## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 08

- 2724 U NI T ED E LE CT R I CAL, R ADI O AN D M ACHINE W ORKER SOF A MERI CA (U E ), P etitio ner, v . N ATI ONA L L ABO R R ELA TION S B O ARD , Res pond e nt, an d
A L U MI NU M C AS T I NG & E NGI NE ERI NG C OMPAN Y, I NCO RPORATE D , Int e r ve ni ng Res pond e nt
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er of the National L ab o r Relations B o ard. No s. 30- CA-12855, 30-CA -12902, 30-CA -12943, 30-CA -12944 an d 30- CA-12949

A RG UE D J AN UA RY 15, 2009

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 2, 2009

Befo re R IPPLE, M ANI ON a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . R I PP LE , C ircu i tJudg e . Thi s ca se has be en her e o nce be f o r e. In o ur ea r l i er dec i si o n, we e nf o r ce d a n o r dero fthe2 N o. 08

- 2724

S ee A l um i num C as t i ng & En g’g C o. , Inc. & U ni t ed Ele c. , R adi o & 1 M a c h

. Wo rk e rs o

f Am. , 349 N LR B N o. 18, s li p op . a t 2 ( J an. 31, 2 0 0 7 ) ( S econ d S u pp l em ental D ecisi on and O rder ). N ati onalLaborRel ati ons B oa rd ( “the Board”) , wh i ch h a d f o u nd th a tA l u mi n u m C a s t i n g& E n g i n e e r i n gC o mpan y, Inc . ( “ACE/ CO” o r“ th e Company ”) v i o l at ed th e N at ion al L ab or R ela tio n s A c t (“ N L R A ” ) w h en , in 19 95 , i t dev i at ed fr o m i ts e st ab l i sh ed pr ac ti ce o fa wa rdi ng annual, a c ross- the-boar d w age i ncre ase s t o al lem plo yee s b ec au se of th eir at te m p t s t o u n ion ize
. See N LR B v. Alum inum Ca st ing & En g’g Co
. , Inc. , 2 3 0 F .3 d 2 86, 293 ( 7th Cir. 2000 ) ( U E W I)

. In U E W I , w e e nforced the B oard ’s or der r equi ring AC E/CO to “ [ m ] ake wh ol e a l lem plo yee s w ho we r e no t g r a nt e d a nnua l wa g e i nc r e a s e s i n 1995 to da t e . ” Id. a t 295 (em p ha sis om itted ). W e note d , how ever, that A CE /CO shoul d b e giv en the o pp or tuni ty to prove th at it w ou ld n o t h ave aw ard ed an ac ross-the -board w ag e in c re as e in 19 96 an d th e fo llow in g y ea rs . Id. at29 6- 97. Aft eras ub s t a nt i a l

- c o mpl i a nc e i nv e s t i g a t i o n, the Adm i ni str ati ve Law Judge ( “A LJ”) deter m i ned that a tw entyfive -c en t-p er -h ou r w ag e in c re as e h ad be en w ith h eld unlawful l y fro m the em plo yee s in 1995

. The A LJ further deter m i ned t h at A CE /CO’s l i abi l i ty f orthi s a cro ss- theboar d w age in c rease was l i m i ted to 19 95, and, co nseq u en tly , A C E /C O w as n otreq u ire d to b u i ld th is a d d iti onal tw enty- fi ve cents per hour i nto i ts em plo yee s’ w ages for 1996 an d the foll ow in g y e a r s . A m aj ority ofa thre e- m em berpanelo fthe Board ag re ed. I t r eas oned 1 that car ry i ng f or w ar d the 199 5 wage incre ase i nto 1996N o. 08

- 2724 3

S ee A l um i num C as t i ng & En g’g C o. , Inc. & U ni t ed Ele c. , R adi o & 2 M a ch

