text:
24:1021(99)CA - Air Force, HQ 832d Combat Support Group, DPCE, Luke AFB, AZ and AFGE Local 1547 -- 1986 FLRAdec CA
[ v24 p1021 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
24 FLRA No. 99 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS 832D COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP,DPCE LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, ARIZONA Respondent and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1547 Charging Party Case No. 8-CA-50167 DECISION AND ORDER I. Statement of the Case This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority because of exceptions filed by the Respondent to the attached decision of the Administrative Law Judge. The Charging Party (the Union) filed an opposition to the exceptions. The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by failing to comply fully with an Arbitrator's award to which no timely exceptions were filed pursuant to section 7122 of the Statute and which therefore had become final and binding. The Judge concluded that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute by failing to comply with the Arbitrator's award. Although finding the complaint to have been timely filed for reasons which differ from the Judge's, the Authority agrees with his conclusion as to the violation by the Respondent. II. Background On September 23, 1983, Arbitrator David Goodman issued an award in which he found that the Respondent had violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement when it transferred two employees from the "swing shift" to day shift assignments, which resulted in the employees' loss of night differential (premium pay). While the Arbitrator did not expressly state that the employees who were improperly reassigned were to be reimbursed for their lost premium pay, he did order a return to the status quo. The Respondent reassigned the employees to their prior shift, but took the position that the award did not require the payment of backpay. On January 3, 1984, the Union filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge alleging that the Respondent had failed to fully comply with the Arbitrator's award. The Union subsequently sought clarification of the award from the Arbitrator. On March 1, 1984, the Arbitrator advised the parties that the only meaning that could be applied to his status quo requirement was that the employees be paid for the premium pay they lost when they were denied access to the swing shift. On March 30, 1984, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Arbitrator's clarification with the Authority. On or about April 23, 1984, the Union then withdrew its first ULP charge and on the same day filed a second, essentially identical charge. On July 13, 1984, the Regional Director dismissed the Union's second ULP charge because of the Respondent's pending exceptions to the Arbitrator's award then before the Authority. On July 27, 1984, the Authority issued its decision in American Federation of Government Employees, Local Union 1547 and Department of the Air Force, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, 15 FLRA 399 (1984). The Authority held that the Arbitrator's clarification did not constitute a modification of the original award, but that it was merely a reiteration of an issue originally covered in the award. The Authority held that exceptions, to be timely, had to be filed within 30 days after the original award and that the Respondent's exceptions, filed some six months after the award, were therefore untimely. On August 1, 1984, the Union appealed to the General Counsel concerning the Regional Director's dismissal of its second ULP charge. At a meeting held on or about September 5, 1984, the Respondent advised the Union that, in its view, the Authority's denial of its exceptions did not require the payment of backpay to the affected employees. The Union filed its third ULP charge on September 10, 1984. On September 14, 1984, the Union asked for written confirmation of the Respondent's position as to backpay. On September 17, 1984, the Respondent took the position that it would not comment on the merits of the backpay issue pending the resolution of the Union's appeal to the General Counsel of the Regional Director's July 13 denial of the Union's earlier ULP charge. On October 31, 1984, the General Counsel affirmed the Regional Director's dismissal of the Union's second charge. On January 3, 1985, the Union withdrew the third charge it had filed in September 1984, and sent the Respondent a letter reiterating its view that full compliance with the Arbitrator's award required the payment of backpay to the affected employees. At a meeting held on January 10, 1985, the Respondent again took the position that the award did not require the payment of backpay. On February 11, 1985 the Union filed its fourth ULP charge leading to issuance of the complaint in the present case. III. The Administrative Law Judge's Decision The Judge concluded that the Respondent failed to comply with section 7122 of the Statute, in violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute, when it failed to pay the backpay awarded by the Arbitrator. The preliminary issue addressed by the Judge was whether the Union's fourth charge was timely filed under section 7118(a)(4)(A) of the statute, which precludes issuance of a complaint "based on any alleged unfair labor practice which occurred more than 6 months before the filing of the charge with the Authority." The Judge found that it was not clear that an actionable charge alleging a refusal to fully comply with the award could have been filed before the Authority denied the Respondent's untimely exceptions, that is, before July 27, 1984. The Judge reasoned that a charge filed before that date would have been dismissed because of a lack of awareness of what the Arbitrator had actually ordered. Using July 27, 1984, as the starting date for the 6-month period for filing a ULP charge, the Judge recognized that the February 11, 1985 charge was filed after that period expired. However, the Judge found that the situation in this case was analogous to situations in private sector cases involving "continuing violations" of the National Labor Relations Act. The Judge also reasoned that the policy underlying the statutory time limit, to protect respondents against stale claims, would not be offended by finding the charge to be timely. The Judge found that the uncertainties of redress and the Union's diligent pursuit of its claim furnished equitable reasons not to dismiss the charge as raising a stale claim. For those reasons, the Judge recommended that the Authority find that the Union's February 11, 1985 charge in this case was not time-barred by section 7118(a)(4)(A). In response to the Union's request to be reimbursed for its expenses, including legal fees incurred in pursuing this case, the Judge concluded that such relief would only be available pursuant to the Back Pay Act following the final resolution by the Authority. IV. Positions of the Parties In its exceptions, the Respondent contends that the Judge erred in concluding that the Union's unfair labor practice charge was not time-barred by section 7118(a)(4)(A). The Respondent also excepts to "the Judge's implicit holding" that the charge was based on a continuing violation. The Respondent agrees with the Judge that the time for filing a charge began on July 27, 1984, the date the Authority dismissed the Respondent's exceptions to the Arbitrator's award. The Respondent argues that the charge filed on February 11, 1985 was untimely and that the Judge's equitable reasons for finding to the contrary are unsupportable. The Respondent further contends, based on its interpretation of the Arbitrator's award of September 23, 1983, that it fully complied with the award, but that if the award included a backpay remedy, the remedy is contrary to the Back Pay Act. In its opposition to the Respondent's exceptions, the Charging Party argues generally in support of the Judge's rationale, and also argues for alternative dates to support the finding that the charge in this case was timely filed. V. Analysis We agree with the Judge that the Respondent failed to comply with section 7122(b) of the Statute, in violation of section 7116(a) (1) and (8), when it refused to pay the affected employees the backpay awarded by the Arbitrator. We also agree with the Judge's finding that the Union's unfair labor practice charge was not time-barred by section 7118(a)(4)(A) of the Statute. However, our timeliness determination is based on somewhat different reasons. A. Timeliness Section 7122(b) of the Statute provides "If no exception to an arbitrator's award is filed . . . during the 30-day period beginning on the date of such