the conclusion of the compliance phase of this
proceeding. Alternatively, that the Examiner and the
BOARD should take into consideration the unwarranted
and illegal delays of the Regional Director in making a
determination of the amount of backpay due to any in-
dividual applicant in the event that the Examiner or the
Board should ultimately find any individual instance in
which respondent has not fully complied with the
BOARD’S Order as enforced herein.
Respondent avers that a_ substantial part of the
BOARD’S delay in this case was and is due to its desire
to cooperate with and assist the Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, AFL-CIO in its negotiations with
respondent contrary to the BOARD’S affirmative duty to
work out the details of compliance with dispatch and with
consideration of the devastating effect of delay upon the
respondent; that between October 31, 1957 and March 9,
1960, respondent and the union were negotiating in an
effort to reach agreement on a contract, during all of
which time the BOARD took no action toward fulfilling
its duties to the Court and to respondent in working out
the details of compliance; that the last meeting between
a
—
respondent and the union was on March 9, 1960, which
meeting terminated with a refusal by the attorney for
the union to sign a contract in written form which re-
spondent’s attorney had agreed to sign on the company’s
behalf; that from March 9, 1960 to the date of the filing
of this answer, the union has not requested a further
meeting; that on March 22, 1960, immediately following
the last negotiation meeting of March 9, 1960, respond-
ent received a letter from a representative of the BOARD
in the form attached hereto and marked Exhibit F. On
information and belief, respondent alleges that, at the
request of the union, the BOARD took no action in this
case while negotiations were continuing and until re
quested by the union to do so after the negotiating meet-
ing of March 9, 1960.
(j) Respondent’s maximum obligation to reinstate on
any given date was limited to the number of replacements
hired to fill jobs vacated by the strikers on and after the
date upon which the strike became an unfair labor prac-
tice strike. Many of the jobs which existed on the date
of the strike, Apri] 21, 1954, no longer existed on April
4, 1955, due to the radical curtailment of respondent’s
business which followed the cancellation of government
contracts and the loss of commercial accounts. As a re
sult of the reduction in the volume of respondent’s work
caused by the strike, the number of available jobs was
greatly reduced, which was a primary factor in making
it impossible to reinstate many applicants on the date of
their application.
(k) The backpay claims alleged in the Specification are
barred by laches by reason of the BOARD’S failure to
file the Specification for a period of 414, years.
(1) The backpay claims set forth in the Specification
are prescribed by Article 3534 of the Louisiana Civil Code
which provides that an action by employees for wages is
prescribed by the passage of one year.
6
Further answering, respondent alleges that it is not
liable to the individual claimants for the various reasons
set forth in Article 5 hereof, and, more particularly:
609
CORDED Ei es Bian inl ines
St MDS CRBs jie ee EE aes
—
610
(a) Respondent was not and is not obligated to re
hire the claimants listed in the Schedule attached hereto
as a part of this sub-paragraph because of improper con-
duct engaged in by them during the strike.
(b) Respondent received no application for reinstate
ment from the claimants listed in the Schedule attached
hereto as a part of this sub-paragraph at any time after
the strike terminated.
(c) Respondent reinstated the claimants listed in the
Schedule attached hereto as a part of this sub-paragraph
within five (5) days of application,
(d) Respondent has no obligation to any of the indi-
viduals listed in the Schedule attached hereto as a part
of this sub-paragraph for the period between the date of
application shown after each name listed and the date of
hiring shown after each name for the reason that the
lapse of time between the two dates was attributable to
the fact that no vacancy in the job classification applied
for or in any equivalent classification existed on the date
of application because the volume of work in the plant
had been substantially reduced by loss of contracts, or
because of difficulties inherent in rebuilding the balanced
line operation, or because the available jobs were filled by
employees which the BOARD Order did not require the
company to dismiss in order to create vacancies for re
turning strikers.
(e) Respondent has no liability to the claimants named
in the Schedule attached hereto as a part of this sub
paragraph due to the fact that respondent requested said
claimants to report for work upon the dates shown oppo-
site their names but that the said claimants did not re
spond to the request. Respondent lists on said Schedule
the date on which each claimant applied and the date on
which that claimant was requested to report for work,
and in the event that there is a lapse of more than five
(5) days between the two dates, respondent avers that
that period was due to the fact that there were no open-
ings available until the latter date for the reasons set
forth in sub-paragraph (d) of this Article.
(f) Respondent has no obligation to the claimants
listed in the Schedule attached hereto as a part of this
a
sub-paragraph because they advised company representa-
tives that they were not interested in returning to work
at respondent’s plant or because they were not actually
available for work when they applied.
(g) Respondent has no obligation to the claimants listed
in the Schedule attached hereto as a part of this sub-
paragraph because they did not apply for reinstatement
within a reasonable time. Respondent lists opposite each
name in said Schedule the date of application.
(h) Respondent has no obligation to the claimants
listed in the Schedule attached hereto as a part of this
sub-paragraph because of the fact that each of said claim-
ants was rehired on the date indicated opposite his or
her name but was later terminated on the date indicated
for unsatisfactory performance on the job. Respondent
also lists opposite each name the date on which said em-
ployee applied for reinstatement, and if there was a lapse
of more than five (5) days between the date of applica-
tion and the date of rehiring, the said lapse was due to
the fact that there were no available openings on the date
of application for the reasons set forth in sub-paragraph
(d) of this Article.
(i) Respondent has no obligation to the claimants
listed in the Schedule attached hereto as a part of this
sub-paragraph because they were not on the company’s
payroll at the time of the strike.
611
7
Alternatively, and only in the event that the Examiner
and the BOARD ultimately conclude that any claimant is
entitled to backpay for any period whatsoever, then re-
spondent avers that the gross backpay for any such claim-
ant and for any such period shall be as reflected on the
attached Schedule showing the average earnings of Groups
1 through 5 on a quarterly basis for the period beginning
March 1955 and extending through December 1961. In
the case of each claimant, gross interim earnings should
be determined by reference to the quarterly average earn-
ings on the attached Schedule for the group in which
said claimant falls, subject to such credits and exclusions
a
SGT iat AG AES Nach a ies ne
SRE EASA NS MOET AR ei EST SLI OLNE EASE BS DA OT Ti Ee eae aa asia ate:
Bite hanno
612
as are proper under the law, but which are unknown to
respondent at this time and which will be developed at
the hearing by cross-examination of the individual claim-
ants or otherwise.
8
Finally, respondent avers that it has made a good faith
effort to rehire all of the strikers who applied for rein-
statement within a reasonable period aft~r said applica-
tion ,with the exception of those who had engaged in im-
proper conduct during the strike, and consistent with the
work available in the plant and respondent’s need to main-
tain an efficient balanced operation, and that it has ac
cordingly discharged its obligation under the BOARD
Order as enforced by the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, respondent prays that the Backpay
Specification which is filed herein be dismissed, and that
respondent be accorded such other relief as may be proper.
BROWN HERMAN SCOTT
& YOUNG
203 Ft. Worth Club Building
Ft. Worth 2, Texas
MONTGOMERY BARNETT BROWN
& READ
806 N B C Building
New Orleans 12
By /s/ H. J. Read
HENRY J. READ
Attorneys for
J. H. RUTTER-REx
MANUFACTURING Co., INC.
Own to
yped at
claim-
id faith
T rein-
tpplica-
in im-
tith the
> Main-
has ac-
sOARD
‘ackpay
ad that
proper.
ling
iROWN
EDULE OF AVERAGE QUARTERLY EARNINGS
Groups 1 through 5
5 REFERRED TO IN ARTICLES
-tele
"REO LEIA BELLE IS NEES AS: ERR RD BENE 2 BE Bal ER EM
G
3 atts
SS — = T
ach Sh /I95s- ine |
ms, ie, /25e- int t
ad to /95S # o4 Za
dite PL S45 F 4" y c
ach 31, FS
Zo, 115 6 141912.
tind 46/95 Pon |
cedure 21, LIEL Sel Ae ‘Wie BY) aq
Lose $1 185 7 Lge
nor sip SIS 7 I
ctimbar 40/957 11 isle |
ead, $f IS7 As) 12g
hosel '.3/, 415-8 Lik
io. /959 | WY
Ler doy 95% | te
H,1IFS fa} ||| beled | vol ee || | Bieta ||| bigiso ab st B04 yar
Done 21/959 ne 63S aac h
Zo 1959 } 2 in 1) | ken
ctimntus 2p, 195-9 a8 | oid, f | 7
41 LIED msl 9Ft ||| bah 439 3: stole ||| bwllall ||| I We it
es % 31,194. 0 : {Ns Ji tie 74 i] A 741 a
20,146 0 itty qi yi baz ‘4 ane e
f 4p 1960 EL a! aa lL Ws¢aaa n :
OE CE GF" co _hadedl | bay Bh.uh ||| basa Ys.
wah 317796] Se, TTA Th | TT Beds ]
Ze 196) C WL hd Lt pede With
Kimber 26/961 Tr At rata 1 PHAM at) tb
Pernbin iy L496 L_ | Basi} | Toa pense 7 thn Tiree {Ty
¥ tty | CREE Saas: |
TIT
613
rewe 2
stu f 8 3 i? il
e BO ow OE e |
Te Ty NANO |
HLH me HH 523 | +H 1 | ; 4
es | 11493695) | | fo 482 " 1
s | 4 F-4 7 6 . Z ~
ch lg y aa lt | || Wasi mt “4 a
fl
yi E | HY CHS | |
; ll | gas 1 | ew “ty 1" |
uly cll | | | Balai 2g Mh 5 shod | i Le ns by
rl radial lil AN
sy 127 “onl WT lb
m7 Blok nee
SANYAL | FB I57 3B 01 2426 air As v] bloo firk q
| L f | a 450 7 r
| Hd cal Te | 12 H
HTL | blbla sl HH | 70
aod || ello TL] bho Ae | ata || | bigislo | ‘Be BAAF Baal yt | | | Wpbl az
(alea| mae / ae
aslo? us It | ke AHH
fla 24 | 4 pil
7/8) 94 1 || eles etl || | bulla || |p 4 +111 by
nsi24 Mods | { yee LL
{LL | Fatale souls | : ne ee
Ud | aa A | | haabe sf
noel | baal 4 st || | Wesel 4 Seasieay | bail bowls
|i | Henk | nsanel | id! | war |
| | Hin We Tha ih | Lb
TOTTI Tpaploal det} | Pe rite! Ht eg Aptech Be Heed | dh
‘| BYDASI |: Vulnn eee it LiL J t AS a
1 BIA “flea! Pe oae aied AHL daa aaai “ seat 1 pooyig | 6aye HERR
CATT nis THOTT TTT TT at
a
Oa eee one
615
SCHEDULE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 6(a)
BICKHAM, Amanda
BROWN, Elvira
DANDRIDGE, Dorothy
GREEN, Jimmie Lou
GRIFFIN, Audrey Mae
HAYNES, Gustavia
HICKS, Rose Marie
LANIER, Elmarie
LANIER, Ernestine
LARRIEU, Louis
LEWIS, Doris
LEWIS, Leonard
SMITH, Leonardine
SMITH, Octavia
WASHINGTON, Lula Mae
SCHEDULE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 6(b)
ALEXANDER, Estrella
ALEXCEE, Irene
ALLEN, Victoria
BANKS, Marion
BARNES, Sanora
BERRY, Ira Mae
BREAUD, Leonce
COLUMBUS, Juanita
COOPER, Bessie
CORNISH, Estell
DAVIS, Georgiana
DAVIS, Lenora
EDGERSON, Shirley Mae
FULTON, Vera
GAMBLE, Indiana Plummer
HAYNES, Ida
HILL, Bertha
HOLDEN, Helen
HUBBARD, Ruth
JOHNSON, Eunice
JOHNSON, Olivia
LANDRY, Lila Coston
LaROCHE, Sophie
LESENE, Amelia
LODGE, Kathleen
MARTIN, Eliska
MARTIN, Noel
MORRISON, Eloise Epps
MYERS, Mandy
OCAMPO, Desderia
RANDALL, Edna
RUBIT, Dorothy B.
THORNTON, Rosalie
WALKER, Hattie
WALKER, Marjorie
WALLACE, Alma
WASHINGTON, Dorothy
WEATHERSBY, Dorothy
SCHEDULE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 6(c)
Claimant
CARTER, Mary Louise
CERF, Raymond
CLAY, Helen
HARRIS, Freddie
HOLLINGSHED, Jennie
PATTERSON, Elnora
WASHINGTON, Beatrice
WILLIAMS, Helen
WILLIAMS, Marion
Applied
4/20/55
5/19/55
9/20/55
5/ 9/55
10/10/55
6/14/55
8/ 3/55
2/22/56
1/24/56
Hired
4/25/55
5/19/55
9/20/55
5/10/55
10/10/55
6/15/55
8/ 3/55
2/22/56
1/24/56
BIPEDAL OI LIU LEED GALLE IN OLR III
616
SCHEDULE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 6(d)
Claimant
ALEXANDER, Iworner
ALONZO, Caledonia
ANDERSON, Beatrice
ANDERSON, Carrie
ANDERSON, Dora
ANGRUM, Ida Mae
AUGUST, Gloria
AULTMAN, Clarinda
BRIMMER, Bell
BROOKS, Millie
BROWN, Idele
BROWN, Margarite
BRYANT, Miriam
BURKHALTER, Ola Mae
BURNS, Elizabeth
CARR, Katie Ruth
COASTON, Lucille
WOODS, Wilhelmina
COSTON, Ethel
COURSEAULT, Shirley
CRAWFORD, Shirley Mae
CROPPER, Clara
DAVIS, Elvera
DAVIS, Thelma
DELPIT, Gloria
DELPIT, Mathilda
DIXSON, Gloria Mae
DRAKE, Elizabeth
DUCKETT, Norma
DUFAUCHARD, Arthemise
EDDINGTON, Isabella
EVANS, Alice
FARRIA, Vivian
FERGUSON, Perl
FOREMAN, Ethel
FOUNTAIN, Geneva
FRANKLIN, Zearlee
GABRIEL, Geneva
PEERED OLE LE LILI E NODE LOE SA LL SIE DIE ELE NL BOP MES EPEAT ES
Applied
4/19/55
4/20/55
4/18/55
4/22/55
4/18/55
8/15/55
4/15/55
4/19/55
4/11/55
4/20/55
4/21/55
4/14/55
4/27/55
4/ 4/55
4/18/55
4/15/55
4/27/55
4/21/55
4/15/55
4/19/55
5/ 4/55
4/14/55
4/14/55
4/15/55
5/11/55
4/14/55
5/10/55
4/14/55
4/15/55
4/15/55
4/15/55
4/14/55
6/10/55
4/11/55
7/11/55
4/14/55
4/14/55
4/14/55
Hired
4/25/55
5/ 4/55
7/12/55
7/18/55
5/ 2/55
10/ 3/55
7/25/55
7/25/55
5/26/55
7/26/55
7/25/55
7/19/55
5/12/55
4/28/55
7/12/55
7/25/55
7/11/55
8/19/55
5/23/55
5/16/55
7/12/55
5/25/55
7/20/55
5/30/55
No vacancy in classification
8/15/55
No vacancy in classification
4/25/55
8/ 3/55
4/28/55
4/25/55
7/12/55
8/ 8/55
8/ 8/55
No vacancy in classification
5/ 2/55
5/30/55
7/25/65
eS
617
SCHEDULE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 6(d)—(Continued)
— aig eee
Claimant Applied Hired
GANT, Mary 4/ 8/55 7/18/55
‘e GIVENS, Katherine 6/ 3/55 No vacancy in classification
\ GREEN, Herise 4/19/55 6/20/55
GREEN, Louise 4/15/55 4/28/55
GRIFFIN, Ethel 4/14/55 4/26/55
GRIFFIN, Joyce 5/11/55 5/23/55
GUIDRY, Mary 4/14/55 8/26/55
HALL, Catherine 4/20/55 6/ 3/55
HAMILTON, Viola 4/18/55 5/ 2/55
HUGHES, Minnie Bell 5/12/55 7/26/55
JACKSON, Eleanora 7/12/55 8/15/55
JOHNSON, Louella 4/20/55 8/ 3/55
JOHNSON, Virginia 4/29/55 8/ 5/55
JONES, Edna 4/19/55 4/22/55
: JONES, Shirley Mae 10/28/55 12/ 7/55
JOSHUA, Olivia 5/10/55 6/ 6/55
KEELER, Johnnie Mae 4/25/55 8/ 4/55
KELLY, Dorothy Harris 5/25/55 5/17/55
KIMBLE, Alnetta 4/21/55 4/28/55
LaROSE, Gertrude 4/15/55 6/ 9/55
LeBEAU, Edna 4/18/55 5/ 5/55
’ LEE, Ruby 4/18/55 4/26/55
McKENNIE, Leotha 4/28/55 12/ 5/55
MARGIN, Elenor 4/11/55 8/ 8/55
; MARSHALL, Dorothy 4/14/55 4/28/55
_ MATTHEWS, Gloria 5/ 5/55 7/25/55
_ MONETTE, Roberta 4/14/55 4/25/55
r- MOTEN, Lena Dixon 4/18/55 4/26/55
NEWTON, Rosie Lee 4/22/55 7/12/55
NICHOLAS, Clotilde 6/17/55 8/ 2/55
PARKER, Shirley 4/25/55 7/14/55
PARNELL, Evone 9/ /55 No vacancy in classification
PENN, Gloria 4/18/55 5/ 2/55
PHILLIPS, Louise 4/18/55 7/26/55
POWELL, Melvina 6/ 6/55 7/25/55
RAPP, Gloria 4/20/55 4/28/55
RAY, Wilhelmina 4/21/55 No vacancy in classification
REED, Dorothy Kearney 8/16/55 No vacancy in classification
ania a te LSS aE ee ee Tn
618
SCHEDULE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 6(d)—(Continued)
Claimant
REEVES, Nerlie
RICHARD, Pearl
RICHARDSON, Rose
RUBIT, Dorothy P.