. Wo rk e rs o

f Am. , 325 N LR B N o. 1, s li p op . at 1- 2 (J an. 18, 2 0 0 8 ) ( Thir d S u pp l em ental D ecisi on and O rder ). and the fol l owing yea rs w ou ld r esult i n a windfa l lf or the e m plo yee s a nd would be i nconsi ste nt with th e r em edialpurposes o f t h e N ati onalLaborRel ati ons A ct, 49 S t a t
. 4 4 9 , a s a me n d e d , 2 9 U. S

. C

. § 1 5 1 e t se q. Se co nd Su pp l e m e nta l D ecisio n a nd O rder, 349 N L R B N o. 18 , slip op . at 2. A C E /C O therefore w as ord ered only to aw ard b ac k p ay to 38 1 e m p loy ee s fo r th e h ou rs th ey w o r k ed in 1995

. The Boar d did not, however, r equi re A CE /C O to

2 bui l d thi s wage incre ase i nto each em plo yee ’ s ba se w age . In thi s peti ti on fo r re vi ew , U ni ted El ectr i cal, Radio & M achi ne W or ker s o fA m er i ca ( “U EW ”) m ai ntai ns that th e Bo ar d’ s 19 95 b ac kpa y a war d s ho ul d hav e b een i ncorp orated i nt o t he em p loyees’ “b ase w age” for that yea r, so th at al lsubse quent pay r ai ses would be add ed to a base wage that incl ud ed thi s 1 995 pay incre ase . In shor t, they subm i t that, begi nning i n 1996 , the em plo yee s’ “ba se w age ” s houl d have be en equalto the w age r ate they actual l y r ecei ved i n 199 5 pl us an a dd i ti ona l twenty- fi ve cents per hour; any add i tio n al w age i ncre ase s they r ecei ved i n 199 6 a nd bey ond should h av e be en added to th at ad j u st ed “b as e w ag e.” For th e re as on s s etfort h in thi s o pini o n, w e bel i e v e tha tthe UEW i s c o r r e c t
. Ac c o r di ng l y, we g r an t th e pet i ti o n fo rr ev i ew, s eta si de th e decisio n o fthe Board and r em and thi s ca se f or fur th erpr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.4 N o. 08

- 2724 I B AC KGR OUND A d e t aile d d isc u ss ion of th e fa c tu al b ac kg ro u n d of th is ca se may be f o und in o ur p r i o ro pi ni o n, U E W I , 23 0 F
. 3d at 288- 93. For the conve ni ence of the re ader, w e sh all re peat he re the keydetai l s o fA CE /CO’s com p ensat i on pract i ces that are nec ess ar y foran unders tandi ng o f th i s pha se o fthe l i ti g at i o n. I n 198 9, A CE /CO announced that i ts h ou rl y e m plo yee s w oul d rec ei ve a ten- cent- per- hour w age i ncre ase , effecti ve February13 , 19 89, and w oul d l at err ecei ve an add i ti onalfi ve- cent- per- hour w age i ncre ase , effecti ve A ug us t 14, 1989

. Th e se w age increa ses, w hich w ere base d on r i ses i n the cos t o fl i vi ng in the M i l w au kee ar ea, the Com pany’s p er f or m ance a nd the w age s o ffer ed b y c om p ar ab le c om p an ies , bec am e a p er m an en t a d d iti on t o the e m plo yee s’ wage s. Consequentl y, thes e wage i ncre ase s were add ed to the em plo yee s’ exi sting wage ra tes and re sul ted i n a ne w “ba se w age . ” Rai ses i n subsequent y ear s were add ed to thi s ba se w age . I n 1990, across-the -board w age increa ses again w ere i m ple m ented. These in c rease s, l i ke the 1 989 i ncre ase s, becam e a per m anent a dd i ti on t o the e m plo yee s’ w ag es. Al th o u g h n o wa g e i n c r e a s e wa s g i v e n i n 1 9 9 1 , t he pattern ofawardi ng ac ro ss- the-boar d w age i ncre ase s continued i n 199 2, 19 93 and 1 994; each ofthes e a cro ss- thebo ar d wag e i nc r ea se s be ca m e a per m an en t par t o fthe em plo yee s’ wages, r esul ti ng in a ne w bas e wage. N o w age incre ase was awarded in 1995