award, the award shall be final and binding. An agency shall take the actions required by an arbitrator's final award." The Arbitrator's award involved in this case was dated September 23, 1983. The Respondent did not file exceptions to the award within 30 days of that date. Therefore, the award became final and binding for compliance purposes on October 23, 1983, by operation of section 7122(b). Moreover, notwithstanding the Respondent's interpretation of the award, the Arbitrator remedied the loss of night differential pay of the affected employees which resulted from the Respondent's violation of its collective bargaining agreement with the Union. It is well established that an agency is obligated to comply with an arbitration award to which timely exceptions have not been filed and any failure to comply with an award under such circumstances constitutes an unfair labor practice. United States Air Force, Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 15 FLRA 151 (1984), affirmed, Department of the Air Force v. FLRA, 775 F.2d 727 (6th Cir. 1985). Under section 7118(a)(4) of the Statute an unfair labor practice charge must be filed within 6 months of the occurrence of the alleged ULP. In this case, the 6-month period for filing a ULP charge alleging that the Respondent failed to fully comply with the Arbitrator's award commenced on October 23, 1983, when the award became final and binding. The Authority has determined that for equitable reasons the running of the 6-month period was suspended during the pendency of the three separate ULP charges filed by the Union in this matter on or about January 3, April 23 and September 10, 1984, and that the fourth charge filed on February 11, 1985 was timely. The Supreme Court has held that equitable principles are applicable to time limits specifically established by statute. Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, 359 U.S. 231 (1959); Burnett v. New York Central R.R. Co., 380 U.S. 424 (1965); American Pipe and Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974). Specific statutory time limits are subject to modification on equitable grounds in certain circumstances. For example, where a party did not sleep on its rights but brought a timely action in a state court rather than the appropriate Federal court, the statutory time limit was tolled by the filing of the state action. See Burnett. The statutory time limit was also tolled or suspended where such action was not inconsistent with the legislative history of the particular statute. See American Pipe. Applying the rationale of the Supreme Court in the above-cited decisions, we find that suspension of the 6-month filing period is not inconsistent with the legislative history of the Statute in the unique circumstances of this case. There is nothing in the legislative history of section 7118(a)(4)(A) that precludes the application of equitable principles in computing the time period. In fact, suspension of the time period in this case is consistent with the intent of Congress reflected in sections 7116 and 7118 of the Statute that unfair labor practices should be remedied. Suspension is also consistent with the intent of Congress reflected in section 7122(b) that arbitration awards should be given final and binding effect except where, on timely filed exceptions, the Authority finds that an award is deficient. Moreover, the record in this case is replete with examples showing that the Union did not sleep on its rights in this matter but, rather, that it continuously and diligently sought to have the Arbitrator's September 23, 1983 award fully implemented by the Respondent through numerous requests, meetings and ULP charges. As to the charges, all four were essentially identical, alleging that the Respondent refused to fully comply with the Arbitrator's award in violation of the Statute. We note in particular that the Union's timely filed charge of April 23, 1984, was dismissed by the Regional Director and its appeal from that action was subsequently denied by the General Counsel essentially because the Respondent's exceptions to the Arbitrator's award were still pending before the Authority. On that basis, the Union, without fault and without a determination on the merits of its claim, was left without an actionable charge to redress the Respondent's refusal to fully implement the Arbitrator's award. Under these unique circumstances, we have determined that the Respondent should not escape its obligation to fully comply with the Arbitrator's award, which required the payment of backpay to the affected employees. Accordingly, we conclude that the period for filing a ULP charge in this case was first tolled with the timely filing of the Union's April 23, 1984 charge, and that the running of the time period was there-after suspended through the filing of the Union's fourth ULP charge February 11, 1985. It follows that the fourth charge was timely and not time-barred. B. Refusal to Comply On the merits of the complaint, there is no question that the Respondent failed to provide the backpay called for in Arbitrator Goodman's September 23, 1983 award. Any question which the Respondent had as to the legality of the award should have been raised through timely exceptions filed with the Authority pursuant to section 7122(a) of the Statute. As noted above, the Authority found the exceptions filed by the Respondent to be untimely. Therefore, the Arbitrator's award was final and binding and, as correctly found by the Judge, it cannot be collaterally attacked in an unfair labor practice proceeding. Department of the Treasury, United States Customs Service, New York Region, New York, New York, 21 FLRA No. 119 (1986); Military Sealift Command (Atlantic), 21 FLRA No. 111 (1986). VI. Conclusion Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, the Authority has reviewed the rulings of the Judge made at the hearing, finds that no prejudicial error was committed, and affirms those rulings. The Authority has considered the Judge's Decision, the exceptions to that decision and the opposition to the exceptions, the positions of the parties, and the entire record, and adopts the Judge's findings, conclusion, and recommended Order as here modified. We therefore conclude that the Respondent's failure to pay the backpay required by the Arbitrator's award, which had become final and binding under section 7122(b) of the Statute in the absence of timely exceptions, constituted a failure to comply fully with the Arbitrator's award in violation of section 7116(a)(1) and (8) of the Statute. /*/ ORDER Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, it is ordered that the Department of the Air Force, Headquarters 832D Combat Support Group, DPCE, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Failing and refusing to fully implement Arbitrator David Goodman's arbitration award rendered on September 23, 1983. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the Statute. 2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Statute: (a) Fully comply with Arbitrator David Goodman's September 23, 1983 arbitration award by making whole employees Trujillo and Gratz for the shift differential premium pay they lost from the time of their removal from the swing shift until they were returned to that shift on October 31, 1983. (b) Post at its Luke Air Force Base facilities copies of the attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Upon receipt of such forms, they shall be signed by the Commanding Officer and shall be posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards and other places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region VIII, Federal Labor Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith. It is further ordered that the section 7116(a)(5) allegations of the complaint be dismissed. Issued, Washington, D.C., December 31, 1986. /s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman /s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member /s/ Jean McKee, Member FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71 OF TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT: WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to fully implement Arbitrator David Goodman's arbitration award rendered on September 23, 1983. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the Statute. WE WILL fully comply with Arbitrator David Goodman's September 23, 1983 arbitration award by making whole employees Trujillo and Gratz for the shift differential premium pay they lost from the time of their removal from the swing shift until they were returned to that shift on October 31, 1983. . . . (Activity) Dated: . . . By: . . . (Signature) (Title) This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Regional Director, Region VIII, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is: 350 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071, and whose telephone number is: (213) 894-3805. -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS -------------------- Case No. 8-CA-50167 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS 832D COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP, DPCE LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, ARIZONA Respondent and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 1547 Charging Party Lt. Col. Charles E. Brower, Esq. For the Respondent Ronald Wayman Stanley Lubin, Esq., on brief For the Charging Party John R. Pannozzo, Jr., Esq. Gerald M. Cole, Esq. For the General Counsel Before: JOHN H. FENTON Chief Administrative Law Judge DECISION Statement of the Case This is a proceeding under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, 5 U.S.C. Section 7101 et seq., and the Rules and Regulations issued thereunder at 5 CFR 2411 et seq. It arose upon the filing of an unfair labor practice charge on February 11, 1985 by Local 1547. On April 4, 1985, the Regional Director of Region VIII, Federal Labor Relations Authority issued a Complaint alleging that Respondent violated Sections 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute on September 5, 1984 and on January 10, 1985 and "continuing to date" by refusing to completely comply with an arbitration award. At issue is whether Respondent violated the law by refusing to make two employees whole for loss of night differential pay. A hearing was held on May 8, 1985 in Phoenix, Arizona, at which the facts were largely stipulated. None of the facts relied upon herein was disputed. Findings of Fact 1. On December 30, 1982, the Union grieved Respondent's decision to transfer the two civilian employees on its swing shift in the Pick-Up and Delivery Section of the Aerospace Ground Equipment Branch of the 405th Equipment Maintenance Squadron to the day shift. Employee Trujillo was assigned to the day shift on December 27, 1982, and employee Gratz was assigned on January 10, 1983. Both men thereby lost the night shift differential. 2. On September 23, 1983, Arbitrator David Goodman issued his Award, finding that Respondent had violated its contractual obligation to negotiate concerning the reassignments. Respecting the question of an appropriate remedy, the Arbitrator said: a return to status quo . . . remedy is embodied within the language of Article V1, 3. which says "In no case" will a change be implemented until negotiations are completed. Thus, the Arbitrator is left with no choice but to order the parties back to where they were before the December 14, 1982 letter from Sergeant Williams (ordering the reassignment) . . . and to further order that the parties immediately meet and negotiate this change. (Parenthetical comment mine). 3. The Arbitrator, in addressing the remedy, made no explicit mention of backpay for Trujillo and Gratz, although he had asked the Union whether it wished him to make a determination respecting entitlement to backpay, and had been told that it did. 4. On October 19, Respondent informed the Union that it would return the men to the swing shift effective October 30, would reassign them to the day shift effective November 28, and that the Union should forward its proposals concerning the impact and implementation of the decision to return them to the day shift no later than November 1. 5. On October 20, Respondent told the Union that, in its opinion, the Arbitrator had not ordered backpay. On October 26, the Union responded that such position constituted noncompliance with the Award, which had become final upon expiration of the appeal period, and that backpay for the swing shift differential was continuing to accumulate. 6. Gratz and Trujillo were reassigned to the swing shift on October 31 and back to the day shift on November 28. In the interim Respondent twice restated its view that the Award made no provision for backpay. 7. On December 2, the Union unilaterally requested that the Arbitrator clarify his award with respect to the backpay issue, and on January 3, 1984 it filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging refusal to implement the Award. 8. On March 1, the Arbitrator advised the parties that: . . . the status quo remedy was clearly intended to require the Air Force to make these employees whole for all lost wages incurred when they were removed from the second shift. After all, only one meaning can attach to status quo -- employees should be placed back to the position where they would have been but for a breach of the Agreement. Accordingly, the Employer is advised that those civilian employees on second shift at the time of the breach are entitled to the premium pay for the period of time they were denied access to the second shift. 9. On March 30, Respondent filed exceptions to the Arbitrator's "clarification" of his Award. 10. In April the Union withdrew its unfair labor practice charge, substituting another one apparently identical in its terms. 11. On July 13, the Regional Director refused to issue a complaint on the following grounds: The Charging Party asserts that the exceptions filed on March 30, 1984, were untimely and that the Authority has no jurisdiction to review the clarification because it is not a separate award. However, the Authority has held that exceptions filed on a clarification of an arbitrator's award will be accepted as timely provided that the deficiencies in the award did not arise until the clarification, and the exceptions are filed within the proper time period commencing on the date of the clarification. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Eugene District Office, 6 FLRA No. 72 (1981). Moreover, any questions regarding the scope and nature of the Authority's jurisdiction to review the award should be first addressed by the Authority itself. Since the Authority has not yet issued its decision on the exceptions to this arbitration award, the Activity's failure to implement the award as clarified pending the Authority's decision is not violative of the Statute. 12. On July 27, the Federal Labor Relations Authority issued its Order Dismissing (Respondent's) Exceptions as untimely filed (15 FLRA No. 83). The Authority held that the arbitrator's March 1 letter had essentially advised the parties of the clear intent of the September 23 Award, rejecting the Agency's contention that such letter modified the Award and hence gave rise to the deficiencies alleged in its exceptions. The time for filing exceptions was therefore calculated from the date the September Award was served on the parties. 13. On September 5, Respondent reiterated its view that the September Award did not require backpay. The Union responded on September 10 by filing another unfair labor practice charge (8-CA-40459) alleging refusal to implement the Award. A Complaint was issued on November 27 but, for unexplained reasons the charge was withdrawn on January 3, 1985 and the Complaint dismissed on January 9. 14. On September 14, the Union by letter contended that Respondent's conduct constituted a contract violation, and requested a written response. On September 17, Respondent replied that it would be inappropriate to respond during the pendency of the Union's appeal from the Regional Director's refusal to issue Complaint. 15. On October 31, the General Counsel denied the Union's appeal. Noting that Section 2429.8(b) of the Authority's Rules provides for a stay of an arbitrator's award where timely exceptions are filed and a stay is requested, and that the exceptions were still pending at the time the Regional Director dismissed the charge, the General Counsel found noncompliance witwh the Award in such circumstances did not constitute an unfair labor practice. 