SANDERS, Ada
SAWYER, Ellen
SCOTT, Dolores
SEATON, Rebecca
SIMPSON, Lilly Mae
SONIA, Rose Mary
STEWARD, Millie Lee
TAPLIN, Dorothy Mae
THOMAS, Lovenia
THOMAS, Mary
THOMAS, Midnonette
THORNTON, Jesenu
VALENTINE, Hilda
WATSON, Mabel
WILLIAMS, Alice
WOODFORK, Yvonne
MAGEE, Vivian
MOORE, Leola
Applied
4/27/55
4/12/55
4/15/55
4/22/55
4/14/55
4/22/55
4/18/55
4/19/55
5/ 2/55
6/ 6/55
4/21/55
4/18/55
4/25/55
4/15/55
8/ 5/55
4/19/55
4/14/55
4/27/55
4/19/55
5/ 9/55
4/18/55
5/ 4/55
6/15/55
6/ 6/55
7/12/55
7/13/55
10/ 3/55
5/11/55
4/28/55
5/16/55
8/ 1/55
6/29/55
7/25/55
5/ 3/55
7/13/55
6/13/55
—
No vacancy in classification
8/15/55
7/13/55
7/25/55
5/30/55
7/25/55
12/ 5/55
8/ 4/55
|
619
SCHEDULE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 6(e)
Claimant
BENTLEY, Helen
BROWN, Bessie
BRUMFIELD, Ruth
CHERI, Miriam
CLEMENTS, Lilly Mae
DENLEY, Alice Theresa
FERNANDEZ, Minnie Mae
GREEN, Dorothy
HEAD, Marguerite
HENDERSON, Victoria
JACKSON, Louise
MEREDITH, Geraldine
NASH, Adele
PROCTOR, Mildred
RECASNER, Isabelle Jenkins
WATFORD, Fanny Mae
WHITE, Beatrice
WOODRIDGE, Estella
ZENO, Audry
Date Reported
(if at all)
9/18/61
Never reported
Never reported
3/29/56
Never reported
Did not report
until 10/18/60
12/ 5/56
Never reported
Never reported
Never reported
Never reported
Never reported
4/ 3/56
Never reported
12/ 4/61
Never reported
Respondent attempted
contact-claimant out
of town-dates unknown
to respondent
Requested
Applied to Report
8/ 8/55 9/19/55
and 3/29/56
4/19/55 7/11/55
4/15/55 T/ /55
5/ 3/55 3/29/56
5/15/55 = 7/19/55
5/25/55 4/ 3/56
4/18/55 1956
4/18/55 7/13/55
4/19/55 7/18/55
5/17/55 = =7/20/55
5/25/55 8/55
4/15/55 7/18/55
4/21/55 4/28/55
4/15/55 3/29/56
7/24/55 12/28/55
4/19/55 8/ 3/55
4/20/55 7/22/55
Unknown to
respondent
4/15/55 7/12/55
Never reported
SCHEDULE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 6(f)
CAMPBELL, Roe
DUN, Stella
JOHNSON, Maybelle
ROBERTSON, Adele
(not interested)
(pregnant)
(not interested)
(pregnant)
7
620
SCHEDULE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 6(g)
Claimant Applied
BURNS, Hazel 10/13/55
FONTERBERRY, Cleo 11/ 4/55
GREEN, Genevieve 11/ 9/665
CLARK, Catherine Jeff 1/25/56
JOLLY, Ruth Joyce 11/ 7/55
LEARSON, Dorothy White 10/ 6/58
LOTTEN, Herbert 11/ 7/55
LYONS, Lorraine 5/11/56
MONTGOMERY, Bessie Brown 1957
NEWMAN, Marictta 8/12/58
PARKER, Anna 10/ 6/58
SCHEDULE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 6(h)
Claimant Applied
BOWLES, Doris 4/27/55
BOZONIER, Marguerite 4/18/55
aired
8/ 3/56
8/ 5/55
Discharged
9/ 2/55
8/23/55
DARENSBOURG, Irma Ray 6/17/55 Not indicted in Quit
personnel file
FRANCES, Edna 4/14/55
LEWIS, Audrey Ann 4/14/55
LOCKETT, Marie 4/15/55
MARSHALL, Willie Lee 8/16/55
MOORE, Orelia 4/22/55
7/55
7/13/55
8/ 3/55
8/29/55
5/ 2/55
8/12/55
8/23/55
8/17/55
12/29/55
5/10/55
SCHEDULE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 6(i)
BROWN, Evangeline Clark
JOHNSON, Verna
ROLLINS, Geraldine
SHELTON, Clara
TAYLOR, Mary Lee
—7-_7~—~""
621
AFFIDAVIT
ORLEANS PARISH
LOUISIANA
Personally came and appeared EUGENE J. RUTTER,
who, after being duly sworn, deposed and said that he is
the President of J. H. RUTTER-REX MANUFACTUR-
ING COMPANY, INC., respondent in the foregoing
amended answer; that he has read the same and knows
the contents thereof and that the same are true and cor-
rect. In any instance in which an allegation is made on
information and belief, respondent believes said allega-
tion to be true.
/s/ Eugene J. Rutter
EUGENE J. RUTTER
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED
January 29, 1963.
/s/ Peter H. Beer
Notary Public
My Commission is for Life
CERTIFICATE
I CERTIFY that I have served an original and four
copies of the above and foregoing amended answer upon
the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region of the
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by causing
the same to be delivered to his office in New Orleans,
this 29th day of January, 1963.
/s/ H. J. READ
HENRY J. READ
622 |
matter has, with my approval, been withdrawn without
prejudice.
EXHIBIT A
15-95
[SEAL]
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FIFTEENTH REGION
820 Lowich Building, 2026 St. Charles Avenue
New Orleans 13, Louisiana
Telephone EX 2411 ‘
October 31, 1957 ;
;
Re: J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing
Company /
New Orleans, Louisiana |
15-CA-843 :
J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Co.,
3725 Dauphine Street
New Orleans, 17, Louisiana
Gentlemen: .
This is to advise that the Charge in the above-captioned i
:
Very truly yours,
/s/ John F. LeBus
JOHN F. LEBus
Regional Director
cc: Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, AFL-CIO
2106 St. Bernard Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana
TRY AA A ARE RE IES OG RUBS Be RE HR A ores
ee: Mr. Philip Lampert, Regional Counsel
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America
333 S. Ashland Blvd.
Chicago 7, Illinois
Original mailed to Mr. Henry Read
- 623
EXHIBIT B
LAW OFFICES
ERY, BARNETT, BROWN & READ
MONTGOMFational Bank of Commerce Building
804-807 Na New Orleans 12, La.
gomery
Richard B. Montgtt
Walter M. Barne’
Wood Brown
Henry J. Read nmond
John Phelps Ham
Peter H. Beer ad, III
John Walker Rea
——— September 11, 1957
Received, Sep. 12, 1957,
: _ tl Office, New Orleans 13, La., NLRB.
15th Regiona
National Labor oo —
; .Iding
820 Lowich Bui, avenue
2026 St. Charle:,
New Orleans, L*
PLEADED PPPOE ETE
Attention: Mr. Fox
Re: J. H. Rutter-Rex-Mfg. Co.
* 15-CA-721 and 15-CA-723
Dear Sirs:
This will advise that the notice which is a part of the
decree was posted in the New Orleans plants of the em-
ployer as of September 10th.
POO RR PR TORE 9 1 OE
The writer has passed on to the employer the request
of the Board for such records as would be covered by
Section 2 (c) of the decree and we will advise you as
soon as the necessary records have been assembled.
With reference to the posting of the notice in the
Franklinton plant, the writer discussed with Mr. Paschal
=
—"
the question of whether or not the notice which is a part
of the decree should properly be posted in Franklinton
in view of the fact that the unit for which the Amalga-
mated Clothing Workers of America has been certified is
limited to the New Orleans employees. Mr. Paschal sug-
gested the possibility of a stipulation which would form
the basis of an amendment to the decree insofar as the
form of the notice to be posted in Franklinton is con-
cerned. To this end we suggest an amendment to the
notice which would exclude any reference to the respond-
ent’s obligation to bargain with a particular union upon
request, and we would appreciate your advising in due
course whether the general counsel is disposed to join
in a stipulation to that effect.
624
Yours very truly,
MONTGOMERY, BARNETT, BROWN
& READ
By /s/ H. J. Read
HENRY J. READ
625
EXHIBIT C
LAW OFFICES
MONTGOMERY, BARNETT, BROWN & READ
804-807 National Bank of Commerce Building
New Orleans 12, La.
Richard B. Montgomery
Walter M. Barnett
Wood Brown
Henry J. Read
John Phelps Hammond
Peter H. Beer
John Walker Read, III
Albert Mintz
October 24, 1957
Received, Oct. 25, 1957,
15th Regional Office, New Orleans 13, La., NLRB.
PORE ae Na eR EG EE SE Bid RRO
National Labor Relations Board
820 Lowich Building
2026 St. Charles Avenue
New Orleans, La.
SAO Ia TP eg RR EAN,
Attention: Mr. Fox
Re: J. H. Rutter-Rex-Mfg. Co.
15-CA-721 and 15-CA-723
Dear Sirs:
Fee ee OWT OM hd,
Enclosed is a list of the employees on the payroll of
the company at the time that the strike was called who
applied for work after the strike terminated. Also re-
flected is the date each applied for work following the
termination of the strike and the date they were actually
returned to work.
a a
Yours very truly,
MONTGOMERY, BARNETT, BROWN
& READ
By /s/ Henry J. Read
nb HENRY J. READ
Encl.
'
i
+
¥
= a a"
“~
Myyeas
A
MA
7 moo tLoU
fee ~ayge/s aa
“ sf Te
=e} -asfoi,'s a“
A? tefii, > -
LYE? aba leis -
mow * cots adh
aAspefy tahi/'s pa
“athgh tysyS
= Our aap» ‘a
ae Oa fs
14/4, a
-ayeifs wre a
Laiif{ nem, pr
-14/'fe ~4a/, > a /\ :
alg s/h laf: AS a /\ :
Po ae K
—o~ 4% (Ss A x , by
ae ” oferty ei oe:
-eo (4 wih - vet
Avaya “aa/t4 bs Fi etal i | dake ely he
ag, eyo ratpechrec? ta
aihes aylesis i FITZY Zo
ME 2 4. gee
— wk - /\ Ze ‘ al be
nafe/# ff a ae rege maser, “es “eae
eo % ~ A portent FN aly es
5
:
ssdsay!
ALLS -00/91fh ys
OW 0h DMI Ae TU Tee to wat
PAVE ‘“ssve sumssrne Vid wo
atatus
Pysysbeus
qi L090 ,
NA gear
v p/h ~44 iE
7o= ayy S
balyfy Aa, Vs
ee et
el
“A
Ps!
oad
-
A
el)
ws
td
ed
A
ia as se /4 tn
8
an
a
“
-“
“A
a
Fad
A
uw
ws
A
“A
P
Ret ene.- Se -
Ae re
. £ - ‘ ¢
A oo a s
- i . v N
> %) "2 oe
» _ » CA
fo ay FON ee
eve Lashify 5 NHB
== yh 7 mote
oe < ett
AVI —_paktrhe i ae
is - aD foe
ve evirh : npn
, . p : "a , “<<
get aye “ PP et FF 0 ates
Boss meg Melle
of 9 wi . ? a ; : «
Vea FIFA SS 7eVhgy c the i jAd + ly , : : .
C4 PLIC ye RLGL MHA veo Par)
: ; p
Lime LPOOETIVULG % PY WP os
ests cs 2) eae ¢ - set ; ;
BBRGA A ene Sv
" WPAN > gy je. vas. e” ree Sve" vd Aan are Os *
“e Pe Rs x we \ig’ Se”. Sales rg a
ee 4 Sah es ae S ta ales
. . * ae z . oe *. ba “7 “- a> a i, 2
SR ERE patel Nae weg
. . *,
Sa ar Amn SAL 7, «ot
™ ° 2 fs -
PRGA
I, Ro fete) Wee ders:
TOE Fee
oe
AP GPRANAL CP COU 0%.
x St Cmtenh en * Shs
; ate £m i b=) ge tie of ? a
is wer ts ¥resty) “eS:
mm rhaery ¢ ~ ery eS
OP “Grtenty obvi,
Ve a\ Te SN mi) ir?
fe oof ref:
e ip 3 (ft
e, bs Py
ate [A Vey $
e-,\ -
Xe. if: ae
/\ ~tAq CREASY 4 fF: “ é i* ons
e et a hat: Mop fatc
° - . .
a o = -
ov POR ye SF ae
af o> a tet ee fe .
—*,. . rc eyes ACG pom —
fee oy | A
eo AEP NPP DPIIA
ene “GRY ge” CS
P i te oe Ae © ees KS oe
Rie ¢ S
i ” Y wat .
are A a eee ee
TPP ete OS OL. wrk \
— os
VOSSASVSVVEVMS Savy sSNSVSSSRRIDAV SASS SED OL
{3
i
iN
. - 3
PFILA “a
_* % aft
-.— afoelt
Sse oFigid Webhes sf ae
tbe a7 cee ares we wld
em oyie wee ae one )
a tS dh fl
Ley -
\y>
-+ OTS AEBS
630
%,
. -—g<
A s a
“ ,
wp oa a)
ve a :
$F fi 4 ° -~@g@~
te, e. =f
a oT Wig .
F y Gi
‘ ? eben ~_ : x
# id rigs . f" / wf A
x Paes p+ a at O add
ere
SVAVdSvasadbyhye
ad 6 | ; : ins $e 7 " ; L; a.)
cn ARPT LE ef oA Bal
its aegis m oe 9p
$ ae ’ BOY v4) yy: So ee tat
a 2A pte 0- ce e
‘ , | U Yr ere Ye? ee sf
>
, 47
om 4, wy 77eC Tada
oF i
AZ ay é
3
!
a
‘
; he \e~ mG orone /
“ pony he i
Nbr,
fy erg! oF} et
| she
ssvsSsSSSSSSSISVM
3
:
SWS SOS
4
4 ; $7 epi P
by — fe . ‘ re -
a Y —_ q proofs wabge
wlbYo of 41/9 LA AOE ¢ ;
: worn of od tv Fre Add ZA wt Ww 79" ’
CLLLIT SCLLIL GLAS is 0 |
VAC
ie
operations by n’
631
EXHIBIT D
MONTGOME LAW OFFICES
804-807 NaRY, BARNETT, BROWN & READ
ional Bank of Commerce Building
Richard B. MontgNew Orleans 12, La.