. ACE / CO c l a i m ed th at, in th at year, i t had aban d one d acro ss-th e-boardN o. 08

- 2724 5

w age i ncre ase s in f avo r ofa new , m er i t- and tr ai ni ngba se d c o m pen sa ti o n s y st em. The Bo ar d f o und, ho we ver, that, atl eas t in 199 5, A CE /CO’s m er i t- and tr ai ni ng-base d w age i ncre ase s w er e anci l l ar y to, and no t s ubsti tutes f or, the acr oss - the-boar d w age i ncre ase s. The B oar d al so deter m i ned that A CE /CO’s f ai l ure to aw ar d acro ss- thebo ar d wag e i nc r ea se s i n 1 99 5 was in re ta l i at i o n fo rthe e mpl o y e e s ’ o r g a ni z a t i o na la c t i v i t i e s a nd tha tACE / CO th er efo r e ha d v i o l at ed se ct i o ns 8 ( a) ( 1) and 8 (a ) ( 3) o fthe N L R A

. Id. at29 2- 93. W e s ustained these de term i natio n s. See i d. at29 1- 93. A ftera subsequent substa nti al

- com pli ance pr oce edi ng, th e Bo ar d de term i ne d tha t, i n 1 99 6, ACE/CO h ad ab an do ne d the us e o fa cr o ss - th e-bo ar d wag e in crea se s an d had adopted a pro gr am thatawarded w age i ncre ase s base d on m er i t a nd the com ple ti on o ftra ini ng pro gr am s. Th e r e f o r e , r e a s o ne d the Bo a r d, the Co mpa ny wa s not obl i gat ed to award additi onal acr oss - the-boar d w age incr e a s e s in 1996 or i n su bseq ue ntyears. M oreover, rul ed the m aj or i ty ofthe Board panel, t h e new m er i tan d t ra in in g-b as ed w ag e in c re as es th at w er e a d d ed in 19 96 a nd the f o l l o wi ngy ea r s sh o uld be added t o the em p lo yees’ actual 1 9 9 5 wa g e r a t e s , wh i c h we r e n o ta dj usted to i ncl ud e the twenty- five-ce nt- per- hour w age increas e w rongfu ll y d en ied to th e w orkers in that year. The dis sentingm em bero fthe Board t oo k the vi ew that, al though the Com pany w as perm i tted to change pr o s pe c t i v e l y the ma nn e ri n whi c h i ta wa r de d wage i ncre as es after19 95, i t m ust bui l d those l ate r i ncre ase s on the adj usted bas e wage of the work eras o fthe e nd of 1995 , a m etho dol ogythatwould in c or pora te the wrongfully deni ed w age i ncre ase i nto the e m plo yee s’ wages.6 N o. 08

- 2724 II DI S C US S I ON I n re vi ew i ng the Boar d’s or d er , we m ust r especti ts “br oad di scr eti on t o devi se [ a] r em ed[y ] thateffectuat e[ s] the pol i ci es ofthe [ N LR A ]
. ” N LR B v . Inte rs w ee t, Inc. , 12 5 F. 3d 10 64 , 1 067 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) ( ci tat i on a nd quotat i on m ar ks om itt ed ); see2 9 U. S

. C. § 1 60 ( c) (per m i tt i ngthe Board, upon fi nd i ng tha t a party has e n gaged i n an unfai r l abo r p racti ce, “t o tak e s uch affi rm ati ve acti on i nc l udi ngr eins ta te m en t o fe m pl o y ee s wi th or wi th o ut bac k pa y, a s wi l le ffec tu at e th e po l i ci es o f[ th e N LRA]”). The Board’ s e xerci se ofthi s di scr etion “i s s ubj ect to onl y l i m i ted j ud i ci alr evie w .” N LR B v. M idw . P ers. Serv s., Inc. , 5 0 8 F
. 3 d 4 1 8 , 4 2 2

- 2 3 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 )

. T h e r e f o r e , we shal l“e nfo rce the Board’ s o rderi fi ts f actualfi nd i ngs ar e s u p p or te d by s ubstanti alev i dence i n the re cor d as a w h o l e a n d its lega l co n c lu sio n s h av e a rea so n ab le b as is i n l aw . ” N LR B v. M idw. Pers

. Se rvs . , Inc. , 3 22 F. 3d 969, 97 6 ( 7 th Cir

. 2 0 0 3 ) ( c i t i ng2 9 U. S

. C. § 1 6 0 ( e ) a nd U ni ve rs al Came ra Corp. v . NLRB , 340 U .S. 474, 48 8 (1 95 1)).

