We all waited and he did arrive by the 2:30 time. First motion
was by Council McCloskey to examine Mr. Baird then retired. The
compliance officer had previously been subpeoned but was stopped
by the N.L.R.B. council. The Judge was not sure as to whether Baird
should be allowed to be palced on the stand, placed under oath in
order that he could relate to the court what he had written. (he could
not read it) Council for N.L.R.B. filed a petition to stop McCloskey
from putting Baird on. Judge Itzik then called Washington from
Slidell, La. to see if it would be o.k. to put Baird on. The decision
from Washington was yes
but only to interpet his handwriting.
However this being subject to being overturned at a later date. The
next day's court started with Baird attempting to read what he had
written in order to set the record straight. This record consists
of hundreds of pages légal size scribbled in long hand. (see sample
enclosed) After about one and a half days of this N.L.R.B. council
stated that they had a witness that was flown down from Pittsburg, Pa.
and they would like to stop the Baird procedure and put the witness
on so he could return to Pa., all at the taxpayers expense.
The
hearing was moved to New Orleans to accomadate the witness. After
the lengthy questioning of the witness it turned out that a certain
document was needed that he said he had but when asked to produce it.
He could not do so; stating that it was at home. It was decided that
he would be chauffered in a government car to obtain the document.
Alas, where would he be driven to search, Slidell, La. where he had
just come from. He and the government driver finaly returned from
Slidell late in the afternoon with a crumpled piece of paper with
some names of companies domiciled in Pa. with no dates or time on
them, this constituted his search for work. He was then dismissed to
return to Pa. at the taxpayers expense. Now comes Kelly Baird back
to the stand to continue his efforts to decipher his handwriting.
At the close of the day we learned from the court reporter that she
will not be in the next day. No problem, the N.L.R.B. merely calls
Dallas, Texas to fly a court reporter in from Dallas, Texas and put
her up at the taxpayers expense for a few hours court work in New
Orleans. Then she will fly back to Dallas. By this time additional
petitions are filed, one by McCloskey to cross examine Baird.
One
by council for N.L.R.D. to stop Baird from being examined. Also
the Judge has decided that Baird's work will take many more days and
decides he will go back to Washington and return to Louisiana on
February 9th. 1981 to continue Baird's readings. (when he can read
his writing) The Judge said it now appeared to be a 20 year trial.
(but it won't because we will be broke and out before that time)

Mr. McCloskey presented the Judge with a ruling by the 8th.
U.S. Circuit which stated that where a discriminantee had
fraudulently drew unemployment benefits while working, they were
barred from back pay. The Judge stated that the N.L.R.B. had their
own law and in this case not bound by this ruling. Council for N.L.R.E.
jumped to his feet to defend this illegal action, even though the 8th.
Circuit had stated that this was reprehensible. (one would think council
would be alarmed by such actions and condem them not aid and abet the
criminal) However this is not the case. Now I ask is this any way

to run a Goverment ?

Should I be obliged to spend thousands of dollars to have someone
that N.L.R.B. paid to try to explain what he had written and can't.

I would like to have a copy of this letter passed to Secretary Donovan.

I understand that Mr. Ray Marshall formerly Secretary of N.L.R.B. is now employed by the A.F.L. C.1.0., understandable, perhaps illegal.

Could someone monitor these proceedings ? It would be most revealing and could result in some constructive action.

Very Truly Yours,

V.J. Scogín
Owner/President

VJS/sg

Encl.

CC: Baldwin & Haspel Attorneys

H. Sloan McCloskey

This is the type of interim earnings furnished us
by N.L.R.B. Who what is Joe ?

Thus

Where we were able to do so in rechecking interim
earnings we found them to be understated.
resulting in the N.L.R.B. ammending their back pay
specifications.

Hrippendix A

This is in further response to your inquiry concerning correspondence from your constituent Mr. V. J. Scogin, President of Standard Materials, regarding the above-captioned case.

I have investigated the matters raised in Mr. Scogin's letter and report the following. Pursuant to a charge filed by the United Steelworkers of America that Standard Materials, Inc. violated the National Labor Relations Act, our New Orleans Regional Office conducted an investigation and subsequently issued a complaint alleging that Standard Materials, Inc. violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by refusing to offer strikers, who made unconditional offers to return to work, reinstatement because of their union activity. Thereafter, a hearing was conducted before Administrative Law Judge Herbert Silberman. In all such hearings, the evidence in the case is presented by field attorneys serving as Counsel for the General Counsel, thus representing the Government's interest, not representing the individual discriminatees, the union, or other charging party in the case.