Walter M. Barnebmery
Wood Brown ;
Henry J. Read
John Phelps Ham
Peter H. Beer nond
John Walker Rea
Albert Mintz |, II
National Labor ] October 31, 1957
820 Lowich Buil , ,.
2026 St. Charles@/4tions Board
ing
New Orleans, Lz +a
Attention: Mr. .
Re:7ox
Dear Sirs: J. H. Rutter-Rex-Mfg. Co.
._ 15-CA-721 and 15-CA-723
Supplementing
you the compan)
the rate per hovour letter of October 24, we now hand
You will note tls payroll as of April 17, 1954, reflecting
on the left hand and the earnings for a 2-week period.
it the payroll lists the operation number
We are also side
enclosing a reference to the individual
mber for shirts and pants.
Yours very truly,
MONTGOMERY, BARNETT, BROWN
nb & READ
Encls. By /s/ Henry J. Read
’ HENRY J. READ
15th Region:
Received, Nov. 1, 1957,
Office, New Orleans 13, La., NLRB.
—y
632
EXHIBIT E
LAW OFFICES
MONTGOMERY, BARNETT, BROWN & READ
804-807 National Bank of Commerce Building
New Orleans 12, La.
Richard B. Montgomery
Walter M. Barnett
Wood Brown
Henry J. Read
John Phelps Hammond
Peter H. Beer
John Walker Read, III |
Albert Mintz
November 7, 1957
Received, Nov. 12, 1957,
15th Regional Office, New Orleans 13, La., NLRB.
National Labor Relations Board
15th Region ‘
820 Lowich Building
2026 St. Charles Avenue
New Orleans, La.
Re: J. H. Rutter-Rex-Mfg. Co.
15-CA-721 and 15-CA-723
Dear Sirs:
As you know, we are handling the matter of complying
with the decree of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit enforcing the order of the National
Labor Relations Board in the subject cases. Our client
has already complied with some of the provisions of the
decree, and is presently engaged in bargaining with the
representatives of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America. If any instance of a failure to fully comply
_—
633
with the order is brought to your attention, we would
appreciate your contacting us promptly so that such cor-
rective measures as may be necessary can be immediately
taken in order to assure full compliance with the decree.
Yours very truly,
MONTGOMERY, BARNETT, BROWN
& READ
By /s/ Henry J. Read
HENRY J. READ
nb
634
EXHIBIT F
[SEAL]
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FIFTEENTH REGION
820 Lowich Building, 2026 St. Charles Avenue |
New Orleans 13, Louisiana
March 22, 1960
Night TUlane 8320
J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing |
Company, Inc,
Cases Nos. 15-CA-721 and 723
Henry J. Read, Esq.
Montgomery, Barnett, Brown & Reed
804-807 National Bank of Commerce Bldg.
New Orleans 12, Louisiana
Dear Mr. Read:
As you may know, the above-named cases have been
assigned to the undersigned for the purpose of assisting
the Company in complying with the Order of the Board
as enforced by the Circuit Court.
Our file indicates our last correspondence with you was
in 1957, when in a September 11 letter you informed us
notices were posted in the New Orleans plants of Rutter-
Rex on September 10. It is presumed that notices were
subsequently posted at the Franklinton plant. Will you
please confirm the posting of these notices,
An effort is being made to determine the back pay, if
any, due the strikers referred to by the Board in its Order,
To this end we are requesting that payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, personnel records and re
ports necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due
and the rights of employment of strikers be made avail-
able to us for examination and copying. We currently
have before us the names of some 470 individuals for
whom determinations are to be made. While this appears
to be a formidable undertaking, we trust that with your
?
Telephone EXpress 241!
635
cooperation it will not be too burdensome upon the
Employer.
Will you please contact us at your earliest convenience
in order that we may arrange a time and place for our
examination.
We are, we realize, in the position of having delayed
action in this matter over a period of several years. Under
these circumstances, it may seem inconsistent that we now
urge that prompt attention be given to the request. How-
ever, the delay to date has been in a large measure due
to a shortage of personnel in this office. In order that we
may bring your client into compliance with the decree of
the Court as soon as possible, we ask that we hear from
yeu within the next week. Your cooperation here will be
sincerely appreciated.
Very truly yours,
/s/ John H. Immel, Jr.
JOHN TH. IMMEL, JR.
Compliance Examiner
——y
636
[fol. 1] BEFORE THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FIFTEENTH REGION
Cases Nos. 15-CA-721, 15-CA-723
In the Matter of:
J. H. RUTTER-REX MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.
and
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO
Hearing Room T-6039,
Federal Building (Loyola)
701 Loyola Avenue
New Orleans, Louisiana
Monday, November 13, 1962.
Pursuant to notice, the above-entitled matter came on
for hearing at 10:00 o’clock, A.M.
BEFORE:
OWSLEY VOSE, Trial Examiner.
APPEARANCES:
JOHN H. HECTOR, EDWARD A. CHAMPAGNE, and LOUIS
A. FUSELIER
T-6024, New Federal Building, 701 Loyola Avenue,
New Orleans, Louisiana, appearing on behalf of the
General Counsel.
RALPH JACKSON
1310 Oil and Gas Building, New Orleans, Louisiana,
representing Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO.
HENRY J. READ and PETER H. BEER
806 National Bank of Commerce Building, New Or-
leans, Louisiana, representing the Respondent.
ee
[fol. 74] LOREN P. JONES,
a witness called by and on behalf of the Generai Counsel,
after first being duly sworn, was examined and testified
as follows:
637
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q. (By Mr. Champagne) Would you state your name
for the record, please?
A. Loren P. Jones.
Q. By whom are you employed, Mr. Jones?
A. National Labor Relations Board.
(fol. 75] Q. And that address is what?
A. 6024 Federal Building, 701 Loyola Avenue.
Q. In what capacity are you employed by the Labor
Board?
A. Compliance Officer.
Q. Speak up just a little bit.
A. Compliance officer.
Q. How long have you been in that job?
A. Approximately two and a half years.
Q. How long have you been with the Board?
A. About nine years.
Q. Prior to being compliance officer, what type of work
id you do?
A. I was a field examiner.
Q. With the Fifteenth Region?
A. Fifteenth Region. That’s this region.
Q. Prior to coming with the Board what type of work
did you do? Who were you with?
A. I was with the Wage and Hour Division, U. S$.
Department of Labor.
Q. What type of work did this entail?
A. I was a wage and hour investigator.
Q. And this went into payroll records and such of em-
ployers and job classifications?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Prior to that by whom were you employed?
A. R. G. LeTourneau, Incorporated.
(fol. 76] Q. What type of work did you do with them?
A. Time study engineer.
d
Be Bh a)
638
Q. Time study engineer. This time that you have been
compliance officer, this two and a half years, has this been
continuous?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you explain your duties as a compliance of-
ficer.
A. The duties are somewhat what the title entails, but
after a board order is handed down and intermediate re
port is handed down, after a settlement agreement has
been arrived at, or after a court decree issues, it is my job
to check that order or that document to determine what the
respondent must do to comply with the order, and to more
or less see that it is done. If it involves back pay, it is
my job to compute the back pay due. If it involves the
posting of notices, it is my job to see the notices are
posted. That is generally what the job is. In a case such
as this, if specifications are issued, it is part of my job
to prepare those, too.
Q. Asa field examiner, did you engage in the computa-
tion of back pay also?
. Yes,
Q. All right, sir. Were you responsible for, or did you
have any connection with the back pay specifications in
this particular case?
A. Yes, it is under my direction they were prepared.
(fol. 77] Q. When were you assigned this case?
A. I was assigned this case along with all other cases
on compliance when I became compliance officer in mid-
1960.
Q. When was that?
A. Mid-1960. I believe June, but it was mid-year
anyhow.
Q. Now, were you assigned to this case by yourself?
A. Initially, yes, but some few months after I had the
case there was assigned an attorney full time to help in
the legal matters and investigation and preparation of the
specification. In other words, we two worked together on
it then for a considerable length of time. In fact, there
has been an attorney assigned to it ever since that time.
Q. Since a short time after you got the case?
x
4
24
Z
4
hye
ee
is
%
ty
»
ws
”
y,
:
2
4
—
639
A. I think that was probably October or November,
1960. I might mention there has been heavens only knows
how many clericals assigned to it from time to time and
possibly even an occasional professional sporadically to
interview someone or assist there, but it has been primar-
ily a two-man job with clerical assistance,
. When you refer to the “professionals”, you are re-
ferring to the field examiners and attorneys of the re-
gional office, is that right?
A. Right. There were occasions when we would bor-
row one for a short time.
Were you assigned any other help as far as proving
[fol. 78] the computations or talking it over with anyone?
A. Yes, my own superior, who is Assistant Regional
Director and regional attorney, and at times Regional Di-
rector. There have been many conferences held by the
group with some of those people or some parts of those
people about the methods or the law involved or various
aspects of the case—most important aspects of the case,
I might say.
Q. Now, was anyone else from an office other than the
regional office consulted in this matter?
A. We once had a fellow down here from Washington.
One fellow was here a matter of a few days to go over
the anticipated method of computing the gross and then
we later had another man down here for another couple
of weeks to help compute some of these work sheets which
you see back in the index section of the specification.
(fol. 132] CROSS EXAMINATION
Q. (BY MR. READ) Mr. Jones, I understood you to
say yesterday that this case was turned over to you some-
time in Mid-June, 1960.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I said mid-June. I meant to say mid-year. Which
is correct?
A. Likely it was in June of 1960 as my recollection is.
Q. Now, did the job of compliance officer exist before
you were appointed compliance officer?
A. Yes, sir.
7
Q. Who held the job prior to you?
A. Mr. John Immel.
Q. What was the state of Board file in the case when
it was turned over to you?
A. Well, there were several statements in there from
various employees of Rutter-Rex. There were, oh, I think
possibly 100 to 150 forms which had been filled out by
employees of Rutter-Rex. There were several sheets of
payroll transcriptions, I guess would be a good word, that
Mr. Immel had made from company records. There were
many, many documents of correspondence between our of-
fice and employees of Rutter-Rex. There were some con-
siderable documents that you folks had submitted, and
(fol. 133] there were documents that the Union had sub-
mitted in support of the various positions. That is about
my recollection of what there was in the file.
Q. Did that file contain a copy of my letter to the
Board dated November, 1957 in which I included this
language—
MR. CHAMPAGNE: Mr. Examiner, we are going to
object to this. I believe the purpose of Mr. Jones’ testi-
mony, and the whole purpose, is limited to the computa-
tion of the back pay and not to any delays or other reasons
that might be gone into, I believe that this is what it was
limited to.
TRIAL EXAMINER: I will hear Mr. Read.
MR, READ: Mr. Examiner, this witness has testified
as a Board professional. He has testified as compliance
officer, and he has testified at length as to what the duties
of the compliance officer are. This letter that I am re-
ferring to now is referred to as a predicate for a question
as to the function of a compliance officer. I am interested
in developing just what his function is and whether he
fulfilled it or did not fulfill it in this case.
TRIAL EXAMINER: He may answer it.
MR. READ: I think the objection was interposed be-
fore I quote to you the language which I am interested in.
- (BY MR.READ) The language of my letter is as
(fol. 134] follows: “If any instance of a failure to fully
comply with the order is brought to your attention we
640
So eee
9 i
641
would appreciate your contacting us promptly so that such
corrective measures as may be necessary can be immedi-
ately taken in order to assure full compliance with the
Do you recall whether the letter containing that lan-
guage was in the files when it was turned over to you?
A. I believe so. Yes, sir. The date I wouldn’t know.
I remember a letter of that general content.
Now, does the work of a compliance officer involve
efforts to work with respondent companies the details of
compliance short of litigation?
A. Frequently they do.
Q. Do you know whether any effort had been made by
your predecessor to work out the details of compliance
with this company prior to the time that you took over
the case?
A. No, I don’t know of any. I don’t know that there
was or there wasn’t in other words.
Q. Did you during the time the case has been under
your jurisdiction respond in any way to that letter to
which I have referred?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you make any effort to present to the company
the Board’s contentions and attempt to work out with the
company a solution of the problems arising therefrom?
{fol. 135] A. Well, there was a letter we sent to you
in September which—
Q. Of what year?
A. Of 1961, soliciting your position. I remember
that. Now, whether ti.at is in the purview of what you
are talking about I am not sure, but I do recall there was
such a letter sent to you.
Q. Right. I remember the letter you refer to also.
A. It was for your position.
Q. Did we reply to that letter?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did we not state our position?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did we not conclude our letter of October 27th
with this language: “the writer will be pleased to discuss
these matters further with you at our mutual conveni-
ence,”’
642
Do you remember that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you make any attempt to work out the prob-
lems which the Board saw in this case before you filed the
back pay specification?
A. No, sir. No, Before the filing of the specification
you say?
Q. Before, that’s correct.
A. No. sir, except I might say this. The timing I am
fol. 136 not sure about. I do recollect we talked one
time about reinstating these 70 people. If that was before
the specification—
Q. It may have been after?
A. It may have been after. I know we did after. The
only question in my mind is whether we also did before.
Q. But as far as you recollect specifically you cannot
refer to any specific instance in which an attempt was
made to work out these problems before you filed the back
pay specification?
A. No, sir.
* * * *
Q. I’m asking you whether as a compliance officer do
you consider that your duties included an effort to work
[fol. 187] out these matters with the Respondent before
you litigated the case?
A. Qh, yes.
Q. Why didn’t you do it?
A. Well, we had sent a letter asking the position on
these people here. Now, that was the first time in my
time as compliance officer and presumably the first time
anybody was in a position to know the status of this case.
Now, normally the employer at that point, we usually get
some response from him at that point, to try to work
these things out. This was an advice to you folks asking
for a position, but at the same time setting out our posi-
tion. Most certainly this September letter is—is it Sep-
tember, by the way?
Q. You are talking now about the statement of the
employer’s position in October of 1961.
A. If that is the date on it, yes.
Q. All right. Now, we will take that date.
ERT LES ESE TEE IG ILE ESM RE TRS OR ee ae ae RE
vad on EE SSE SIT CRESS EN 7 — =
ae
—s
643
A. Yes, sir.
We will take that as a starting point. Did you
make any attempt to discuss with the employer or any or
his representatives the obligations which the Board saw
in the decree as enforced before you filed the specification?
A. No, sir.
I understood you to say that your duties as com-
pliance officer included an effort so to do, and I now ask
you why you did not do so in this case?
(fol. 138] A. I believe I went one step further, Mr.
Read, and said that the employer or the Respondent nor-
mally indicates some desire of wanting some help or advice
or whatever term you might like to use in this. At the
time that we came to this thing in October obviously you
had made a request but it was what, some four years
prior. I had no indication from then on that you folks
wanted to work this case out or try to comply or anything
else. I had no indication one way or the other.
Q. You never asked us.
A. No, sir. Absolutely not, sir. I sent you only a let-
ter of position.
Q. And you did know we had in the file which was
turned over to you a request that the Board bring to the
attention of the company any instance in which the Board
considered a failure of compliance to have occurred. You
knew that was in the file?
A. That’s correct.
* * * *
(fol. 162] Q. Do you have a copy of your questionnaire
with you?
A. I don’t have it up here.
Q. Do you have the forms with you?
A. There are some around in the hearing room here I
think.
. Could I see one please?
MR. CHAMPAGNE: Mr. Examiner, we are going to
object to the production of this. This is just a work-
sheet sort of thing, and after all, interini earnings as
such are some thing that we are conceding on behalf of
the employees as to deduction of back pay. I don’t think
) his work product is submittable.