A. Gi ve n thi s st an dar d o fr evie w, we m us t be g i n o ur an alysis w ith a ca reful, resp ectfu l stu d y of th e B oard ’s op i n i o n a n d th e p os itio n th at it ta ke s in th e b rie f th at it ha s fi l ed be f ore u s. In the Bo ar d’ s vi ew, the Co m pan y m ust a w ar d com pensato rybac k payf orit s vi ol ati on o f th e A c t o n l y f o rth e h o u r s a c tu a l l y w o r k e d b y i t s e mplo yee s in 199 5. T he evi dence show s, the Boar d conti nues,N o. 08

- 2724 7 that the Com pany switc hed fro m a pol i cy ofacr oss - theboar d i ncre ase s t o a pol i cy ofm er i t- and tr ai ni ng-b as ed i ncre ase s in 1 99 6. Therefor e, i t r eas ons, the 1995 wage i ncre ase need notbe i ncl ud ed in the base wage t o w hi ch the 1996 m er i t incre ase s a re added. I t r el i es he av i l y o n o urs ta te m en t i n U E W I that A CE /CO sh ou ld be per m i tte d to dem onst ra te that “i t had abj ured acr oss the-boar d rais es . . . [ w hi ch w oul d] s uffi ce t o excuse A CE /CO fro m m aking any adj ustm ents f or 1996 , [ and] it w ou ld also establish th is new baselin e f o r fut ure years as w el l

. ” U E W I

, 23 0 F
. 3d at 296. I n r ea c hi ng thi s co ncl usi on, the Board underto ok a de t a i l e d f a c tua la na l y s i s a nd de t e r mi ne d tha tACE / CO la w fu lly h ad cr ea te d a n ew co m p en sa tio n sy st em in 19 96 . I t a ss u m ed th at, i n 19 96 , th e C om p an y a lloc at ed all o fthe funds a va i l ab l e f o rwag e i nc r eas es t o mer i t-a nd tr ai ni ng-base d w age inc re ase s under the ne w co m pensati on s yst em . In the Board’ s v i ew , the deci si on t o aw ar d onlym er i t-base d i ncre ase s co nsti tuted a new com pensati on s yst em that“was n ot b as ed on a ‘ base

l i ne’ f orbar gaini ng uni t l aborco sts thati ncor pora ted a 25- cent i ncre ase i n 199 5. ” Se co nd Su pple m e nt al D e cis i on a nd O r der, 34 9 N LR B N o. 18 , sl i p op. at2. In ess ence, the Boa rd as sum ed that the 1 996 com pensatio n sys tem wo ul d h a v e been al t e r e d i fthe Co mpa nyh a d ma de ac ro ss -th e-b oa rd in c re as es in 19 95
. T o su p p o r t th is vi ew , the Board r eas oned that, i fA C E /C O had is sued an ac ro ss -th e-b oa rd w ag e in c re as e in 19 95 , i t n ec es sa rily wou l d h a v e h a d l e s s mo n e ya v a i l ab l e f o rme r i t
- a nd tr ai ni ng-base d w age i ncre ase s in 199 6, and th e am ounts oftho se n ew wage incre ase s nec ess ar i l y would have8 N o. 08