Prior to the start of the initial unfair labor practice hearing, purusant to established Agency policy, Judge Silberman engaged in settlement discussions with the parties. I do not find anything in the record to establish that Judge Silberman showed bias or prejudice toward Respondent, as suggested by Mr. Scogin. Further, it appears that Judge Silberman was evenhanded and fair in exercising his discretion on rulings concerning trial procedures including the sequestration of witnesses. In addition, National Labor Relations Board hearings are open to the public and any interested person is free to attend, which may account for the presence of a number people at the hearing.

After the hearing Judge Silberman issued a Decision and Recommended Order finding that Standard Materials violated the National Labor Relations Act by its failure to reinstate strikers who made an unconditional offer to return to work. The National Labor Relations Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended order with slight modification. On October 15, 1979, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the Board Order.

Following the decision of the Fifth Circuit, the Region, through its Compliance Officer R. Kelly Baird, undertook to determine the amount of backpay due the 25 discriminatees as a result of the Board's Order. In furtherance of this effort, Mr. Baird contacted, inter alia, the Social Security Administration and various employers in the Slidell, Louisiana, area. Mr. Baird also interviewed each of the discriminatees. Contrary to the assertions of

Mr. Scogin, Mr. Baird did not "travel around the country" during his investigation. He did, however, travel to Slidell, Louisiana, to interview the claimants. Mr. Baird did this in order to ascertain the amount of money each had earned since Standard Materials had unlawfully refused to reinstate them. In accord with long-standing Board practice, the net interim earnings of the discriminatees would be deducted from the gross backpay, thus reducing Respondent's liability.

While some of the discriminatees may have collected unemployment compensation benefits, these benefits are considered collateral and are not deducted from a claimant's gross backpay. This procedure has specifically been approved by the Supreme Court, N.L.R.B. v. Gullett Gin Manufacturing Co., 340 U.S. 361 (1951).

During the course of his investigation, Mr. Baird also contacted Mr. Scogin and received all evidence he was able to produce concerning the interim earnings of the discriminatees and their search for work.

Following the decision of the circuit, and again during and on completion of his investigation, Mr. Baird again contacted Mr. Scogin and his attorney to discuss settlement. On each occasion Mr. Scogin declined the opportunity to settle the case and thus avoid the expense of further litigation.

Thereafter, and pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, a backpay specification and Notice of Hearing was issued on May 22, 1980. The backpay specification sets forth the amount of backpay that the Regional Office, as a result of its investigation, believed Respondent owed the discriminatees because of his failure to reinstate them.

In addition to setting forth the Region's formula for computing the gross backpay and the backpay periods for each of the discriminatees, the Region also set forth the amount and source of all interim earnings of which it was aware. In several cases the discriminatees, were only able to obtain casual employment. Several of these individuals were paid in cash and no records were available to verify their employment or the amount of money they received. Nevertheless these indivivuals freely admitted their best estimate of their earnings, and these earnings were duly set forth in the backpay specification. One individual, Mr. Edgar Peters, could not recall the name of the individual for whom he worked other than the first name "Joe." Again, despite the absence of any records or means of verifying his employment, Mr. Peters freely admitted certain earnings which were set forth by the Region in the backpay specification. See, for example, the "Computation of Backpay" attached to Mr. Scogin's letter.

Following issuance of the backpay specification, and after Respondent filed its answer, Counsel for General Counsel filed a motion with the Board seeking summary judgment. By order dated September 30, 1980, reported at 252 NLRB No. 94, the Board in part granted Counsel for General Counsel's motion. The Board remanded the case for a hearing limited to a determination of the discriminatees' interim earnings, including the availability to discriminatees of interim employment and the discriminatees' failure to seek and/or retain such employment. Pursuant to the Board's decision, a hearing was scheduled for November 12, 1980. At the request of the Respondent the hearing was postponed until 10:00 a.m., January 26, 1981, because of the hospitalization of Mr. Scogin.

Prior to the opening of the hearing, the Region became aware of certain additional interim earnings. These additional earnings