16. On January 10, 1985, Respondent for the last time restated its opinion that the Award did not require it to pay Gratz and Trujillo backpay, and on February 11, the Union filed the instant unfair labor practice charge. Conclusions of Law Section 7122 provides that a party to arbitration must "take the actions required by an arbitrator's final award". Further, an award becomes final and binding when exceptions are not filed with the Authority "during the 30-day period beginning on the date the award is served on the party", or when the Authority issues its decision denying exceptions. Here Respondent did not file timely exceptions to the original award, and did not succeed with the exceptions filed to the Arbitrator's letter of "clarification". Rather, the Authority's Decision, noting that the Arbitrator had essentially advised the parties of the clear intent of his Award, dismissed the exceptions as untimely filed with respect to the date of the original award. As Respondent has refused to reimburse the employees for the premium pay they lost while denied access to the second shift, it clearly has failed to comply with Section 7122 in violation of Section 7116(a)(1) and (8). /1/ Respondent's various defenses -- that the Arbitrator was functus officio when he explicitly ordered backpay, that his supplemental action was secured by a unilateral and ex parte request, and that his Award is contrary to the Backpay Act -- are matters which were subject to review by the Authority pursuant to Section 7122, and are not subject to collateral attack in this forum. /2/ Nevertheless, the question remains whether the unfair labor practice charge, filed on February 11, 1985, can reach back to any act or event which constitutes an unfair labor practice. Section 7118(c)(4)(A) precludes issuance of a complaint "based on any alleged unfair labor practice which occurred more than 6 months before the filing of the charge with the Authority". Here, slightly more than six months elapsed between the issuance of the Authority's Order Dismissing Exceptions on July 27, 1984 and the filing of the charge on February 11, 1985. Literally read, that Order simply held that the time for filing exceptions expired on October 28, 1983, and thus the Award became final and binding some 15 months before the unfair labor practice charge was filed. I need not decide whether such was the case, or whether the subsequent proceedings before the Arbitrator and the Authority served to "toll" the running of the statute of limitations, for in either event the action which would arguably trigger the operation of Section 7118(a)(4)(A) occurred outside its six-month period. Hence Respondent's failure to implement the terms of the Award is actionable only if its conduct can be said to constitute a "continuing violation", i.e., it is deemed to violate the law on each and every day it remains in noncompliance, or a violation can somehow be said to have occurred in September of 1984 and January of 1985 when it restated its unwillingness to obey the Arbitrator. The National Labor Relations Act contains, in Section 10(b), a limitations clause substantively identical to our own. It has spawned much of what is, perhaps sometimes loosely, termed "elucidating litigation" over the types of violations which are by nature "continuing", so as to escape the application of the limitations provision. Over the years the Labor Board has sought to fashion such violations, particularly with respect to employment discrimination and the bargaining obligation, and has met with mixed reviews from various U.S. Court of Appeals and from the U.S. Supreme Court. A brief look at that experience may be instructive. The purpose of Section 10(b) is to bar litigation over past events "after records have been destroyed, witnesses have gone elsewhere, and recollections of the events in question have become dim and confused." /3/ The Supreme Court was there confronted with the question whether the Board had properly found a violation of the LMRA based upon the enforcement of a union-security clause which was valid on its face, but which had been executed well before the 10(b) cutoff date at a time when the union did not enjoy the majority status required by law. The Board found a violation based on the continuing enforcement of the union-security clause within the six-months limitations period, finding (or defining) the evidence respecting the legality of the contract's execution as admissible "background evidence" relevant to determining whether the conduct within six months of the unfair labor practice charge was unlawful. The Supreme Court rejected this approach with the following analysis: It is doubtless true that section 10(b) does not prevent all use of evidence relating to events transpiring more than six months before the filing and service of an unfair labor practice charge. However, in applying rules of evidence as to the admissibility of past events, due regard for the purposes of section 10(b) requires that two different kinds of situations be distinuished. The first is one where occurrences within the six-month limitation period in and of themselves may constitute, as a substantive matter, unfair labor practices. There, earlier events may be utilized to shed light on the true character of matters occurring within the limitations period; and for that purpose section 10(b) ordinarily does not bar such evidentiary use of anterior events. The second situation is that where conduct occurring within the limitations period can be charged to be an unfair labor practice only through reliance on an earlier unfair labor practice. There the use of the earlier unfair labor practice is not merely "evidentiary," since it does not simply lay bare a putative current unfair labaor practice. Rather, it serves to cloak with illegality that which was otherwise lawful. And where a complaint based upon that earlier event is time barred, to permit the event itself to be so used in effect results in reviving a legally defunct unfair labor practice. From here the Court went on to examine a number of cases illustrating the extraordinary difficulty of applying these principles, and concluded that it need not express a view on them, for it was not required for present purposes to "go beyond saying that a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period is directly at odds with the purposes of the section 10(b). proviso." Here, I think significantly, it dropped footnote 14, in responding to dissenting Justices Whittaker and Frankfurter, /4/ wherein it said: Katz v. Labor Board, 196 F.2d 411, 30 LRRM 2063, and Labor Board v. Gaynor News Co., 197 F.2d 719, 30 LRRM 2340, relied on below and in dissent here, arose under provisions of the Act (section 8(a)(3), 61 Stat. 140) since repealed (65 Stat. 601), which permitted union security agreements only with unions which possessed a Board certificate that a union security clause had been authorized at a special election of the employees involved. While the language, and perhaps the approach, of these cases may be considered inconsistent with the principles we deem governing here, the decisions on their facts present no such difficulty. Proof of the nonexistence of such a certificate, which of course was a continuing fact, plainly did not require resort to testimony about past events; rather the issue was much like one arising out of an agreement illegal on its face, the only difference being that a separate instrument was involved. Here we face a virtually identical situation: proof of the existence of the obligation to implement the Arbitrator's award does not depend on recollections which have become dim and confused, or witnesses who have disappeared, but rather upon the existence of an instrument akin to the certificate involved in Katz and in Gaynor News -- the Arbitrator's decision or the Authority's Order. In either event the separate instrument is readily available to establish Respondent's legal obligation, so that the policy underlying the statutory limitations period is not offended: i.e. there is no occasion to resort to the kinds of unreliable evidence precluded by Section 10(b) in order to establish an unfair labor practice predating the limitations period as a predicated for the unfair labor practice sought to be established within that period. The NLRB has taken the same approach in cases involving the obligation to bargain, a subject more closely analogous to the present controversy. Where a union has been certified by the Board as the representative of a majority of employees in a collective bargaining unit, the Board will not, except in the rarest of circumstances, entertain any challenge to the continuing majority status of that union for a period of one year from the issuance of the certification. In such a situation, the Board has held a charge of refusal to bargain to be timely where it was filed within the certification year, although more than six months after the first bargaining request was made and unlawfully rejected. /5/ Likewise the Board has held the repudiation of obligations arising under a collective bargaining agreement to constitute a continuing violation. Thus, it has held that the fact that the initial repudiation of an agreement occurred outside the Section 10(b) cutoff date does not absolve a respondent from the unfair labor practices which inure from its continuing failure, within such limitations period, upon demand to execute or abide by the agreement reached. /6/ However, it limited statutory relief, i.e. it ordered that the terms of the collective bargaining agreement be applied retroactively only to the cutoff date. The chief concern with such an approach is