- 2724 b ee n d ec re as ed as a re su lt. SeeR e s po nd e nt ’ s Br
. 2 2
. Af ter the 1 996 m er i t incre ase s, ther ef or e, ea ch em plo ye e had b ee n res to re d , a s c los ely as p os sib le, to th e e c on om ic p osi ti o n in whi chhe woul d ha ve b ee n abs en t AC E/C O ’s m i sco nd uct. U E W , a g r ee i ngwi ththe di ss en tingBo ar d m ember, su b m its th at th e B oa rd m isc on st ru ed o u r lan gu ag e in U E W I and al so f ai l ed to r eso l ve any a m b igu itie s a gainst the wrongdoe r, A CE /CO. A ccor ding to U EW , ou r sta tem ent in the und er lyin g c ase

— “i f

. . . A CE /CO i ntro
d uc ed eviden ce th at it had abj ure d across-t h e -b oard ra i ses f or eve r . . . noto nl y would that s uffi ce t o excuse A C E /C O from m ak in g a n y a dj u st m en ts for 1 99 6, b u t it w oul d e st ab l i sh thi s new base l i ne f orfuture yea rs as w ell”

— was i nt en ded to r el i ev e A CE/ CO fr o m making addi t i onal a cr o ss -the-bo ar d wag e i nc r ea se s i n 1 99 6 an d th e f o l l o wi ngy ea r s, i f the Bo ar d de te r m i ne d tha t th e Com pany had, i n f act, aba nd oned t h at com pensati on st r uctur e. I t di d no t, ho we ver, ex cus e AC E/ CO fr o m the obl i gat i on o fper m anen tly i ncor pora ti ng the 19 95 acr oss the-boar d w age incr eas e into i ts em plo yee s’ bas e wages a n d a d d i n ga n y i n c r e a s e s in 1 9 9 6 a n d th e f o l l o wi ng years, how ever d eterm ined , to that ba se. T o sup p ort thi s v i ew , U EW not es th at , b ase d on A CE /CO’s past pract i ce, i t i s cl earthatany acr oss - the-boar d i nc rease aw ar ded i n 199 5 would have bee n perm anentl y incor pora ted into the e m plo yee s’ wages in subsequent yea rs . Fu rt h er m or e , U E W su b m its , to th e e x te n t t h at th er e is an y a m b igu ity as to w h et h er th e b a c k p ay aw ar d sh ou ld be per m anentl y incor pora ted i nto the e m ploye es’ wages, th at am biguity is attribu table solel y to A C E /C O ’sN o. 08

- 2724 9

UEW di s put es ACE/ CO ’ s c l ai m thata ne w com pen s at i on 3 s ys t e m wa s i m pl e m e nt e d i n 1 9 9 6

. I tc l a i m s tha tACE / CO d id no t im p lem en t a ne w system , b u t, rath er, exp an d ed its e x i s t i n g t r a i n i n g - a n d me r i t
-b a s e d c o mp e n s a t i o n p r o g r a ms and e l i m i nat ed o ne c om pone nt ofi t s c om pen s at i on s ys t em , the acros s- the-board w age inc reas e. unlawfulco nd uct and not the i m ple m entat i on o fa new com p en sation p rogram . Th us , i t con clud es, th e B o ard 3 shoul d have res olved any a m bi gui ti es i n f avo r of th e empl o y ee s an d pe r m an en tly i nc o r po rated the tw enty- fi ve- cent i ncre ase i nto the em plo yee s’ w age ra te s. S e e Ca mp b e l l El e c. Co. , 34 0 N LRB 8 25 , 8 26 ( N LRB 2003 ) ( noting tha t r em edi es shoul d res tor e e m plo yee s to the po si tion the y woul d ha ve o bt aine d abs en t th e u n f a i r l ab o r p r a c t i c e , a n d i n d i c a t i n g th a t “ a n y . . . a mbi g ui tyr eg ar dingthe s ta tu s th atwoul d ha ve [ be en ] obt ai ned w i thout the u n lawful co nd uct m ust be r eso l ved agains t the

. . . w rongd oer”).