LH ERE SP BBN MII NIE OE PLETE I DE
644
TRIAL EXAMINER: I think for the purposes of this —
hearing it would be helpful for him to see a blank form ©
and if you don’t have a blank form I don’t think the in-
formation on any individual is going to prejudice your
case, if he sees it.
MR. FUSELIER: Let the record reflect that I am
showing to Mr. Read a form entitled “Rutter-Rex Manu-
facturing Company,” consisting of four mimeographed
pages with questions and blanks and one blank page for —
notes and computations.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Well, that isn’t the back pay
form to which you were referring.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
(fol. 163] TRIAL EXAMINER: That has been used
around the office for years?
THE WITNESS: No. This is the one that was de-
veloped for use in the Rutter-Rex case only, as the title
implies.
TRIAL EXAMINER: You didn’t use any of the
standard forms in the Rutter-Rex case?
THE WITNESS: Yes, we used some of those too.
Certainly did. Certainly did.
Q. (BY MR. READ) I would like to see the differ-
ence vetween the two. Do you have any of your standard
forms?
A. I presume there are some around the office. It is
an obsolete form. I might mention that it has now be-
come obsoiete.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Since it was used in this case?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
TRIAL EXAMINER: I would appreciate your fur-
nishing it.
MR, CHAMPAGNE: Would you care to see one while
we are waiting?
TRIAL EXAMINER: Yes, :
MR. HECTOR: May the record reflect I am ‘handing
to Mr. Read a form identified as NLRB Form 916. Inci-
dentally, this is an obsolete form.
TRIAL EXAMINER: But it was used in connection
with the back pay computation?
MR. HECTOR: Yes, sir.
pi ae ae I ord AT A or as ti
645
TRIAL EXAMINER: Computation work in this case
in part?
(fol. 164] MR. HECTOR: In part, yes, sir.
MR. CHAMPAGNE: I know you are familiar with
this, but you might want to see it.
MR. READ: Mr. Hector, Mr. Fuselier, did you mark
either one of those forms for identification in any way
other than stating for the record you were handing them
BMS SA PRE Nt NET AEE EG LM EELS MESES ONAL RII
to me?
MR. FUSELIER: Not at this time.
MR. READ: I would like to mark the first form en-
titled Rutter-P2x Manufacturing Company, as Rutter-
Rex No. 1. % ~vould like to mark the second one Rutter-
Rex Form No. 2.
(Thereupon, the documents above referred to were
marked Respondent’s Exhibit R-1 and R-2 for identi-
fication. )
MR. CHAMPAGNE: May I suggest he mark it R-1?
MR. READ: Yes, mark it R-1, then, because there will
propably be a number of them.
* * * *
MR. READ: I offer the two documents so marked into
evidence in connection with the testimony of Mr. Jones.
MR. CHAMPAGNE: I won’t object to it.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Received.
(Thereupon, the documents heretofore marked R-1
(fol. 165] and R-2 for identification, were received in evi-
dence. )
MR. READ: Might I inquire whether you have addi-
tional copies that you could make available to me, be-
| cause those will be for the record.
| MR. HECTOR: For the record we will make available
1 an extra copy.
_ (BY MR. READ) Did you devise this form which
is marked R-1?
| , A. I believe Mr. Cohen an’ I together devised that
orm.
Q. That was in 19— what?
A. Probably the fall of 1960.
CT UP URS LOBEL OE A a De maytag Nr _
. . PLP DS YAS TON SoS bie RR Re Otis ts - > ~~ »
SS te SaaS Li SS el aL
646
Q. The fall of 1960?
A. Yes. Maybe early 1961, but in that period.
Q. Were you given any completed forms on the old ~
form when you took over the case? |
A. There were some of those in the file.
Q. There were?
A. There were some of these in the file.
Q. Do you remember how many?
A. My recollection is that there was an excess of 100
but I don’t think as many as 200. I would say someplace
between 100 and 200.
Q. So you had approximately 100 of these forms, form
No. 2, completed and in the file when you took over the ©
case? :
(fol. 166) A. Yes. i
Q. Is that correct?
A. I would say in the neighborhood of 100 to 200, in |
that territory, yes. I might mention by way of explana-
tion I don’t know that all of those ended up in the specifi-
cations,
* * * *
(fol. 168} Q. (BY MR. READ) Did you tell them in
any instance?
A. We may have told them. To start with, there are
certain things. The first question asked might well elimi-
nate them from the case entirely. Those people were told
nothing except “So long”. That’s what those people were
told.
Q. I’m talking about—
A. Now, the other people that you went ahead and in-
terviewed at length, they were probably told something
along these lines.
Q. Now I am not asking whether they were probably
told. I am asking whether you know whether they were
told the purpose of your interview with them was to deter-
mine their right to back pay in this proceedings?
A. I might have told them something to that effect,
yes, sir.
(fol. 169] Q. You did tell them, did you not?
A. To help determine if they were entitled to rein-
statement and/or back pay.
‘ - a a sganten caoeqenntig. PPLE
REE LISLE INTE SEE PRT SOLE EI TILING EI LSS LEE IE ENE OT OCT
647
aaa
_ But you don’t mean to tell me you might have told
them. You did tell them.
A. Some of them I did tell. I don’t have any doubt.
. You don’t have any doubt.
MR. CHAMPAGNE: Mr. Examiner, we are arguing
and that has no place in this record. Now, I think Mr.
Jones has the right * * *
e * * *
[fol. 220] REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Q. (By Mr. Champagne) ted is
,.
CRA RAS eee TESOL AR OES:
Cie ees
wot Us yats
[fol. 227] Q. You have mentioned several times in your
testimony that a calculation of this back pay involved the
interviewing of 500 or 600 people; is that correct?
oe A. Yes, sir.
_ And that, I understand, was finally narrowed down
to 200 and—
A. Seven.
_ * * *
Q. Could you give us any breakdown of the reasons for
the elimination of some 200 or 300 people who, as I under-
stand it, there are around 400 people on strike, 400 or
500; can you give us any kind of a statement of the rea-
sons for elimination of these some two or three hundred
people?
A. I can give you several of the reasons. I can’t give
you any idea of how many within a given reason. I know
(fol. 228] I can recollect several reasons why we disquali-
fied them, one being no application at all; in other words,
no evidence they tried to go back to work.
Q. Did you endeavor to go out and look for these peo-
ple who did not make any application?
% A. We contacted these people, either in person, by let-
ter or by phone. We contacted these people.
5 Q. And what did you do then?
A. We specifically asked about that point.
Q. About whether or not they would make an applica-
tion?
A. Whether they had. Whether they had made an
application. If they did not, according to this decree we
A GMOE SE GUT RIES ee . —_
= PALO EMEA EB IO PE. OUI IE MCLE SVEN EN Gigs SILI GLY EBL! LEM
- Zz
do not see that they could by any stretch of imagination
be included in such a thing as this.
Q. You mean people who did not make an application
for reemployment?
A. Correct, or who the union had not made applica.
tion for, one of the two,
Q. Could you estimate about how many that elimi- —
nated?
A. No, I really can’t.
Q. What were the other reasons for elimination?
A. There were some eliminated because the company
had reinstated them within five days as required by the
decree and they consequently would be entitled to nothing.
Some were eliminated on that basis. I am trying to see
(fol. 229) if there might be any other reasons. That is
the main ones that I recall.
Q. Were there any that you know of who had made
application for reemployment but who had moved away
and you simply couldn’t contact?
A. We may have had a few that we didn’t find and
didn’t know what the status was. I don’t recollect that
there were many like that. You are talking now of peo
ple that are not in the specifications, correct?
Q. Yes.
A. There may be some in that category.
(fol. 399] PHILIP LAMPERT,
a witness called by and on behalf of the General Counsel,
being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as
follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q. (By Mr. Hector) Would you please state your
name and address for the record.
A. Philip Lampert, L-a-m-p-e-r-t, 333 South Ashland
Boulevard, Chicago 7, Illinois. |
Q. Mr. Lampert, by whom are you employed?
A. The Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.
Q. In what capacity, sir?
A. Regional counsel.
———
649
Q. How long have you held that position?
A. 16 years.
_ Were you regional counsel at the time of the strike
in 1954-1955 at Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Company in
New Orleans?
(fol.400] A. I was,
Q. Did you have anything to do with the union’s posi-
tion with that strike?
A. I did.
Q. In what capacity were you connected with it?
A. Iwas here in an advisory capacity.
Q. Mr. Lampert, I am handing to you what has been
marked for identification as General Counsel’s Exhibit No.
8, a letter dated April 5, 1955, signed by you and attached
return receipt. Can you identify that for me, sir?
(Thereupon, the document above referred to was
marked General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 8 for identi-
fication. )
A. Yes,Ican. This is a letter which I wrote on April
5, 1955 and sent by registered mail to the Respondent com-
pany informing them that our organization, the Amalga-
mated Clothing Workers of America, had voted on March
31 to terminate a strike then current against the Respond-
ent company, and also informed them that the employees
whose names were on an attached list wished to return to
work unconditionally and immediately and a request that
the company inform us as to where and when those em-
ployees should return to work.
Q. And is that the return receipt, or do you have any
knowledge as to whether or not that was the return re-
ceipt attached to that letter?
(fol.401] A. Yes. I have personal knowledge that that
is the return receipt.
MR. READ: May I see that.
MR. HECTOR: At this time I would offer General
Counsel’s Exhibit No. 8 in evidence.
MR. JACKSON: What is the number of it?
MR. HECTOR: 8.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Received.
— LITLE I LEE ASPIRE ES EON Pry et
~
650
(The document heretofore marked General Counsel’s
Exhibit No. 8 for identification was received in evi-
dence. )
Q. (By Mr. Hector) Mr. Lampert, I show to you
what I have marked for identification as General Counsel’s
Exhibit 9. It is a letter dated April 8th with your name
typed on as the originator and a return receipt attached.
Can you identify that for me?
(Thereupon, the document above referred to was
marked General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 9 for identi-
fication. )
A. This is a letter which I wrote on April 8, 1955, to
the Respondent company and sent to them by registered
mail, in which I informed them that this is an additional
list of employees who wished to return for work, wished
to return to work with the company unconditionally and
immediately, and again a request that the company inform
(fol. 402) us when and where the employees should return
to work,
Q. And do you have any knowledge as to the return
receipt attached thereto?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. It was attached to that letter at the time you sent
it?
A. It was.
Q. At this time I would like—
A. It wasn’t attached to the letter at the time it was
sent. It was returned as a result of sending that letter
and was incorporated in our files.
MR. HECTOR: At this time I would like to offer in
evidence General Counsel’s Exhibit 9.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Received.
(The document heretofore marked General Counsel’s
Exhibit No. 9 for identification was received in evi-
dence. )
TRIAL EXAMINER: Do you have copies of those
that I could just look at?
MR. HECTOR: Yes, sir.
TRIAL EXAMINER: I don’t want to keep them.
651
Q. (By Mr. Hector) Mr. Lampert, I show you an
exhibit I have marked for identification as Genera] Coun-
sel’s Exhibit No. 10, a letter addressed to you from Mr.
A. H. Dennis of the Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Company,
and ask you if you can identify that further for us.
(fol. 403) A. This is a letter which I received fro:1 Mr.
Dennis, who is an officer of the Respondent company, on
April 11, 1955, acknowledging receipt of my letters as
indicated here April 4th, but which actually carries the
date of April 5, which is General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 8,
and the letter of April 8th, and suggested that the persons
who desired to return to work file application with the
Respondent’s personnel office and requested that we send
these applicants in groups of 20 per day.
(Thereupon, the document above referred to was
marked General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 10 for identi-
fication. )
MR. HECTOR: At this time I would like to offer in
evidence General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 10.
MR. READ: What is the date on that letter?
MR. HECTOR: April 11, 1955.
MR. READ: No objection.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Received.
(The document heretofore marked General Counsel’s
Exhibit No. 10 for identification was received in evi-
dence. )
Q. (By Mr. Hector) Mr. Lampert, I show to you
what I have marked for identification as General Coun-
sel’s Exhibit No. 11, a letter dated April 22, 1955, copy
bearing your name as the originator, and a return receipt
(fol. 404| attached. Can you identify that for me?
A. This is a letter which I sent on April 22, 1955 by
registered mail to the Respondent company.
MR. READ: What date, Mr. Lampert?
MR. JACKSON: April 22.
THE WITNESS: April 22, 1955, in which I informed
the company that though we were sending employees to
the Respondent’s personnel office at the rate of 20 per
day as the company had requested, that we considered the
EEL LLOOMED! (SEIS BI ICW NGS ON AO Bi
sone OY PES y
652
employees as having unconditionally applied for employ
ment on the date that the company was in receipt of ou
registered letters, and in addition thereto submitted a
additional list of employees who wished to return to wor
unconditionally and immediately.
(Thereupon, the document above referred to wa
marked General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 11 for ident:
fication. )
Q. (By Mr. Hector) Do you have any knowledg
with regard to the attached return receipt?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What knowledge do you have with regard to it?
A. That return receipt came to our office, and | pe
sonally put it in our files.
MR. HECTOR: I would like to offer into evidence
General Counsel’s Exhibit No, 11.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Received.
{fol.405| (The document heretofore marked Gener:
Counsel’s Exhibit No, 11 for identification was rn
ceived in evidence.)
Q. (By Mr. Hector) I now show you what I hav
identified as Generz] Counsel's Exhibit No, 12, a lette
dated May 13, 1955 with your name typed apparently :
the originator and an attached return receipt. Can yo
identify that further for us?
A. That is a letter which I sent on May 13 to the Ri
spondent Company which included a list of additional en
ployees who were offered to return to work for the con
pany unconditionally and immediately.
(Thereupon, the document above referred to w:
marked General Counsel's Exhibit No. 12 for ident
fication. )
Q. Do you have any knowledge as to the return receij
attached thereto?
A. Ido. I personally put that in our files.
MR. HECTOR: At this time 1 would like to offer i
evidence General Counsel's Exhibit No. 12.
000 AIRED
653
TRIAL EXAMINER: Received.
(The document heretofore marked General Counsel's
Exhibit No. 12 for identification was received in evi-
dence. )
(fol. 2512) BESSIE COOPER LEE
a witness called by and on behalf of the General Counsel,
being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as
follows:
CROSS-EXAMINATION
TRIAL EXAMINER: I’m not sure you understand
this whole procedure. The Labor Board discourages em-
ployers from interviewing witnesses. I am assuming that
this is the company’s first contact with the witness. Any
application could only be produced through her.
MR. GRAHAM: No, that’s my point. It is possible
that the company has procured these written applications
at the places where they were made?
TRIAL EXAMINER: It seems fantastic that an em-
ployer with as big a job as this employer has got would
be able to comb all the possible places of employment and
secure copies of applications which were filed 8 years be
fore. 1 just don’t understand the basis for your objection.
(fol. 4278} J. J. HOOLEY
was called as a witness by and on behalf of Respondent,
and having been duly sworn, was examined and testified
as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q. (By Mr. Read) Would you state your name,
please?
A. J. J. Hooley, H-o-o-l-e-y.
Q. What is your business, Mr. Hooley?
A. Insurance claim adjuster.
Q. What is the name of the company with which you
are affiliated?
A. J. J. Hooley claims service.
Q. Is that here in New Orleans?
654
A. 318 Carondelet Street, room 407.
Q. Your company is in the business of conducting in.
vestigations and adjusting insurance claims?
A. That is correct. That is the business.
Q. Mr. Hooley, did you at my request contact various
garment manufacturers in the city of New Orleans in an
effort to determine what records these companies had a
this time, indicating the names of persons who may have ~
applied at the individual companies for employment be —
tween the years 1955 and 1961? e
A. Yes, I did.
a tn cananabant re ie AICO
[fol. 4281] Q. (By Mr. Read) Mr. Hooley, directing —
your attention to Schram Brothers, did you go to the office
of Schram Brothers? 3
A. Yes. BY
Q. And did you ask them whether they kept records of
[fol. 4282] the applications submitted to them by such per-
sons as applied for employment there between the years
1955 and 1961?