that it would, in like cases, render permanently inoperative the policy of protecting Respondents' against stale claims. At some point, it would seem, considerations of laches or waiver arguably ought to come into play. /7/ On this record, I would give little weight to such considerations. Here the charge I find actionable was filed only a few weeks ago after expiration of the six months period following the Authority's final action on the case, and several weeks after the Union's final and futile demand that Respondent comply with the backpay provisions of the Award. Moreover, the Union had kept the controversy alive from the beginning with repeated requests for payment, and by diligently filing a series of unfair labor practice charges directed at Respondent's unwillingness fully to implement the Award. As noted, the Union filed its first charge several months after the original Award, withdrew it, and filed an identical charge barely within six months of the date when that Award became "final". That charge was dismissed because of the then-pending exceptions to the Arbitrator's supplemental "decision", and the General Counsel, noting that a stay had been requested, sustained that dismissal. The Union may arguably be faulted for its withdrawal of a like charge filed after the Authority's Order, which had led to issuance of a complaint. However, its action, unexplained on this record, must be viewed against the confusion in the state of the law thus far elaborated under Section 7122. Thus, it is not clear that an actionable charge could have been filed, based on the refusal to implement the Award, at any time before the Authority had disposed of the exceptions. A charge filed during the five-month period between the Award's becoming "final" (i.e., upon the lapse of 30 days free of exceptions), and the issuance of the Arbitrator's supplemental decision might well have been dismissed for essentially the same reasons that led to dismissal of the charge filed after his actions: that it could not be known what was required of Respondent until the Arbitrator acted upon the request for clarification. Thereafter, of course, the pendency of exceptions and the associated stay precluded the filing of an actionable charge. A viable charge apparently could not have been filed prior to issuance of the Order Dismissing Exceptions, and the Order can literally be read as holding that any subsequent charge would be time-barred for the reasons the exceptions were: because the clock began to run on the thirteenth day after issuance of the original Award, some nine months before the Authority acted. These uncertainties of redress, and the Union's diligent pursuit of its claim, would appear to furnish equitable reasons not to dismiss the charge as one raising a stale claim. /8/ Lastly, Charging Party seeks, in addition to a conventional backpay order, an order directing that it be reimbursed for expenses, including legal fees. It rests it claim on the Respondent's "frivolous, indeed absurd" grounds for refusing to comply with the Arbitrator' Award and cites two celebrated private sector cases as grounds for such relief. /9/ Aside from the fact that the violation here is in no way comparable to the egregious violations in those cases, I am unaware of any authority in the public sector to assess such expenses against the government, except for legal fees and associated expenses covered by the Back Pay Act and the Equal Access to Justice Act. The latter would not apply, but the former may. The relevant statutory provision is found at 5 U.S.C. section 5596, which incorporates 5 U.S.C. section 7701(g), and the Authority has dealt with the issue in International Brotherhood of Electric Workers and United States Army Support Command, Hawaii, 14 FLRA 680. I take Section 5596(b)(1) to require an Authority decision sustaining my finding of entitlement to backpay, before an application for a fee is in order, and direct that, in such event, the parties follow the procedures, as relevant here, set forth in Part 2430 of the Rules and Regulations. Having concluded that Respondent failed to comply with Section 7122 of the Statute in violation of Section 7116(a)(1) and (8), I recommend that the Authority enter the following: ORDER Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Federal Labor Relations Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, it is hereby ordered that the Department of the Air Force, Headquarters 832d Combat Support Group, DPCE, Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Failing and refusing fully to implement Arbitrator David Goodman's Arbitration Award rendered on September 23, 1983. (b) In any like or related manner interfering, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the Statute. 2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Statute: (a) Fully comply with Arbitrator David Goodman's September 23, 1983 Arbitration Award by making whole employees Gratz and Trujillo for the shift differential premium pay they lost from the time of their removal from the swing shift until they were returned to that shift on October 31, 1983. (b) Post at its Luke Air Force Base facility, copies of the attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Upon receipt of such forms, they shall be signed by the Commanding Officer, or his designee, and shall be posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, inconspicuous places, including all bulletin boards and other places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that such Notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region VIII, Federal Labor Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith. /s/ John H. Fenton JOHN H. FENTON Chief Administrative Law Judge Dated: March 26, 1986 Washington, D.C. --------------- FOOTNOTES$ --------------- (*) The Judge correctly found it unnecessary to pass upon the section 7116(a)(5) allegation of the complaint, and no exceptions were taken to his Decision in this regard. (1) United States Army Health Clinic, Ft. Ritchie, Maryland, 9 FLRA 935; United States Air Force, Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 15 FLRA 151. I do not pass on the Section 7116(a)(5) allegation, noting that in the latter case the Authority found it unnecessary to do so. (2) United States Air Force, Air Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 15 FLRA No. 151; aff'd sub nom. Department of the Air Force v. FLRA, 775 F.2d 727 (CA 6); Veterans Administration Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona, 15 FLRA 706. (3) Local Lodge 1424 v. NLRB, 362 U.S. 411, 45 LRRM 3212, 3216. (4) Local Lodge, supra, 45 LRRM 3212, 3217. (5) See, for example, Sewanee Coal Operators' Association, 167 NLRB 172. The Board found the first request to be a continuing one, at least for the duration of the certification year, noting that it would have been futile for the union to have "continuously repeated such requests thereafter." As an apparent safety measure, the Board also treated the charge which was filed more than six months after the refusal as tantamount to an explicit request to bargain, thus rendering simultaneous the last request/refusal to bargain and the filing of the charge. (6) Anchor Rome Mills, 110 NLRB 956, enf'd 228 F.2d 775 (CA-5), 37 LRRM 2367; Al Bryant, Inc., 260 NLRB 128, 135, 109 LRRM 1284, enf'd 113 LRRM 3690 (CA-3). It is to be underscored that these cases involved repeat demands for compliance within six months of the filing of the unfair labor practice. See also, Tarrington Construction Co., 235 NLRB 1540, fn. 2. (7) In recommending that the Authority not find the charge time-barred, I am not unaware of the Sixth Circuit's holding that "the limitation period for filing an unfair labor practice charge based on a refusal to implement an arbitration award begins to run on the date the award becomes final pursuant to Section 7122(b)." U.S. Air Force v. FLRA, 775 F.2d 727, enfg. 15 FLRA 151. Neither the Court nor the Authority confronted the issued presented here. Rather, they read Section 7122(b) as making a refusal to obey an award actionable only when it becomes "final and binding" upon expiration of the 30 days for filing exceptions. (8) I have made Respondent's Citation of Supplemental Authority, filed on October 22, 1985, a part of the record herein, over Charging Party's objection. Rule 28(j) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure permits receipt of such materials after briefs have been filed. However, I give no weight to such materials as they go to the merits of the Arbitrator's decision and his authority to "clarify" it, and are thus an attempt to collaterally attack his action in an unfair labor practice proceeding. (9) IUE v. NLRB, 440 F.2d 298 and UAW v. NLRB, 455 F.2d 1357.