B. Cen tr al to the Bo ar d’ s det er m i na ti o n was i ts r ea di ng o fa pa ss ag e o fo uro pi ni o n. The Bo ar d f o cused on o ur st at ementtha t, i fACE/CO coul d s ho w tha t i t ha d aba ndoned acro ss- the-boar d i ncre ase s, i t would be excuse d fro m “ m a k i n g a n y a dj u st m en ts for 1 99 6, [an d ] it w ou ld als o e st ab lis h t h is n ew ba se lin e fo r fu tu re ye ar s a s w ell.” U E W I , 23 0 F
. 3d at 296. T h e B oa rd r ead thi s s tat em ent t o m ean that, i fA CE /CO coul d dem onst ra te that i t had aban d on ed the use o facr oss - the-boar d i ncre ase s in 199 6,10 N o. 08

- 2724 it c ou ld ad d an y w ag e in c re as es in 1 99 6 a n d th e fo llow in g yea rs to a 19 95 ba se lin e t h at refle c te d w h at ac tu ally w as p aid to th e e m p l oy ee s, exc lusiv e of th e w ro n gfu lly w i thhe l d t we nt y - f i v e - c e nt
- pe r - ho ur wage i ncre ase . Seco nd Su pp lem enta l D ecisio n a nd O rder, 349 N LR B No . 18, sl i p op. at3. W e ca nnot a ccept the Boar d’s re adingo f our ea rl i er o pi ni o n. In U E WI, w e a d d re ss ed th e C om p an y’s cla im th att h e B o a r d ’ s o r i g i n a lo r d e rwa s s o b r o a d th a tt he Com pany w oul d be obl i ged to award acr oss - thebo ar d a nnua lwag e i nc r ea se s i n 1 99 5 an d i n e ac h o fthe follo w in g y ea r s . In rep ly to th at arg u m en t, w e s im p ly h eld th at, onc ethew orke rs w e rem adewhol ef orthevi ol at i on of the A ct in 1 99 5, the Boa rd’ s o ri ginalo rdersho uld not be c onst rued as req uir i ng the Com pany to co nti nue to gr ant a dditi ona l acr oss - the-boar d i ncre ase s in subsequent ye ar s i f, i n any oftho se ye ar s, i t had deci ded to i nsti tute anothe r, la w ful w age - i ncre ase sy ste m . In shor t, i t was o ur underst anding that the Boa rd’s order re q u ire d th e C om p an y t o m ak e t h e e m p loy ee s w h ole f o rthe v i o l at i o n tha t ha d o cc ur r ed. Onc e th e co m pan y had d on e so, i t was fre e t o i m ple m ent a ny wagei ncre ase sy stem t h at it chos e, so l ong as that new wage sy st em co m pl i ed wi ththe Act

. Ourpoi nt w as tha t th e B oar d did not have bef or e i t the questi on o fany w age i ncre ase s f

ortheye ars f

ol l owin g 1 995
. The Boar d’s or der “expres sl y did not bi nd A CE /CO to a perpet u al p ra cti ce ofgr anti ng [ across - the-boar d w age i ncre ase s]
. ” Id. at29 6. Therefor e, we deter m i ned, i fA CE /CO coul d dem onst ra te “thatge nera lwage incre ase s a re pa sséan d i th a s f o un d a bett erway to m ai ntai n com peti ti ve w age l eve l s . . . [ the]N o. 08

- 2724 11

or der doe s no m or e than requir e paym ent o fthe 1995 i ncre ase . ” Id. This i nter pretatio n ofo ur pri oro pini on i s l ogi cal, gi ven th e l i m i te d i ss ue unde rdi sc us si o n in U E W I: whe ther the B o a r d’ s o r de ri mpe r mi s s ib l y r e qu i r e d AC E/ CO to aw ar d acro ss- the-boar d i ncre ase s fo r 1996 and eac h of the fol l ow in g y ear s. Id. at29 5-9 6. Ju stas im p or ta n tly , i t i s th e o nl y int er pr et at i o n tha t i s co m pat ibl e wi ththe l aw g o ve r ni ngr em ed ia lmeas ur es unde rthe Act

. The Board m ust m ake workers “wh ol e forl oss es suffer ed on ac c ou n t o f an u n fair lab or p ra c tic e” u n d er th e A c t. Phelps Dodg eCo rp. v . NLRB , 313 U .S. 17 7, 19 7 (19 41 ). M or e s p ec ifical l y, i n awa rd in g back pay, the Board m ust a tte m pt to “r ecr eat e the .