A. Yes.
Q. What did they tell you? Be
A. Well, at that time, they were in the process of
liquidating. They had a box of records which they were —
in the process of throwing away. I would say the box was
three and a half by four feet square, and about four feet
deep, and that is the box they gave me, that high, of all
records all mixed up. I brought those back to my office
by a dolly and had my office go through them one by one,
and put them altogether because they were all mixed up. ~
* + * *
[fol. 4286] Q. (By Mr. Read) Now, moving on toa ©
company by the name of B. Bennett, would you tell us _—
whether you visited that company for the same purpose, —
and also tell us what information you obtained?
A. Yes, sir, I visited the Bennett company.
Q. What date did you go there?
A. Ihave it. I can tell you the exact date. April 18.
Q. Will you tell us what you found?
a
655
A. Well, I spoke to Mr. Dorsan who is in charge of
the plant. And he does not take regular written applica-
tions. He keeps them, the names of applicants in a ledger
book. It is more or less like a time book, and he only
takes down those names, as I understand it, that he either
employs or may employ. That is just a record for his own
use. The office has nothing to do with it.
Q. Did he give you these ledger books for any period?
A Yes, he gave me three different ledger books, one
covered a period of January, 1953 to 4-10-53. Then the
next book was from 4-6-61 through 4-24-61 and then had
some 1962 notations which you are not interested in, and
the third book was from 3-14-56 to 7-21-58. I might add
these were the only books that he could locate or had as
far as he told me. He really only kept the current one,
[fol. 4287] but he found these other 2 books.
* * * *
(fol. 4288] Q. Were you shown any other records at
B. Bennets from which a determination could be made as
to whether any of the names on the list that I gave you
had applied for employment at that company?
(fol. 4289] A. No, sir.
Q. I turn your attention now to Famous-Sternberg,
and ask you if you visited that company for the same pur-
pose, and if so, what the result of your investigation
showed?
A. Yes, sir, I did, and I ascertained that while they
do take regular applications, if the applicants are not
employed, the applications are destroyed withi a year
period.
Q. Well, then, do I understand from that that Famous
Sternberg advised you that they had no applications for
the period 1955 to 1961?
A. They had none from my recollection for my perusal.
Q. Turning now to American Manufacturing Com-
pany, please tell us what your investigation revealed at
that plant?
: A. I determined that while they take regular applica-
tions, the said applications are destroyed in less than a
year, and therefore there were no applications for me to
review.
a.
Q. Next, I direct your attention to Murphey’s Whole
sale Tailors, and ask you what your investigations showed
at that plant?
A. They do not take or keep applications for employ-
ment.
Q. In other words, even at the time that they inter.
view someone for employment, they don’t take formal ap-
plications?
A. No, sir, he says the owner Says he took scribble
memorandums and threw them away when he didn’t em-
ploy them immediately,
Q. All right. Next, I ask you about Foster Company.
(fol. 4290] TRIAL EXAMINER: Is this the awning
company?
THE WITNESS: Yes. They do take regular applica-
tions but when the parties are not immediately employed
or within a reasonable or very short period, the applica-
tions are destroyed or thrown away within the year, and
there were none available for my inspection.
Q. (By Mr. Read) I direct your attention to Seg-
Mar, Inc. and ask what your investigation revealed at that
plant?
A. The only folder of application they had were from
2-26-55 to 3-6-55, which was a response to an ad.
Q. We are not interested in that. That is earlier than
the period that I am really interested in.
A. They had no other applications for my perusal, and
I was advised that all other applications had since been
thrown away and they do not retain for any long period.
Q. You were told that there were none for the period
in which you were interested?
A. That is correct.
Q. What about Southern Tailoring Company?
A. They do not take regular applications and there-
fore they had none for any period.
Q. What about Comus Manufacturing Company?
A. They do not take written applications, and there-
fore did not have any.
Q. What about A. Solomon and Company?
[foi.4291] A. They were in liquidation and several
mor ths before I made contact with them they had thrown
656
igh
Sx MAAS Ae Pe? RR ET EY pikvea aie vm
SR a oe Mone .
SARE SEE ER GHEE RE EERO LEO MEE ERTIES ee
E_
657
away or destroyed all of the old records including appli-
cations for employment, so they had none for my perusal.
Q. Do you know the date on which you contacted A.
Solomon?
A. Yes, on April 15, sir.
. This year?
A. 1963.
Q. Tell me what you investigation revealed at Haspel
Bros. Inc.?
A. I determined that while they take written applica-
tions, if they do not employ the parties, they destroy them
in 6 months or less and they were not available for my
rusal.
Q. What about Louisiana Garment Manufacturing
Company?
A. They do not take written applications. I beg your
pardon. They do take written application but when they
do not employ the applicants they are destroyed within
the year, and the only applications they had on hand at
this place was for 1962.
Q. Pelican Manufacturing Company?
A. Do not take written applications at all and had
none on hand.
Q. What about Southern Manhattan Company? I am
sorry. I think we have covered that. I am wrong in that
name, I withdraw that question. What about J. 4.
Bonck, Inc.?
A. I was first advised by Mr. Shaak, S-h-a-a-k, they
(fol. 4292] pronounce it shark, that they did not keep
applications over two months when they did not hire the
parties, but just as I was leaving the personnel manager,
Mrs. Gagnard, G-a-g-n-a-r-d, stated that they had some
applications apparently unknown to Mr. Shaak which
however, in the majority of about 50 percent thereof in-
volved high school applicants, and so on, and also—
Q. You mean for summer work?
A. Summer work, and also she stated that what appli-
cations they did have on hand were for the year 1962, and
not beyond 1961.
Q. So they would have nothing for you to examine for
this period that we are interested in?
RES EEO E EL IY LL ET LIS IIE
WME TINO MIB IONE AONE DS LLM TE IEE AEREL ER OE MER LNTEIS Big +
3
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, all of these visits to these companies were
made by you in the months of April and May of 1963?
A. I could give you the exact dates,
Q. I don’t want the exact dates.
A. April and May of this year. That is correct.
Q. And other than the records that you have told us
about you were advised that no other records were avail-
able at the various companies?
A. That is correct, sir.
MR. READ: That is all I have. No further questions.
MR. JACKSON: No questions.
TRIAL EXAMINER: Do all parties consent to the
(fol. 4293] receipt in evidence of Mr. Hooley’s testimony.
eSE7~”
1) wiers-42160
(1-96) AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO —
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS INFORMATION
| DATE OF BIRTH lead SECURITY NUMBER
oa. ANG PLUM Cite L -_AGANE YES Be Cots
0 NUMBER
TRB CASE NAME AN
J. He Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co. Inc. 15-CA-721 & 723
oe
Yivision of Accounting Operations
Social Security Administration
‘andler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
Dear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address shown on the
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers'
addresses, and my corresponding earnings.
eee | LZ eo” Lusty Oa ii
(DO WOT WRITE BELOW THIS LIME)
TO THE si i SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM NLRB: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE PERIOD
‘
/ {
FROM TS) To tipi ke
7 oe ail
RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS
NAME AND ADDRESS OF EMPLOYER f.t. NUMBER Le aight gest Ma
# ‘.* toys ey ww. t 7a: 9lss~ Atiooese
OP OPT ee F 24 4¢¢122 yalss ge te
etey sf ik ale Ji- 1707 e683
2 ot in .
i piv thn re hs <-~ 72- \ WSS BS7 7
a * Z ads as e277%71S¢
ey GRE < oT om a 2h
s. -
67-1117 - 0 2d- oes
5.
6.
PS
@ on”
a 9”
9. -
10,
i.
12.
13.
NATIONAL LABOR] RELATIONS BOARL
REGIONAL OFFICE ADORESS: FIFTEENTH RIGION
Weg 820 Lowich Building
2026 St. Charles Avenue 24%
N®wW ORTFANS 13, LOUISIANA été
EMDR tg: RRR eRe aici ™ ‘
FE DRA SEE ER OE IAL LEA IPED. TDN AGRE LH LN RIN
660
FORM WL °S-4180
(7-56)
AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS INFORMATION Ne
NAME (Print) DATE OF BIRTH SOCIAL SECURITY scart
Sonora Barnes Rochon 8-21-33 433-42-0151
WLRB CASE NAME AND NUMBER ee
J. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co. Inc., 15-CA-721 and 723
Se
Division of Accounting Operations
Social Security Administration
Candler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
Dear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address show On the
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
addresses, and my corresponding earnings.
Signature
(00 WOT WRITE BELOW THIS Lime)
TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM NLRB: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE PER1 0p
FROM thiss To fee ENT
RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT AND EARHINGS Pc eee
NAME AND ADDRESS OF EMPLOYER E.1. NUMBER cece mg hg
Fa aa oS. WIESE 22-0220180 | 6/5 Yooso
Lee oe “eo! = 91S5 2é.00
. dir Crise UL Su
3.
Karur Lt a 319Z-oYo 216 ($0.00
Bgl oe Ga (cus. po sd YouMy
A.
W325 7s F.
5+ rece Qrhenrsf ZL,
6.
3. f. Kawa Gant GER 22-636, 767) G/SG 38.795
- seco/g. ezek 4. G/Sb Ye ¥,00
Der Qrignr. sr A 20-079 ’
0003 (21s 4792.87
9.
10.
72-0YSFTF
a Leite, | See (209s (23.00
12. f
Vv) Ti 4
». Sein Vw ait
REGIONAL OFFICE ADDRESS: FIFTEENTH REGION e fi-0"
? 820 Lowich Building
2026 St. Charles Avenue
NW OR! PANS 13. LOUISIANA
_—
661
ow TRANSCRIPT OF EARNINGS DATA =” Page. of
AN ys3-¥2 O15! Employee Name SeWoRA BARWES Rocton.
IDENTIFICATION WAGES
yaMeS AND ADDRESSES OF EMPLOYERS NUMBER PERIOD | peponrey | COMMENTS
7 . 32-036 707? Blxy7 | YSS5.79
vp? o/S7 | 517,95
OY G. Aux 4 SFT IGIOS
/
12197 |
a 3/59 | fortwo 55 -0O7Y
G/S.¥ | 23622 | 9062
poe Yr,
RO OSL TN AGA SILI BILE TE DELVED EDD EO ELITE ALIA
662
*ORm wLee-4160
AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARWINGS INFORMATION
OATeE
OF BIRTH
ae red
WLRS CASE NAME AND NUMBER
Je He Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co. Ince 15-CA-721 & 723
Division of Accounting Operations
Social Security Administration
Candler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
“93: SECURITY wuneee
—
Dear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address shown on the 4
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’ b
addresses, amd my corresponding earnings.
Signature
(00 WOT WRITE BELOW THIS LIME)
TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM SLAB: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE PERIOD
FROM L-j-57 10 fir tasad
RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS
NAME AND ADDRESS OF EMPLOYER ft. wUMBER eee waar Aha
. BF davis GPRMEW? Co \fy-0367877 4 475.40
TM. 2 of /6* 0599-0003 ; 57
7 Ww dRléhws /7, LA. b/s 371798
3. // ih 469.78
* es /2fst WIC. 6?
5. -— — a Set pe f.e0
6. hy £ Lf AIC.0u
r " * Let 414: Qe
6. y ah lafed 27/20
SI S94 WIKE
a
a io PT
it. /g lA y Ana
TW BoweKR <P ed “9371-87 Y. 367-43
:. / STEFF I CO
Pky tte - —_ sete L¢-/4/2-t0l0
Wwe ! ORLEAW. A Pes
i 7 sy, - fas oe t 4 Ze
qunvenaa, OPriee ADORESS: Kids os
{ 1303
ie
—
name s60 s008ESS OF EuPLOTER t.1. sumece
o” ond
——
~~
= PES COTS AI PO ate EE ELIE RSL POTD ALL ATED, DY Ia GI nA D EE Re
AME AMO ADORESS OF EMPLOTER
f.1. sumere
PERIOo oF
twrlorMent
awOUNTS OF
wre
4/
g9/ G/
jr é?¢
THE REQUEST,
SOCIAL SiLUali?
or a Pe eae Beh
qa-
037 1th
(TA
tb
Ye,
—e
oro o1teoe
665
rons wine-4100
(1-96) AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS INFORMATION
ATE OF BIiRayn SOCIAL SECURITY wuUMmoER
Tene 7 | / Pw
wine CASE wAME ANO HUMBER
Division of Accounting Operations
Social Security Administration
Candler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
Dear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address shown on the
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
addresses, and my corresponding earnings.
eee Soe | ae
(00 MOT WRITE BELOW THIS LIME)
Pg <
Sa He ERE
TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM NLRB: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE PERIOD
mem
en 4 les t0 PRESENT
ae 7 v
RECORD OF ENPLOYHENT AND EaRnings
NAME AND ADORESS OF EMPLOYER f.1. mumeeR egeree oF entenss oF
¥. Ce, Dre. - y ,O9 «
1. Wat Jedonppelotan sf, eu $| 37.07
__ ar Orleanad, thd 0/88 430 hi, | 489.07
2 Rh 536.84"
7 “/
; GYe\ 43.38
‘ (Ré\ oth.
‘ YL) 20. 49°
a 4e\ s3¢-26.
5. : Wy | 462,13"
. YS7\ 494.48.
m ; Wea\ O95 O77
Yeo 6949. 5b
Yy| 619.97"
J, 4 YR\| 95, bb
, Vy\ o73- BE
7 PAW EEE
‘ Wyg\ 772,26
4 V9 £7015 gms
2 My| 04.97
u op 443.7 of
it. Ho\ Hé9-% ahs
22-6 = “les oS Yoo | s1b3 :
2.
= Ts
3. Uy
NATIONAL LnB08 RELATIONS Lewr| Y
MEGIONAL OFFICE ADDRESS: FIFTEENTH REGION
820 Lowich Building
202% St. Charles Avenue
NFW ORLEANS 13, LOUISIANA
PI YDE SOO POE Fh HP
LES OFLC EM IOI DIOL LS BOA
aes
POEL AE TIF? ve
66
Foam HL ne~4180
(1-96)
AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURHISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARHINGS INFORMATION
SOCIAL SECURITY wy
——,
Division of Accounting Operations
Social Security Administration
Candler Building.
Baltimore 2, Maryland
Dear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address show: on the
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
pédresses, and my corresponding earnings.
a eT ew ey
(00 OT WRITE BELOW THIS Linc)
TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM NLRB: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE PER/00
FROM 4--/-40 ro hr tera &
RECORD OF EMPLOYHERT ano Cannings
MAME AND ADORESS OF EMPLOYER f.1. numoen pa op BM ae”
, - ae Aa = b1 Fo , 19-0739 -000!
° t) ¢Hou P/Toulfs
Ve aaleans Ve ssl ILAO/P 2434 | Lee £LE-43
" Yio 546-99
2.
es 0
; id Yo! YI7T.¢L
° “1 Lfe/ BT
‘ Yl/ RapurT nar
2 Yer Oe
‘. 5D LS OTMMaTION fg
: “4/
v,
6.
%.
10,
i.
12.
oe NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS stints
sessenen G9vIGS aneneese FIFTEENTIT R OD T7y
820 Lowich Bu 7 0
2026 St. Charles Avenue (05
NEW ORLEANS 13, LOUISIANA ¥? 1
67
yore eyneenee
11-96 AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARHINGS INFORMATION
VAL HLS td 439 52 6549
Division of Accounting Operations
7) social Seourity Administration
Candler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
Dear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address show on the
rotten of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
sdiresees, and wy corresponding earnings. -
ee ee ee
(00 SOT WRITE BELOW THIS Line)
600" 4 - /- GO 10 Ariviah
4 RECORD OF OWLOYHERT AnD Canniags
wawt AeD AOORESS OF EwPLOTER fo). sueoen pt ae a “oa
L FRANK & Co Fee 19-0747 -0"
Yo fates P 1 Tov. te 7 ,
Vew tRlE“s’ LZ PPY3¢ | Lew £/5-43
7 / 1 540-59
i.
we ‘bs 4s¥-o%X
uv 4 ‘
4 ‘6/ 477.¢C
. ‘ ¥
‘ Lfe/ “ygens
‘ Yl’ Rage ef oT
Pl 7] Aled
qt
Clana tng 0186 430
%. NATIONAL LABOR Pf! ATI of « as -
HAIONAL OFFICE ADDRESS: PITS R's vated
pris. ANS Neto SARA
QIAO NALS, OB MEL ATED RAI VIGO TOY
668
FORM NLRB-4180 a
. AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO _s
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS INFORMATION ¥39-349-¢29/2
WAME (Print) DATE OF BIRTH * D
Rie D s DELP H~/9~ 309 ¥3¢ -3¥ a
WLRBE CASE NAME AND NUMBER =
a YW Duce. REY MF6. Co, Owe. W-Ca-~724 ay
Division of Accounting Operations ne
Social Security Administration
Candler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
Dear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address shown on th
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
addresses, and my corresponding earnings.