text:
Narrow your search
This installment of thoughts on innovation comes from Brooks Protzmann. Brooks is the Manager of Visual Identity and the Brand Experience team as part of the Experience Design Group at Dell Inc. in Austin, Texas. He is responsible for the product-focused
Dell Computer changes its name to Dell Inc. to reflect its broader suite of products. It also unveils a new executive compensation plan.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Originally posted by JoeBarna
Or the contrail could have been caused by the moisture in the air much like the contrails an airplane makes on approach. But I tend to agree that they must be some kind of probe. The shape is so innocuous and non threatening. I would have definitely been frightened of a saucer, cigar or a triangle. A ball was nothing.
Originally posted by BornPatriot
well I have expert knowledge that those silver orbs are 1500 MPH - weather ballons.
Bermuda is a hot bed of USO activity. Orbs are common sighting


text:
Rhea and Mariel by AisuchuuWatch
©2013-2016 Aisuchuu
models by Kanihira
So cute!
Rhea be staring right into mein brain *_*
Very nice, sisters, partners in crime.
Very nice, sisters, partners in crime.
Always have loved these two
Cute !!! :3
aaahhh, too beautiful!
nice job! super cute maybe we can make a drawing together
Aww ^^
So cute! I love it.
So cuteeee!! You're awesome at thisss