. . r el ati onshi ps that w oul d have b een had ther e been no unf ai r l aborprac ti ce. ” Franks v. Bowm an Transp. Co
. , Inc. , 4 24 U. S

. 747, 7 69 ( 19 76 ) ( ci tation and qu otation m arks om itted ). T h e B oa rd c on te n d s t h at, in ins tit u tin g th e 1 99 6 m er it in c re as e p olic y, A C E /C O in e ffec t a d d re ss ed , albe it in d ire ctl y, i ts re m edi alo bl i gat i ons b ec au se i t “ l aw fully a l l ocate d the m oney actuallyava i l abl e to it forwage i nc r ea se s so l ely t o mer i t an d t r aini ngr ai ses, wi th o ut co ns i der at i o n ofa n a cr o ss - th e-bo ar d i nc r ea se . ” Re spo nd en t’s B r. 22 . Th e B oa rd as su m es t h a t A C E /C O h ad on ly a li m i ted pool of fund s avai l abl e f or w age i ncre ases in 1996 , and that, had A CE /C O im ple m ented an acr oss - theboar d i ncre ase i n 199 5, the si ze ofthatpool

— and the si ze ofthe 1996 wage incre ase s

— w ou l d have decr eas ed b y a n am ou n t e q u al t o th e a m ou n t o f fu n d s a lloc at ed in th e 1995 ac ross-the -board i n c rease. Th erefore, the B oard12 N o. 08

- 2724

c o n c l ud e s , A C E / C O ’ s e mp l o y e e s r e c e i v e d th e s a me w ag e ra te in 1 99 6 a s t h ey w o u ld h av e re c eiv ed if A C E /C O had aw ard ed both the 19 95 acros s-the-boa rd w age i ncre ase and t h e r educed 1996 w age i ncre ase s. A c c or d in gly , th e B oa rd m ain ta in s t h at its rem ed y is appr opri ate l y t ai l or ed to fulfi l l i ng i ts re m edi alo bl i gati o n fo rthe 1 99 5 vi o l at i o n. W e ca nno t ac ce pt th i s ar g um en t. A t t he o ut se t, the re cor d si m plydoes notsupport the Boa rd’ s con c lusi on that, had the Com pany not vi ol ate d the A c t i n 199 5 and i nstea d paid the expecte d acro ss- th e-board wage i ncre ase i n that yea r, the poolo ffunds avai l abl e for th e 1 99 6 m er it- a n d tra in in g-b as ed p ro gr am n ec es sa rily w oul d h a v e b e e n r e du c e d b y the a mou nt pa i d o utas a resu lt ofthe 19 95 acros s-the-boa rd i nc rease. Th e re c ord is in d ee d va g u e o n th e t ot al a m ou n t o f fu n d s a va ilab le f ord ist ributi on in 199 6, the tot alam ount o fr ai ses actual l y a w ar ded i n 199 6, and A CE /CO’s m etho dol ogy for aw ar d in g th e w ag e in c re as es offe re d in t h at ye ar . In f a c t, wh e n a c o mpl i a nc e o ffi c e rr eque s t e d tha tACE / CO provi de docum entat ion rel ating to i ts deci si on t o ab an d on th e a c ro ss -th e-b oa rd c o m p en sa tio n sy st em in f avo r ofan a l ternati ve re w ar d s ys tem , A CE /CO w as unabl e to pr o vi de an y minut es o rdo cument s r efl ec ting t h e r ea so n in g b eh in d its d ec isio n . See G .C

. E x .12 at 1, 2 (statem en t of C om p li an ce O fficer Giff ord ). M or e im p or ta n tly , eve n if th e p oo l o ffu n d s a va ilab le f o rthe 1 99 6 m er i t-ba se d inc r ea se s ha d i nc l ude d the am ount o fm oneythat other w i se w oul d have be en di str ibut ed had the C om p an y aw ard ed an ac ross-the -boa rdN o. 08