(00 MOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE)
TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM NLRB: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE PERIOD
FROM _4¢/-6 o To _prcacn%
RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS
PERIOD OF AMOUNTS OF
NAME AND ADDRESS OF EMPLOYER E.t. NUMBER pin Band ay
as Go 0 y, >
4 fal
a Go’ Erplogh.
7 “my |Z
.
a.
jhied Abid. FOR y f
5.
6.
:
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
> aueo tet —
° aeree Fe Sat
REGionAL OFFICE aporess: AAT oS ia
Fie te pw bee bs bass wip
620 bers sits
2020 St. Charies Avenue
NEW ORLEANS 13, LOUISIANA, =) Bigg /0-3/-67
669
-_— —~ (or
AUTHORIZA,10N TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS INFORMAT!ON
— | OATE OF BIRTH ee SECURITY NUMBER
433-032-7755
Form wiae-4160
(156)
Werit DA DELPLT
uve
wine CASE wAME AND NU eer
r-Rex Mi oo = and 723°
Division of Accounting Operations
* social Security Administration
+ candler Building
+) paltinore 2, Maryland
Dear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address shown on the
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
adiresses, and my corresponding earnings. i
sour ¥ pritbaldr 19.slpst
(D0 HOT WRITE BELOW THIS LIME)
S rp) THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM NLRB: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE PERIOD
and iles To PeEERT
RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS
: NAME AND ADDRESS OF EMPLOYER E.1. NUMBER be rail wl sg
be 20 -06F7- 009% ne Gh7| 62.2°
. 0/47 80 % /4¢, 00
Fives?) foods tive. - =
2» 8627 Cows Sh ih
Wew OkRbkeagws $ Ly.
3.
. as
R C2 98950
£ SH, Kutter - Ker (y~FG. Ce Ze.
Ds. 3726 Druphwe ST
New Onleews, Ld.
6.
-. a4- C8 F- coon In- 407.€0
4 ?, hep - 2 4
t Finds! eno 0F209$/ 1G) 14.3%
D Brenna: French + CReke ResT PHes
PaQwen EC. y Owew PF Berenwan?s
24 Zoun how SE eae
New Crhewns , Aes.
4 Laur “adie She -
butts peHite pi10€ + Soh Caawdors lel
- a Soves 7. Ais Lk, Lag C27 GU 99 T/, FO
5 Za 1¥4.0°
“i 4 ‘/ Ve “e fo
3g 370°
/ t/ 46, athe
_ ‘ _fe-oui-e AE Y, G-0°
. RELATIONS BOARY
HEIONAL OFFICE ADDRESS: FIFTEENTH REGH™
820 Lowich Building
20% St. Charles Avenue
NEW ORLEANS 13, LOUISIANA
670
+e oe priuak taabush Bete
oe : . ——— Ay
=r —S>
18-1226 - 6
, s . = a Ld nae ;
Baenn as FReuck + Cre R P
" Z24/ Do un fe ST seis oof
Weuw Onkeans , ad.
19.
; ap -wlt- 2a0F
20. Waterbureys Druds we. 7e-
540 Causk °St 0297320
New Orteans ,» hes.
ai.
22.
‘ : o- (olf > 000% ss X75)
23. 00v: oF Assoc. ete Baby Se Tee 7a 9% 7
New Cepeans ava ders: 0 ¢7 4°
2201 +ulLerve Ave.
7.) New Calews | Ad.
25.
Zo JOR - PRES 0.00 °
26 DR. 4itred Y Gentine > > .
Zos Cavey, SF 0366959
Mew Onkhesns , Aa.
27.
28.
BF. paves Gaemev? Ce, Jwe: ae / 265,56
2%. Jooo 2 Roy sl ST. : o~ Be| 3 5
New Cereaus Jit, eas ‘ Cx 7677 ,
a Zz AS3. 93
eo " | 479,07
: . 7 239.08
31. e, Ks 74, 2%
P ¥ 434.69
32. “e f
%8 | 364. z
67> 070? - ool “ hey | 206 72
33. -
—— — T r= ———
3 e i, Nene
& Pe\s (7)
eae ero 01 ieee
'_
671
” \RANSCRIPT OF EARNINGS DATA f font. 2.
Y33- 03- 2285 Employee Name Bath ilda. Lo ehjol__
IDENTIFICATION WAGES
AND ADDRESSES OF EMPLOYERS NUMBER PERIOD | peporrep | COMMENTS
watt Co: awe, For Ky 9.00 (3-006§ - 000]
sgzive aT Cons mon 3%.
: Orkewvs, Aa. ele 9440
Tb. Ptassow + ‘THe TiVER 7n- %> ey. go | ¢$-0507-200!
] House
a | ences
4
672
FORM NL RB-4180
sig AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO _—
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS INFORMATION :
AME (Print) | DATE OF BIRTH SOCIAL SECURITY women
SHIRLEY M. EDGERSON $35-38-7675
WLRO CASE NAME AND NUMBER SS
J. H. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co., Inc., 15=CA-721 & 723
Division of Accounting Operations fe. nee ";
Social Security Administration ies Vale 5
, Candler Building -- -- —_ fates ater? ae) 5 23 H
\ Baltimore 2, Maryland 2 1% ©. 4 Z
BLE: RD ten i
Dear Sirs: 2. NEW pet: Sebi etic t . 3
Please list below nd forward to the National Labor Relations ‘Board at the ‘address. shown a on » the.
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my —_— of employment, the employers’
addresses, and my corresponding earnings. --. --- - - =
(00 HOT WRITE BELOW THIS LiWwE) ~
TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM NLRB: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE PERIOD
FROM January 1, 1955 To present
RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS
NAME AND ADORESS OF EMPLOYER E. 1. NUMBER ba ips hl a
ted oO al le £ 0372506 | 5s SLE 2%
7) te — oem : sl g-s>- A 90-20
BSS IL487 .
3 HB PB G tes DL. -| 72
em. oe OS V/SY | 6-5 > 22 40g 19-1
: Plea C)hkedpe og. so 955 Al. 00
4 F:
tipi: WOVE ;
¥ ;
= 6-56
2 Sanne rf Boy TL G56 Af. 78 10m
Mi > Aly Dotan sonnel LL20 420
7.
| ae De depmrar bedlétinn Pod
8. fitie . = i 5 aa
GLI Ck“ 42-5 L463
: 32-57 $02.37
; ie 622 LE52
10.
Beanfemen 7 Brower Ti G-57 VOWE
is. 17ese hniafh Lf. , : a 4
Pr oe re oD LY4ABW2\| 2-2 AU.00 Ws
7 3-58 290.00 *
= ie Ad -SS SI6.00
G-455 290.00
13 ty ‘¢ er
bn i SA -2§ 370.00
REGIONAL OFFICE ADDRESS: aaareva WiRaeE. ee
$20 Low'eh Muttng Eee
2026 St. Care! venue Sf 7>-?
NEW ORLEANS 15, LUGISIANA 2° as’ Be
—_—_
673
nawE AUD ADORESS OF EMPLOvER t.1. senoen pa ys BWA — or
ba f emer 7 Knew SST | B90. oo
iG VATr | eee || S¥0.20
— enact a tae
: ase | ee, co:
n 7 2-60 3é0-00
6-60 390.00
Ss yt 97- GO B79-00
Le2- G0 RlO-60
g AW Berne le Sate TA
037 (34¢ | 42-42 B50 24-/09
ool
tam “/ Aiegm tele toda lle 72
0392506 | 42 60 £5.36 £o-l43t
oor
WKutir hex Pf fe se | 2 3-6/ 751IT ACS
ta a arr a Za. |\Qtohash | b-b/ None
( <oresecane ) Gg -6/ Erngalayer kapod
fA-C/
INFORMA
ES ADMIN. Pe Ayre ABOVE,
co
od
:=3 8
ue
‘Ss =
Sa wv '
a ar t
}
s —
iia — ¢22-e-jeas
674
FORM NLRS-4180
6)
J. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co., Tac. 15-CA-721 and 723
Division of Accounting Operations
Social Security Administration
Candler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
1- -
oie AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO Y
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS INFORMATION 3
NAME (Print) | OATE OF BIRTH ame SECURITY wumpes :
F 6/21/27 437-38-01%
WLRB CASE NAME AND NUMBER ne
:
Dear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address shown on the E
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my s of employment, the employers’
addresses, and my corresponding earnings. ‘
Signatur etgesen/
(00 HOT WRITE BELOW THIS Lime)
TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM SLRB: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE PERIOD
FROM $11 SS » Kesey
RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS
NAME AND ADORESS OF EMPLOYER E.1. NUMBER Bs aps AM a Nt
4 = , F379
GE Rate kee try Cola) All
Z: i _Piiey | 929990 B hae
. ” Vg 173»
# di Ye 135.4%
tu ‘Wg 2/3.74
% Ja\ neonk
(J- c09E - 2012 73- a 6g.
a. U big ha? Z
Nee O14 hee Has Lou seat o3717%
Pa: Maint _
6.
» FAY TAL Mig” atic? |" Oe We) re
tet Coy) 233 Breeding
‘ 7 a? Ae J
0 GEOR F Pelorne wwe Pe 173- Wi 12-0
amu= 1t-143¥-0001 | off 2660 JE | __30.00
mi vee iY Prue YF Mebiyus
12.
Be LABOR RELATIGNS © v yAKL
REGIONAL OFFICE ADDRESS: FIFTEENTH REGION
820 Lowich Buildive
Py" s Avcnuc
3 26 St. Charle
633e am ORLEANS 13, LOUISIANA
ELSE EDIT EE OE LE SLE A OLE E SEALED LO LIY LEE LEGS! LOBE IE ii GLE
675
name 266 20P8ESS OF eurcover f.t. svuesee eee oe auovars oF
3 ( ” Zz, Ws. 27
. iad J7 | 264-0°
| “Wy\ 407. 23
‘ Kg ~ eS
it. Aas
| ” FARA
— Gh\ 423.67
“ 7A 429.67
. 9 309.12
Cal - 7 =
19. ici 9 > Sed “ Uy AGS, 8x
. - / 7.00
~ por tusst 7 Wn 9
Me L dit: OVI 236
“ He 308.09
e 37-Wo0- 000} | 2 32.00
n.
Bb.
- } eae Y WAX
a. > 4 Mar Ane, 6/¢ Ia-ga- 2397907
pre DS ates (ITIVE TL, el Jo.
2s.
~ grr pronessomey 19 EN Tne
Webb voce? |... #2 Svrt
NN me
Sp ~~ ae
g ron
Pati]
PF a>
eo etteoe
676
Forum —
-56)
iis AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS INFORMATION
“WAWE (Print) 2 7 E
~~~ Winnie Hae Vernandes
a
MLAS CASE MAME ANDO MUMBER
JH. RutterRax Mfg. Co., Ine, 15-Che721 and 723
Division of Accounting Operations
Social Security Administration
Dear Sirs: c---
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address shown on tie
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
addresses, and my corresponding earnings.
Signatubh. se. H7 a
(D0 SOT WRITE BELOW THIS Line)
TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM NLAB: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE PERIOD
FROM April 1, 1955 To Present
RECORD OF EXPLOYWENT AND EARNINGS
AME AND ADORESS OF EwPLOvER €.'. wumeee ceasee of. cooeats. or
1.
27 e/ss
7 2- ft/s 15. 00
2.
Fy are Cin BF 60 laJss5 roe Pam
3. [a >/ Camel Lt 3/s¢ 360.c/
hier Iphigne Ju: e/x¢ 473-26
. tse 257.50
5.
l2foe | 348.60
r 3/5 - 365.50
mB. 35-1 Y
g | oe 6/57 445.55
: gat Ew
Pov an) 4 wd
off - 039677 we a oab.,7d
0. Tyee Candy ts - “yrs “he sie
un, AM BIO A.
Ltn 4h, He. ¢Fe-)
12. ‘i COSTED ' Flaw ON IS QNTERLD APOE
outJAL sELUAITY iN. PER oe ht 22
13.
Regional orrice aponess: NATIONAL LAR™X RATIOS BUARD
FIFTES WH “GION
820 Lov” “les Ave.
a ee NEW Ow Ue Ae a0, ... InIANA
677
romw wLRe-4260 ls
(1-56) AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS INFORMATION
Tat ee iin \F)29 7 >, \Wio- 32 - $093
CASE NAME AND mUMBER
WHF OSE oweter-Rex Mfg. Co. Inc., 15-CA-721 and 723
——
Division of Accounting Operations
© social Security Administration
Candler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
Dear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address shown on the
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
addresses, and my corresponding earnings.
Sipnarn Lita soate Uta Praachaach
(DO MOT WRITE BELOW THIS LIME)
To THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM SLAB: “Of SUPPLY THIS IWFORMATION FOR THE PERIOD
TO
nn 4, [SS (LENT
RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT AMO Eamnings
aoo f PLOY PERIOD OF wounTs 0
NAWE AND MESS OF EMPLOYER f.'. wumece s ‘
OSS Vv4e.e
Pace Ce. | CG YY
~ West WAN, Stage C2ICIIC G/KS Ab-70
‘ se C2-OYSY¥
bof 06/2
5 Ae + nie STae eX VEZ
(ORE > oa Cri euas 1 oe W35960 | (VEE | AIPPZ
f cs “u Oleg [Sco
7 (1 B/SC 360-0 /
Z C/S6b SIZ 70
: ae a ELL 257. Fo
; . Y fils PL3-bo
; 3 4 I/7 | 25 So
i “ o/s? LIF FE
‘ od 7/57 SP¢,25
%. “ NATIONAL A809 POTIONS BOM
A Sew aes ee aL ra
HEGIONAL OFFICE ADORESS: 820 Lv.2> Delite 5 k
U2 St. Chesies Aveeve Y 23
NaW ORLEANS 13, LOU.SL.264 £459
Bs “¢F oaniés or
D-Grte canees envcovsest ~
Soe
meme App pooness oF curores
€, wit
H, hum | a V35960 “ps7 |
/j-#007
goer 2
Snacve 8 eonnoy op onan AW
° eee Hehe Stacer ICYSSIS/| YSGE
Shaevepes® , bes,
wl y ig 4
te b i ek
id ad LA
Pr- he
BY Gws coamen aes, ae ¢
Wew~ On {eens ha 036 7677 ZX$4
27-453
sors
Low GeAament AFE Ce Dic.
Z.co: Tr. Behrend Kee. 72
: ey aay Sabs | WF
New Cilemns, Le
ul a 14/9
a 4 Wee
\
4 b/oe
IS - f 7/5
00/a-
m P/o 0°
Beevn esed
ronw wine-s260
AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
679
ae
(1-96)
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARMINGS INFORMATION
Tit (Print) oate oF bt . SOCIAL SECURITY suMeER
bess AN DEZ 13/2 Gg Let | Yio - 32-3093
aiae case 048
A 4 € ano nox hfe Seo on. ‘ 7)
Division of accounting Operations
Social Security Administration
Dear Sirs:
Please list below
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by
aadresses, and my corresponding earnings.
“
(00 OT WRITE BELOW THIS LINC)
and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address shown on the
quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
sigur 2/orasa Lata. Litanirnachs
Ty TY ADMINISTRATION FROM SURE: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE
To THE SOCIAL SECURS
PERIOD
From G-/-60 10 prtacak
RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS
NAME AND ADORESS OF EwPLOTER f.1. wumoer Snes & =
louis |9"A GHRMLEW? /NFG Jo
i. We- “4 y 6/60 |3° 4.
wT Po Bex 1 ai, (hid
WeEw ORLELWS / LP. ip 9), 0 4.2.0
3. j3 foe We WE
‘ far No We
i /, y
Ld, / 4 met
6. fame yok
e eoeSTED NTI TIT 1S Estee Adve
1. rent ert Roald. Fol °. , ¥/l/
6.