text:
Photograph by Liz Roll taken on 09/04/2005 in Louisiana
New Orleans, La., 9/4/05 -- Evacuees from New Orleans are transported to the aiport, given food and water, and sent to shelters around the country. Those needing medical attention are seen by FEMA's DMAT medical team. Pets are also welcome; there is a VMAT team available as well. New Orleans is being evacuated as a result of flooding from hurricane Katrina. Photo by: Liz Roll - Location: New Orleans, LA
Related Disaster
Last Updated: March 19, 2014


text:
Announcing Cotton Spandex Jersey!
More about this preview.
Preview scale: 21.0 x 18.0 inches

Change DPI Base size is 150
What we do and how we do it.
See last week's winners
Explore Our fabrics
Optional Filters
I'm going to use this fabric to make...
I'm looking for a fabric that is...
Receive our weekly email with news about contests, giveaways and prodution releases.
Email Address
No Thanks
© 2008-2015 Spoonflower Inc


text:
Spring Flooding a Possibility in the Northland [VIDEO]
The Northland has received record snowfall this Spring. As that snow begins to melt, flooding is something to keep an eye on across the area.
The Northland has received record snowfall this Spring. As that snow begins to melt, flooding is something to keep an eye on across the area.
After breaking the April snowfall record by over 10 inches last week, it looks like we have the opportunity to see April 2013 down as an even bigger month in the category of snowfall with another major winter storm approaching the Duluth/Superior area.
Before snow started to fall on Thursday, Duluth sat very near a record for the most snowfall in the month of April. After some places saw between one and two feet of snow, we find ourselves digging out after the third major April snowstorm in a row. So, did we break any records and how much did we get?
You know it's April in the Northland when...
1. You can barely see the tops of our lawn furniture in the yard.
2. You scheduled an appointment in June to take the snow tires off your car.
3. School is cancelled because of snow... ON APRIL 19TH.
Light snow continues in the latest of a series of late-season storms that has laid record-breaking snowfall amounts on the Twin Ports. Here's what to expect as this storm winds down today.
If you haven't had enough of the late-season snow, there is another round heading toward the Twin Ports and Northland for the end of the weekend.
A winter storm warning remains in effect for the Twin Ports region, and has been extended until 5 pm today (Friday) for falling snow and blowing/drifting snow.
Snow is expected to continue to fall through the afternoon and evening, offering 1-4 additional inches of snow in the Twin Ports and on top of what we already have on the ground. So, how much snow has fallen around the Duluth / Superior region?
It's spring in the Northland, which of course means a winter storm warning! If you find yourself stuck at home, pop some corn and enjoy of these three movies that are only better when there is snow blowing around outside.
With measurable snow being forecast throughout this weekend, it has a lot of us saying, really? Facebook updates like, "Don't put the snowblower away yet, or "more shoveling again.... argh!" aren't hard to find. The reality is, this is a typical Northland Winter. We just haven't had one in a few years. Did you know that on average in Duluth our last measurable snowfall is April 27th?
With temperatures flirting with 50 then dropping below freezing, this spring has certainly been a weather roller coaster. In another one of the low points of the season, the Twin Ports is the target of a winter storm that is expected to bring several inches of snow this weekend.
The Cold War may be over, but one burly man in Russia has started his own violent icy rebellion ... against snowmen.


text:
Young Loyd Clifford Clark
Taken in USA.
This picture was taken when Loyd Clark was just a young man. He is my grandfather and my father Robert F. Clark is his son. Loyd was born April 7, 1877. First wife was Della Lininger of Ohio, remarried Bertha M. Cracknell, my grandmother. They lived in Celina, Ohio many years.
- Album: All photos
Added by Christie Landis


text:
Baltimore County voters will have a chance next year to approve or reject a zoning law that would allow an outlet mall to be built in White Marsh.
Opponents of the proposed 100-store Paragon Outlet Partners mall — including the owners of the nearby White Marsh Mall — collected 33,398 valid signatures from county voters to force the outlet mall zoning law to next year's ballot.
The petition effort gathered 68,016 signatures, but 34,618 were invalidated, according to the Baltimore County Board of Elections. The petitioners needed to collect 26,414 signatures to put the zoning law on the ballot.
Lisa Bisenius, senior general manager of the White Marsh Mall, said...


text:
Close-knit investors swing dealComments Email Print
The case of Ann Arbor-based Tangent Medical Technologies Inc.'s receiving $4.5 million in Series A funding in late 2011 was the benefit of a close-knit group of venture capitalists and executives.
Arboretum Ventures of Ann Arbor and Flagship Ventures of Cambridge, Mass., led the round, which also included several angel investors from the seed round, including Osage Ventures of Bala Cynwyd, Pa.
It was no surprise that Arboretum and Flagship were aboard. They were the same investors that had backed one of Michigan's biggest recent exits, and Jeffrey Williams was the same CEO who had delivered that exit to those investors.
Tangent's CFO and its original seed funder had asked Williams to join the company a few months before the announcement of the Series A round. The company was in early stage two when he came aboard and is still pre-revenue now, Williams said.
"It's a very small community around here," Williams said. "Sometimes I'm asked, sometimes I ask, Arboretum or others if they want to invest."
In December, Tangent closed on a Series B round of $8.6 million, with Arboretum, Flagship and Osage again participating, along with Michigan Investment in New Technology Startups, a UM program, Williams said.
Tangent is scaling up manufacturing and plans to launch the product in a few months, Williams said.


text:
Brewing Clamper
Gift Premium Subscription To Brewing Clamper
Join Date:04-19-2006
Last Activity:02-09-2016 9:51 PM
Likes Given: 2
19 Likes on 17 Posts
- Union City, CA
- I rock!
- Mr. Mom
- Omar
- After a great month spent with my SWMBO touring Europe and drinking the bests beers in the world, we came back to the usual commercial crap... the idea slowly "brewed" that if we couldn't buy good beer, we'd make it... A few years later we caught a local TV program about homebrewing, two days later we say the "Amber Waves" episode of good eats and that same weekend, we had our first brewing kit!
- Lots of Pale Ale and maybe a pilsner...
- Oatmeal Stout, Cream Stout
- Male
- Married
Posted in thread: Discount BYO mag on 12-30-2013 at 02:04 AM
Amazon has it for half off:
Posted in thread: Blichmann Engineering Electric BoilCoil and RIMS Rocket Sneek Peak @ NHC 2013 | Beer on 07-10-2013 at 05:10 PM
Does anyone else make a boil coil like that which would fit a keggle? I wonder why we haven't
seen one yet...
Posted in thread: 2013's How many gal of homebrew in 2013 on 01-29-2013 at 02:38 AM
3648 + 5 Barleywine3653
Posted in thread: I'm officially finished with Airgas! on 01-29-2013 at 02:37 AM
I paid $54 after tax for a 20lb tank swap at Airgas in Hayward, CA last month. I thought that
was pretty steep...
Posted in thread: Cut back on Beer because the belly is too big? on 01-29-2013 at 02:35 AM
I think more importantly is taking a look at your diet as a whole, not just the beer. I myself
gained about 10lbs over the holidays and yes a lot of that was beer. Then again, lots of sweets
around in...
Posted in thread: 2013's How many gal of homebrew in 2013 on 01-14-2013 at 04:33 PM
1745 + 10 Belgian Dubbel1755
Posted in thread: Post your "Untappd" user name! on 01-08-2013 at 06:28 PM
Plus you get to put your labels on them as well.Oh I'm in! Gonna have to start working on that!
Posted in thread: Post your "Untappd" user name! on 01-08-2013 at 05:19 PM
I usually post my recipes on them as well.That's a lot of info! How do you do that? I only use
the iOS app...
Posted in thread: Post your "Untappd" user name! on 01-08-2013 at 04:57 PM
Anyone add their homebrews to this?https://untappd.com/user/omargisme
Posted in thread: Show us your Sous Vide Cooker! on 12-31-2012 at 11:59 PM
I'm using my electric boil kettle to sous vide a standing rib roast for tonight... I'll post
pics if it works well....