- 2724 13

wa g e i nc r e a s e i n 1 9 9 5 , i ti s n ot c l e a rtha ttho s e fun ds w ou ld h av e b ee n d ist rib u te d in a m an n er th at w ou ld ha ve pl ac ed ea chwro ng ed wor k eri n the po si ti o n h e w oul d have be en in had the 1995 wage incre ase bee n a wa r d e d

. T h e B o a r d p o i n t s t o n o e v i d e n c e th a tth e C o mpany’s 19 96 w age i ncre ase s t oo k thi s co nsi derat i on into ac c ou n t. Ind ee d , th e p ar t i e s s e e m to ag re e t h at, w h en it i m pl ement ed th e 19 96 wag e i nc r ea ses , the Co m pan y si m plyas cer tained the 1 995 base w age o fthe em plo yee , exc lud ing the w ron gfu l ly w ith held increa se, and added to th at a m o u n t w h at ev er m er it-b as ed w ag e in c re as e it de e med a pp r o pr i a t e u nd e ri t s n e w metho d. I n the s ame v ein, the Bo ar d a l so su bm it s th at, i fthe w ronge d w orkers ha d receiv e d the tw en ty-fi ve-cen t-pe rhour w age incr eas e wrongfully withhel d i n 199 5, they w el l m i ght not have re cei ved the m er i t i ncre ase s that w er e di str ibuted i n 199 6. Thi s a rgum ent i s s pecula ti ve, and, contr ar y t o the Boa rd’ s s ug ge sti on, the w ro nged w or ke rs sh ou ld n oth av e t o b ea r th e b u r d e n of an y a m b igu ity in t h is re sp ec t. A fte r all, th e a m b igu ity is th e re su lt o fthe Co m pan y ’ s i l l eg alwi thho l di ngo fthe 1 99 5 i ncreas e. T he refore the C om p an y, not the ind ivi d ua l w orker, m ust b ea r an y l oss fro m the l ack ofava i l abl e e vi dence. Because i t vi ol ate d the l aw , the Com pany did not com pu te c or re c tly th e 1 99 5 b as e w ag e o f ea c h w or ke r; be c au se it vi ol ate d the l aw , the Com pany is not i n a pos i ti on t o show w h et h er th e p oo l of fu n d s a va i l a b l e for th e 1 99 6 m er it i nc r e a s e s i nc l ud e d a l l o f the mon e y tha t i t wo ul d hav e d ist rib u te d in 19 95 h ad it act ed leg ally ; b ec au s e it vi ol ate d the l aw , the Com pany i s unabl e to show w hether, i n 1996 and s ubsequent yea rs , eve ryw ro n ged14 N o. 08

- 2724

em plo yee r ecei ved a w age increas e e qual to the r ai se w ro ngfully deni ed h im in 1995 and the a m ount that woul d ha ve b ee n aw ar ded hi m unde rthe mer i t-a nd tr ai ni ng-base d progr am . The Com pany, nott h e w or ker s, m ust be arany l oss f orthe Com pany’s i l l ega lact i vi ty.

Conclusi on T h e B oa rd ’s in te rp re ta tio n of ou r ea rl i e r op in ion is er ro neous. I ts f actualco ncl usi ons ar e unsupp or ted by th e ev i den ce i n th e r ec o r d. The r efo r e, be cau se th e Board’ s re m edi al or der i s base d o n an er ro r ofl aw and an un su bsta nt iated find ing of fact, w e m u s t grant U E W ’s pe t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w an d s e tas i de the Bo a r d’ s o r de r . Ac c o r di ng l y, we g r an t th e pet i ti o n fo rr ev i ew, s eta si de th e Board’ s orderand re m and the ca se to the Boa rd f orpro ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n. P E T I T I ON G RANTE D ; O RDERS ETA S I DE ; C ASE R EMAND ED

9- 2- 09