7 %.
A
10.
il,
12.
%.
Perry a P+ iret abirss |
RATIONST we sitet Stas
MEGIONAL OFFICE ADDRESS: ~t peer wate
FIP Tie! fy EHO
ad S 4 ” j ’
25 i 0) « $39
Pee w cred Soe Do bY Lola NA
yet, — =
v. . . oii
4 CPE LAGOA GIGI BY HI
CHLELOML TEMA, OBES
680
fOtm w.ae- 4.80
(7-96)
AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AMD EARMINGS IMFORMATION
“” (Prane) ] aaioi L379 a lo seeeaene fay
<a want sno nen ¥fy. oo, o-, a ‘ 3)
Division of Accounting Operations
B
Social Security Administration ° : |
Candler Building :
Baltimore 2, Maryland 7
Dear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address show on the
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
addresses, and my corresponding earnings. >
Signature le : :
(00 SOT WRITE BELOW THIS Lime)
TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM 5.88; PLEASE SUPPLY THIS (mF ORMATION FOR THE PERI OO
Fam Y-/-60 10 ~priecnl
RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT AND CARuinas
whet am0 4008855 OF EuPLovE® f.i. sumer Ps np al a
levis 9A CrRMew) SAF <. y
a , WI. 4 -| ag 30%. 3° |
deci Aa) We V7 4 BEE y hac |
e pam Carnes / 2 = feo | %#.7°
3. cS Mi ” NOKE
4.
Bas wove
rg y
: bhi KL
7
Me BL. ESTED FOUN TION IS Eid Abul
: Seu Seu! Ae alia. t ball UY
Ferrtano- barwirr dg, Co per 7)-
* hop /3 £4A- oles 2EF LoL LiL.ve
(G9- OB38- urd)
%.
10.
7) cv Ae
3-c/ 1 rw
it. ; 2) pio
/2-6/ onan
-6 y
12. 762 \[- y
G62
13.
. _ sae STAND
REGIONAL OFFICE ADDRESS: RATION tt ——
a m8 fo ¥03
yp
paar men? - ne Folio.
681
romw wine-s280
11-96)
AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS INFORMATION
gustaria avia Haynes Ogrt OF Oiate Spel al SECURITY wUMSER
Goris tare G-7- 2h | “pI Yh -LI9G
. ‘ aan wumeee
— ee putter Rex Mfg. Cos, Ince, 15-CA-721 and 723
Division of Accounting Operations
Social Security Administration
Candler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
aE
Dear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address shown on the
P| bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
addresses, and ry corresponding earnings.
‘f
Signatdre — Dem” H. MBG AL
(00 SOT WRITE BELOW THIS LIFE)
To TwE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM SLRE: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS IMFORMATION FOR THE PERIOO
seom____April 1p 1955 10 Present
RECORD OF EHPLOYHENT AND EARNINGS
wawe AND AOORESS OF EWPLOTER f.'. sumeee bs ny AA ensents 09
7 FiuwW C/es
6 a pom he eee ar 74 oy 9a? VS) \ (206 —
iE Daa Z ets
Arh MAA -7il6
7 4g 70
| ahaa” uml tetinene Pres 31.2 Se8 (2/55 \ (thoe
A birt sae’ e
go? age 2/se Wo3.03
G/SE 72,77
6. 121 Sb A 30.43
M16 24-8384 2
, fe 3
eg [57 Kes.7s
6. ers 44 7
’ : 9/57
Bee 14/57
; a yuesitd baFUXMATION | — 0 a
it, “SA AL SECURITY ADMIN. PER -- ;
HEGIONAL OFFICE ADORESS: PRIPTO RT CO CIN.
SMO d0n:: ; yanmar! Yr
-,
stale ANEW Ul os t33, LOUISIANA
682
FORM WL RB-4)60
(1-56)
AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS INFORMATION
waMEl (Print)
tavia Haynes Gale
OATE OF BIRTH
9-8-26
ra AL SECURITY nuMege
WURB CASE NAME AND NUMBER
J. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co., Inc. 15-CA-721 and 723
34-46-6599
_—_—_—,
Division of Accounting Operations
Social Security Administratian
Candler Buiiding
Baltimore 2, Maryland
Dear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address shown an the
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
addresses, and my corresponding earnings. :
as
Signature -
(DO WOT WRITE BELOW THIS LIME)
TO THE SOCIAL pecurity ADMINISTRATION FROM NLRB: “hy SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE PERIOD
— -
on ee af/s? > LRESEMT
RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS
NAME AND ADORESS OF EMPLOYER €.1. NUMBER savrotaet mace
@1-1180 |42- [51
q
ge Xm L& bLayrenn fam oe a° O34 L506 30 8
(ay Tehinr fv
2 nam 2 " wis '
Te. a rUsT | Hota
ae
ti 4|s8 | 30377
7 \ q|58 23547
* a o|58 ner
‘. " p58 | 271.2
- a\s4
337.19
. @l>4 333.96
°. ‘ a|sq G'42.24
i : ra\s4 | 343 08
n 3\u0 335.80
12. : &|eo 4o4.uy
2 NALUNAL (Lik bag Gis sirmomatnt ne 1S
REGIONAL OFFICE ADDRESS: 1 CENTH Z .
79 FIFTEENTH @RON"
"4 Pe . 820 Lowich Building
tis ac / 2026 St. Charies Averue
NT@W ORLEANS 13, LOUISIANA
RAI E PTY IETS FLL SI NTA RR
CaSO BANOS AAR ME
683
cee wc ae-4l60
(1996) AUTMORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO As
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS INFORMATION
— DATE OF BIRTH SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
rast (print) |
GustAVih Haywe GALE 9-€-2k Y¥3V-¥6-6599
rae CASE wawe AND NUMBER
pivision of Accounting Operations
social Security Administration
candler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
tear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address shown on the
rottan of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
siiresses, and my corresponding earnings.
Signature “ = [ y
(DO WOT WRITE BELOW THIS LIME)
Tr THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM NLRB: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE PERIOD
- ¢- /-£0 to _fdrigent
ain:
RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS
Af
NAME AND ADDRESS OF EMPLOYER fet. NUMBER | Seen Oraeat | gag al
CAL D & SEY MeuR Scis Rem pr bfél Yer Ve
: scHkAm Bos. ,
Re far gS FAA b Va LZC ol
Ya) cAMP SY: lp ot! po ot 2rle 77
1a ws “Gal? /
| WEw ORLEA: y, Za ae ee
J REQUTSTED IN"O*!
NATIONA | Aeo2 Soi ptiesc Rakes
tee ONAL ees ADORESS: FIFTEENTH REGION
820 Low'ch building
2026 St. Charles Avenue
NEW ORLEANS 13, LOUISIANA wn =
= - RIT Re RTI ERIE SEMEL EOE
O84
Form wins-4180
ee AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURWISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS INFORMATION
“Wine (print) DATE OF BIRTH SOCTAL Stcuarte mene i
vsTAV Awe GALE | 7-£-26 [Y3¥-¥6- crys
WLAG CASE MAME ANO HUMBER ‘
Division of Accounting Operations :
Social Security Administratian
Candler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
Dear Sirs: ;
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Helations Board at the address shown on thy
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
addresses, and my corresponding earnings.
Signature ‘ eis ©
(00 MOT WRITE BELOW THIS LIME)
: TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM ALRB: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE PERIOD
ul FROM $- 1-60 To fircicat
4 RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS
: MAME AND ADDRESS OF EMPLOYER fol. NUMBER savcocurat wa
CRLVIV D & SEV MeuR Seis kam Pr b fe You's.
7 scHkrm Bkos
er GEGEN fe Lt 2s
2 27 < AM ST. ] we a7" pos ol 24270077
" : ,
WE w CRLEAWS J “4 vat 2LOL stated |
3.
s. Z
LLEZ ahs
Ca are hl)
5 Ps
Zhu ti
6. df eequesrep IITOTP TITY IS CCD] ACC by
REQUESTED riko. ?
s
Calvin © pivvesv ery Mhomr |7% b4./ 300.19
8 -
Pe. 0392506 | ee —tiabetrtet
:s M 1 _\ 393.
if “ lity | 553.39
13.
NAUOS AL 1 4692 coher few Lease —
“ ‘ Sherry ;
REGIONAL OFFICE ADDRESS: FIR DER SHH Ret 1 rahe
805 ° re
2026 St. Crorhoe Avenue
GN? NeWoRLEANS 13, LOUISIANA. 77). g
be et
RESERPINE eR RH ORR SII Se mace SeaaT ES Ts at ne ee RN Roe Ra aed
——_
ronw wiRB~4160 es
r=96) AUTHORIZATION T SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURNISH EMPLYMENT AND EARNINGS INFORMATION
eS
wane (Print)
OATE, OF ,BIRTH sociar CURITY NUMBER
eToRL A A EX DER SOAS | ig fis le 435- 35 -392%6
% CASE wame ANO wUMBER
wie
72) & 723
Division of Accounting Operations
Social Security Administration
Candler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
Dear Si
rs:
Please list below and forward to te National Labor Relations Board at the address shown on the
bottom of this sheet the complete recor (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
addresses, and my corresponding earning. ~~ 4
Signature A { da Cera Yowdluta,
(DONOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE)
bahee TDNINTSTRATION ROM NLRB: PLEASE AUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE PERIOD
4 | cv TO f ECON 1
I :
RECOD OF EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS
FROM
NAME AND ADDRESS OF EMPLOYR E.t. NUMBER PERIOD OF aneunts OF
EMPLOYMENT WAGES
SEG - MAL rac a ae 6-st- 130.61.
‘GI¥ MAGAZINE 7. a
a liens 03. 7295-7 y bt 4os4¥ -
—reeo -Orternvs =- A:
p an at aiet Hoy”
o 3 A ¥¥3.a2
uw
é-At 4G As”
74t 9, £e-
u at ‘ 3°... 70
wit 490, 63 -
rm I 3” 415.35
; é3”? 3%, £0
° fH Bhum Gk -009/ | 72. qs”) fet. Ai
IS 2) CANAL ST-
2» F — > 073 pi 23feo 2) HIAce
Welw OTLernvs = ite if
é.
See- mae Tne Te 3-55 426,90
e272) o-ss | #325
t a q-s5 172,09
10, "
tA Ah 16.9%
ii, “” I] 3-34 HAs,0% z
bw J04, 10
12. ‘¢ GEG wir) a
3 4249 “PRAnyY
‘t 34> 3 £3; 7%
4. bh
NAIUNAL LABOR RYLATICNS BOARY b co 254, 2
MIONAL OFFICE ADDRESS: FIFTEENTH RLGION
820 Lowich Building qh
2026 St. Charles Avenue ye
yew ORI FANS 13, LOUISIANA
5 “3 * ENT a i: eee
|
Be
|
<4
‘ad
my
Pivitinns tert iis
ARN RP
ms
oop Oe hay a nN
Mae Drea er og Re ae
Atami
bt ea ahition Hae
hae ea Riles ai De
. a Penioe oF anounts
ROPE au0 AQORESS OF ENPLOTER: jr Geto auaaee euPLormenT wets
SEG mac rut. 67« tT a wr War
u. 3 at :
st | 037271871 eae
- —_—__ te
15. ‘ t
a REA ene
16 SOotL ee , “IS rs me
ae 6 wf ‘
Y,
17.
18. F
19. t
é
E
F
21. é
3
22. 4
23.
2.
25.
26.
a
28.
29.
4 —
30. ‘
31. .
———
32. FP eet
“ a
“w BS
33. +>
<3
rom
9 233
«-7*3* -_——— — 4 at a a
= 70> I é
687
ww wuRe-4180 . n ae
(1-96) AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO bes
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARKINGS INFORMATION
atpriet) 0 ‘) OF BIRTH ly TAL SECURITY NUMBER
op A AEMDER SOM a gis / 43-38 - 39276
ap CASE wawe AND WUMBER
Wg. 0o,Ins. 15-04-721 & 723
vision of Accounting Operations
cial Security Administration
axiler Building
altimore 2, Maryland
par Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor
otton of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) o
adresses, and my corresponding earnings. -
ew: | Uicliz end iden
(DO WOT WRITE BELOW THIS LIME)
Relations Board at the address shown on the
f my places of employment, the employers’
—_————
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM NLRB: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE PERIOD
To THE SOCIAL
soou ¥/-66 To DATES
——
RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS
wAME AND ADDRESS OF EMPLOYER £.1. NUMBER eanree oy aneunts 6?
SEC MAR ZWE- “O3S7)957 Me we ia
bly MAX AZ NE SF 1322-3e-veee Yc ayy es
WEW ORLEFPIYs / LFA [vec Aid 79
2. ‘ ae f 30772
op! bb, Bh
3, fer Td, ; :
(Hes ; CT Line
THE REQUISTEN EITOT MATION
7 CIAL Shuai eid rir g 2 Z/
___ NATIONAL LABOR FLATIONS BOAKL
HRIONAL OFFICE ADDRESS: FIFTEENTH “16 ‘N
820 Lowich Buss * 7
2026 St. Charles Avenue RUA
i DG
ig ). NEW ORLEANS 13, LOUISIANA
4
:
i
F
*
4
ts
2
¥
@
2
%
+
be LA RRR eI aah Miele
UR ny Oey aed
ie.
688
fFOmm mL Re-4180
"(7-56)
AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS INFORMATION
WAUE (Print)
va 4 SECuaity won
.
MLRB CASE MAME AHO HUMBER
—_____da Ky _Bateer-fen Wg, Go.Ins. 15-8721 & 723
——__
Division of Accounting Operations
Social Security Administratian
Candler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
Dear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address shown On the
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
addresses, and my corresponding earnings.
Signature /X
(00 MOT WRITE BELOW THIS Lime)
TO THE SOCIAL SECUMITY ADMINISTRATION FROM NLRB. PLEASE SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR IME PEBIGD TE
E
ee ¥ /-6¢ To Dare ;
RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT ARO Camnincs — ;
SANE AND ADDRESS CF EuPLOTER f.-1. sumeece scot —
SEG MPR FTC 72-C3 775 7 We we
1. ily MANA ZINE Sf sn ihe 2 Shir eu:
NEW CRLEPYs 1 [tes 3a 7S ©
, ms : : :
ry —
' bo Pn hecbigl i
IW ie, ford iy:
s, THE REQUISTER HreoeseartoN F |
SOCIAL Silini YY rewind Fir v% Y /
3
5.
b/t/ Tue
6
3/62 Wen’
’.
o/b poonpley's
é.
Nifex Put gl fe)
>.
10.
—
. “ly
£ Dyk [Wry
11.
12.
= Tt
13. ;
NATIONAL CABOR JRELATIONS, BOARL
REGIONAL OFFICE ADDRESS: FIFTEENTH ae 4
820 Low:chn Be ; a
2026 St. Charies sence Bing 160
5m). NEW ORLEANS 13, LOUISIANA es Tb
atl m
pore wyae-9260 -
)
(1-96 AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO —
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS INFORMATION
ee et) oar OF BIRTH SOCIAL SECURIT: NUMBER
TIME (Pris g. Rose Marie Hicks | 3/31/29 435-346-2465
wias CASE wAME AND wUMBER
Jj. Rutter-Pex Mfg. Co., Inc. 15-C&-721 and 723
—— ,
Division of Accounting Operations
Social Security Administration
Candler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
ear Sirs: ;
; Please "list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address shown on the
" bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
: addresses, and my corresponding earnings. 7 ‘
Signature
4 (00 HOT WRITE BELOW THIS LIME)
=k THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM SLRPB: PLEA SUPPLY THIS !WFORMATION FOR THE PERIOD
ds nD Resewt
RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS
i i NAME AND ADDRESS OF EMPLOYER E.1. MUMBER coietaant pea al
i _— =
TTT el yor [BEE
e497 . if
| ee iz. /2-$7 G16"
7
¥ LEH! 4 5 3-58 | 114.60:
b.W, LLdmnnm + O2-6541| 72 y
: I S Prenat. Ch, 0045-0004 | CYS SI b/s 3-36 amd. FO”
, as’. 4s ¢-sV 24% Ze
; : $5 | ST 76
a / ASF | 204 be
5-59 | Moe!
: 6-2 i Pipa
7. re 72 ;
a inthe Brae, lies Ser | tre-3
~
oe ae 5 ae (a-59| fel 70°
ad J- bc 472
«<
mB |
NATIONAL LABOR PELATICRS he Ri
FIFTEEN H 3 S GN ;
30. 4 820 Lowich Burin Fi
sl 27°] 22% St. Charies Avenue .
F tg, . wew ORLEANS 13, LOUISIANA
‘
&
(
}
%
i
:
-
%
3
|
SY wae WY ae
eA SSR RS WERE
Sar SS eee
piles hari Se Rot ann let ek nt
Pcnioe oF. ~
cur.Lovecsy
¢- bo
16.
i’.
cD INF ¢.
20.
Pauw ar
691
rors aing-4280
(1-96) AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARMINGS INFORMATION
t (print) oatTe oF evatTr sociat secueity wuwece
re hase Mamie Hicks | 7-3/-29 4395-97 -2ICS
wee case wawe awO NUMBER
& 723
Division of Accounting Operations
Social Security Administration
sandler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
Dear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address show on the
sotton of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
adiresses, and 1 corresponding earnings.
Signature _ j :
(00 BOT WRITE BELOW THIS LIME)
To THE SOCIAL security AOMIMISTRATION FROM SLAB: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS imFORMATION FOR THE PERIOD
Feom 4-/-Z£0 T0 DATE
RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT AND Cageiacs
wAME AND AOORESS OF EWPLOTER £.1. sumeee sap Rad aeeees e
CALVIN Ds sey Mcv"e ScHRAM HA a aa
ts “4 1 Dre fe s/f ,
s< RA p a, RS omppe CED y, hig SIC « 149
Wa7 <Amp 37 re FT, 80 FP
: A2 Y of Hfi6
a le’ 17) L G LP ee kd ;
WE ERIS , ae, pr CL
3.
fi 8: all
‘ Ml WE
Lies Z
pay Ai “¢
5.
6. 5 A er 4 NS Coren] AS
‘ Sushil [70 ais a Taw A
-
| s.
4
9.
| 10.
H 29 |
i att
p 7
: | yr OT) ICL
ODD L OCI REE
+ PUEDES Sn NP IE TGA
692
“pone vo des
(7-96)
AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS INFORMATION
wAUl (Print)
OTe OF Biatr SOCt ar SECURITY ates
Mee ase Ma kite Licks $ 3/-29 ¥ 3S - IY -2¢¢
MLAS CASE Mame and wUMBER a.
2, Hy RattereRex Mfg, Co, Inc, 15-Ci-7?1 & 723 ;
$$$
Division of Accounting Operations 4
Social Security Administration
Candler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
Dear Sirs: i
Please list below and forward *o the National Labor Relations Hoard at the address shown on thy
bottam of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of "y places of employment, the emp Loyers’
addresses, and my corresponding earnings. )
c “ \y
suonature Ayn KP2¢ Wp Med,
(00 HOT WRITE BELOW THis Lime)
TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY adminiSTRa’ion Roe SLPB: bf aS VEPLY THIS IMFOPMATION FOR THE oF of
FROM 4-/-77 To DATE
RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT AND Eamniangs
MAGE 008 4p08ESs OF CaP vee ot. Gonege iecwens P "gaan ‘
CALM Ds Sli fA R SAR pw 4 “4 -Geb
¥ S.nR fp’ POsSAl RE
“<r Sh n 4) & . P ; fe 1,9 > op
4Q7 <Amp <F as au? ~ 25.2
: . Whi CRLEPY, LP et ; ?
3 / . > te Bo oe 5s
’ ‘
4 2. :
4
Aa A Ane
; ‘
; MEO Ha
3 , a c
‘ ‘daffi; ” ‘
i 5
¢
3 ae Shey oa ot ob be Listy ABO
? Sciiialil tai erste ya,
3 . Col £ ¢ legrrcdddian, 2. Sos 24526
3 634 250G LA 03 Ty
I9[C/ 363./¢
J
zz // é
%
3 Yey or
9
4 Mr \\ open hy)
; 10 BR GF sud
4
¢
a 1
b-ipla Py
12.
13.
MESIONAL OFFICE apoetss: | ee bli
NEW 650°. 0. SILL Lt VA
. = — GEE IAS ES RPEITH CC Ir Py
REEL P TY Wie Ba pty ABLE VER LNG OOO gO LSE TIES IB ME v Digs ot 3 - =<
\
PGE RE I ARR
- SCTE: on
*)
x
ay4
4
693
roRe wiae-4160 : a
(1-$0) AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AMD EARMINGS INFORMATION
‘) OF BpRTH \y3. SECUGITY wUMBER
20//2 $39 -30-O//F
ee ee a
vant (Print)
was case wane AND NUMBER
Division of Accounting Operations
Social Security Administration
Candler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
Dear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address shown on the
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
addresses, and my corresponding earnings.
Signature
(D0 BOT WRITE BELOW THIS LIME)
TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM WLRB: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE PERIOD
som ails 2 > PRESET
RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS
NAME AND ADORESS OF EMPLOYER f.1. wUMBER Md Be ao
t. othr Dut 7a - %> 243,00
cee Ws Fe Oe Pls C61 AHGe ‘47 42h, 00°
Jie Orkeane /2 Ana / Za\ 274-00°
= f ¥3\ 7428.00°
Ze co.
3. 4, Yes a2 Zz.
od Ng | 326.00 7
Lad ectele Daw Duemuxz W- a 24h 7°
. yi ; ;
La Ee ore: eee 04+ WAT %7\ 2465 cv"
- , ; 19-0004 - 060}
Jie Athi darw£y SC, La ty
6
SL Arner A Ae~ F4- Ks HL, bFGF -
23 fayltance Pg C407 YA) Wle-
Re . hearse 7 ; a et 4 ew a
| ’ feo| L934
¢. L4- 14U/ ~- COC} rs 4 -
Y
», p ofo~ Pe W- %y ry Yh
CUVNME 49 %4y.00
% co
il. te 4 “ey 10 ;
Soe evden Heels (LID MLE Y Yo 23900 -
: d tho \ OPT 234.0°
ts : # “ Y%.\ 125.€°¢
G7- 6007 -o AE AROS 4 4.c0
HEGIONAL OFFICE ADORESS: roe
820 Lowich Building
WM St. Charles Avenue a-enas
NEW ORLEANS 13. LOUISIANA
- - . lial NRG
694
rORm mL Re-4160
(1-96)
AUTHORIZATION TQ SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURMISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARMINGS INFORMATION
WaMe (Print)
SLAB CASE WAMWE 460 HUMBER
—___4,_B,_Bettee-Bem Mig. Co., Inc. _15-Cir 721 and 723
Division of Accounting Operations
Social Security Administration
Candler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
Dear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address show: on the
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
addresses, and my corresponding earnings. pr
<
Signature
(00 WOT WRITE BELOW THIS Lime) / |
TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM NLRB: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE PERI 00
FROM lo-/-60. _ 10 Arsaat
RECORD OF EXPLOYHENT AND EARNINGS
NAME AND ADDRESS OF EMPLOYER t.f. numeer ph ape od ome’
SoMV DART 06~t oS -97 06 |
s 3407 <oL stym SF: |_ |
MLE he BRL kis 1&1. \Ja-oUtide | lho 327-00 |
. 4 Yes 33¢-00
“% /L/ file) -
7 Yes Reperl mt
“Wo, Yr Dvé
; S RWS Ryan of 13-0393 -~o%2-
/¥a2 PPR _— 22-09 00469) d/o Lor!
. WEW ORLEAWS 13,LA. Ye/ 130.02
REQUISTSD LITORMATION
™ Sool Scout ADtin Ph Me
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
S hole Ce Er) > COMRD
REGIONAL OFFICE aooRESS: | sarees crea » tS Fos?
G26 J pking
¢ tf Avenue 4/03
helmed te
—pcheripeipeyi ttre
NEW ORLL sled it, LOUISIANA, AY)
PLP EROS SIL GL OI PIRES LEME LAT: SOLD, ICEL SIGE DSTI LEN BY PLE YY 21 0 ES TI
Tes
rom wiae-9300
11-96! AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
: FURMISH EMPLOYMENT AMD EARNINGS ImFORMATION
ii ’ TIMLZELID | Date pf Biptr PE Stcumity muweer
ay ie bE sJALICS OM glaeL7 439 - 30-0U2
TUR PYT TM el
_ Co., Ine. 15-Ca-721 and 723
visit of poco in Operat .ans
f oe Security Ate tistration
sarier musi tine
t.com 2, Mary, od
he
‘gar irs:
Plewe List telow ane forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address show) on the
the complete record (ty quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
coop of *hs snee*
ayremes, a oy correspond. ng earnings. ;
Sigiature » " y
. oe
(00 WOT WRITE BELOW THIS LIME)
wrt Sor ibh SECUSITY AOMINISTRAT( ON FROM 8) OP PLEASE SUPPLY THIS (mFORMAT (OM FOR THE PERIOD
jo-L-€0 to “Acura lk
——
: RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT ANO EARNINGS
aeet bat O7%etss ©F EoPiCVEe €.'. sueere Plight “ee”
—_ SAW LAr Fr "Die - 6 OSE -O7 08 |
Bye 7 OL Lil TS |
a hh if = Lf \ja-otlti4e Lelhe 33-90
" Yo: 334-09
- fey pe
Yor Répre not
_ VA _yrr Dv€
oS PUNO Reyeell p 12 -03$s-ere H
‘. > PRWIANIT S |
_ t [%22 / ay’ : y FR 469 ip/er SG ia!
€ WEW CRLEAW? 1° LA VYe/ 136.02
—
aan PEI NCOP ABOVE,
7 i ” 4,
_f{ SOCIAL Sunt Avid. FER pemints ! / hep 20 se
fer Koexk 2G 14 Web Ys GSEs H4
_ ety Coby o. 4s cs | Lales 361 Ay
Marcctl tlre. tur, JS Me 3-tom7-0135 | 3/@r | 36140
|
att ¢ a ee / Je, | an 2 \29-040€969 6/G/ | S62
ss l] OT a Pn eTOCs PY ee 4 08 29 - hae,
ie - Cale € 0t s0 0! 434 +H, ‘ |
— +
|
me eS ee
re
433% = | vo tn
OLLIE IO SIL fod LOO ASLO gl Woy
- = a Se ae
EIT FON Ae Te OD “Rill
696
FORM WL RB-4160
AUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO ae
FURMISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARMINGS INFORMATION
NAME ne
NURS CASE NAME AND NUMBER
J. H. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co., Inc. 15-CA-721 and 723
Division of Accounting Operations
Social Security Administration
Candler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
SOCIAL SECURITY wuupee y
¥, eg
:
Dear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address shown on the
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
addresses, and my corresponding earnings.
Signature =.
(00 WOT WRITE BELOW THIS LIME) A
TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM ALRB: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE PERI OC
FROM 7 [s2 To KER put
RECORD OF EMPLOYMENT and EAmnings
NAME AND ADORESS OF EMPLOYER fet. NUMBER ps sph wae ag
ao oe 34-
' fa aoe es A 16.78
2D Arhateeed 12 fu Ove 1677 49| Woah
; % WO7.6F
ee . | 200.18
R Ha 273. 2?
: “ ‘Wy | 465 94.
; ; Hg) Wee? |
: V9\ 209.99 _—
; ‘ : B 295.85.
4 2F| NWoNe
6. a tte — id
: hoeo| 379.11
0 - 1GY%O~ COOL 62.9;
? ‘ 2 ‘ (/ Ihe /
8.
9.
“Ve _ Y vet
10. eeclal nee a
1.
12.
TIONAL :
13. w FIFTEENTH REGION
. wildiiis
REGIONAL OFFICE ADORESS: St. Charles pio
3 UISIA
NEW ORLEANS 13, LO
Cest.
,
“3
FNAME RENTON, UP EIR VOA ALERT EOI PILE EID ITF BH MRE PIII IE EY RE IE DMM RIENCE SES ITY
_—
ror, wiRe~9260 ee
11-96) AUTWORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARWINGS INFORMATION
Smt (print age OF RTH SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
Lelsmae l Aa bay e/a [1431 fy 32-V¥- VPs
1. B. ecter-Den Wig. @o., Bus. 15-Gi-731 ond 729
Division of Accounting Operations
Social Security Administration
Candler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
697
Dear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address shown on the
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, tlie employers’
adiresses, and my corresponding earnings.
Signature
(00 WOT WRITE BELOW THIS LIME)
TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM NLRB: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE PERIOD
FROM 7-/- GO To —firta ve
RECORD OF GHPLOVHENY AbD EAR NGS
NAME AND ADDRESS OF EMPLOYER fot. NUMBER cones’ gy ig
15490-G0 0/02 Fa Yoo 463.97
BF bahis Garmiwl <o FIO7677\ 4 03-91
Tm. 3000 2 yal sr 7] Y/ Wb. EL
“ew ovleaws” 12 Lb z Iga
(TA
bee? lated
nat gbllias
pit REQUESTED POAT! IS_LYTERLD ACOYE,
: %.
i.
12.
B. ( o
RaiGHaAl ds OF iS oA \RD
—— irvine eer
§.0 | pra z 297.
2026 $4 . eo
NEW Ot UiohANA ;
80.0 10-3047
LEED ‘% irs a7) or . » n
REM ARE oT PEARSE NATIT ARIAL MER IBIS ADEE A INERT IAIN
698
FORM WLRB44160 _
1-
_— LUTHORIZATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS INFORMATION
DATE OF BIRTH
eee
x AL SECURITY wunees
NAME (Print)
NLRB CASE NAME AND NUMBER
J. H, Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co., Inc. 15-CA-721 and 723
Division of Accounting Operations
Social Security Administration
Candler Building
Baltimore 2, Maryland
Dear Sirs:
Please list below and forward to the National Labor Relations Board at the address shown on the
bottom of this sheet the complete record (by quarters) of my places of employment, the employers’
addresses, and my corresponding earnings. 5 = 9 f
Signature <4
(00 WOT WRITE BELOW THIS LIME)
TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FROM NLRB: PLEASE SUPPLY THIS INFORMATION FOR THE. PERIOD
FROM 4 fi [sx To (LEEW T
RECORD OF EMPLOYNENT AND EARNINGS
NAME AND ADORESS OF EMPLOYER t,t. WUMBER penton ov aments 0
dit 7 ~ 004 7-
1. - ‘es :
pa eT Soak St. | 040740 | gh FAI, 01
a Mal F 9. for 7600 a) ss" eT
es; Wr Orktamt La, vals 652,78 :
3 3/S6 8/6-53
“ é/56 93 43
. 9/56 737.79
- (4afs6 654.5%
¥ 3/57 675.95 |
Ms 6/57 726,44
6 4q/s7 614,00 ©
? (al s7 o4t. 9°
? 3/8 878,05 ©
s st SIS. 3T:
9/s8 60/1, 80.
8.
id alse 62). Fi:
9 3/59 954,
: e/s9 795. aI
10, 4/9 716,45
: [x3 807. 98 *
24; ra 82/30 ©
éfeo 923, 3!
12. ee L262 LAB E/ Yeo AGE, 56
; NONE =
WATIONAL LABOR R ve wt oe
2 pe FIFTEENTH REGION wy yr
REGIONAL OFFICE ADORESS: 820 Lowich me ;
2% St. Charles Avenue ¥
aan ORLEANS 13. LOUISIANA
roRW wi re-4160
(1-96 AUTHORIZATIONTO SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION TO
FURNISH EMOYMERT AND EARMI
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.