text:
USAContactPoint Is looking for people just like you. We have immediate openings nationwide for work-at-home customer service specialists.
Our work-at-home agents are ready to get started and focused on your
goals. There are numerous bonus opportunities for self-motivated
individuals. Our agents work from all over the US, and the clients that
we service are located country-wide.
©2016 USAContactPoint. All Rights Reserved.


text:
mugshot, mugshots.com news, mugshot news, editorials, opinion, mugshots
Rosa Beatrice Anderson
Who is Rosa Beatrice Anderson? Was Rosa Beatrice Anderson arrested? When was Rosa Beatrice Anderson arrested? What was Rosa Beatrice Anderson arrested for?
Rosa Beatrice Anderson was booked in Columbia County, FL on 8/03/2012 at 11:39.
The following Official Record of Rosa Beatrice Anderson is being redistributed by Mugshots.com and is protected by constitutional, publishing, and other legal rights. This Official Record was collected from a Law Enforcement agency on 8/08/2012.
Mugshots.com ID: 20362723
Name: ANDERSON, ROSA BEATRICE
Race: W
Gender: FEMALE
Inmate Status: In Jail
Booking No: CCSO12JBN002475
Booking Date: 8/03/2012 at 11:39
Arrest Age: 38
Bond Set Amount: NO BOND
Facility: CCDF
Dorm: FA
Pod: FA
Cell #: DRM
Address Given: 7736 HAMMOND BLVD JACKSONVILLE FL 32220
External Links:
Do you know of a related media coverage to this person and/or arrest? Submit a link now.
Not the Rosa Beatrice Anderson you were looking for? Click here to search for other Rosa Beatrice Anderson


text:
Whole Foods breaks ground in Edina
The history of grocery stores in Edina is actually quite long, with Hove's in 1942 and the Country Store where Cub Foods now sits on York Avenue. Wednesday brought the groundbreaking of the latest supermarket to come to the Southwest suburb, the national retailer Whole Foods, which is moving into Centennial Lakes Plaza at France and Parklawn avenues. Developers, Whole Foods executives, architects, and city officials enjoyed lunch at Hughes Pavilion and then a photo op at the site, replete with hard hats and golden shovels.
The event was a bit of a lovefest, with the events led by project manager Bruce Carlson of Mid-America Real Estate. He explained that construction is to be finished by October, with the store to open its doors in early 2012. Of course, Whole Foods provided the light refreshments, which included wraps, natural sodas, organic potato chips, and bananas. The mayor of Edina, James Hovall, also spoke and said that the city sees this as both a food and financial opportunity, as he believes it will spur development in the area.
This will be a Whole Foods in 2012.
Whole Foods is simultaneously developing a store in Minnetonka. The company has been keeping close tabs on Edina for over 10 years but hadn't been able to find the appropriate spot. Now, the old Storables and Thomasville Furniture shops have been fully demolished and construction will begin where they once stood. Whole Foods is an Austin-based company that started with one store about 30 years ago and boasted $8 billion in sales in the fiscal year that ended in September 2009. The Byerly's at 7171 France Avenue will need to prepare for some stiff competition come 2012.
Get the Food & Drink Newsletter
Our weekly guide to Minneapolis & St. Paul dining includes food news and reviews, as well as dining events and interviews with chefs and restaurant owners.
Sponsor Content


text:
Last Activity: 24th June 2015 07:29 PM
Most Thanked
Post Summary
Just so everyone knows, the download link is down. Google Drive won't accept any more downloads. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
With new beta can't Uninstall system apps with rom toolbox or titanium. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk Try System App Remover. Also, make sure you know you're using Superuser now, not SuperSU.
Yes, you would have to do that. If I were you I'd just fully return to stock. If that doesn't work just RMA.
The one that I'm using the the Obliq oleophobic one. It's the Anti-Fingerprint Obliq protector. Works super well, doesn't distort the colors, and has cutouts for everything. It's also nice and thick which I liked.
I believe my proximity sensor is broken. I cannot use the screen during a call, it stays black the entire time regardless of what buttons I press. After a call ends the screen will stay black and I have to battery pull to turn the screen back on. ...


text:
Connect With Us
Recent Posts
- Banks stand behind December interest rate increase February 8, 2016
- Experts ring bell for better financial literacy instruction in schools February 5, 2016
- Struggling millennials should reconsider expensive city living February 1, 2016
- Did banks jump the gun on card rate hikes? January 30, 2016
- Stress from debt can trickle down to kids January 29, 2016
Featured Posts
Recent Tweets
@WiFiConnections I think those are separate issues - upgrading to EMV is not connected to an occasional customer not signing a payment slip
If you walk out on a restaurant/bar tab without signing payment slip, who's liable? Looking at you, Gilbert Arenas https://t.co/duCeMScIt9
@Costco delays credit card switch - now it looks like summer https://t.co/9cUAwpWbT0
Our Contributors
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter
Useful Links


text:
When looking to manage one's money, it wouldn't be unusual to seek advice from the financial professionals at one of the country's largest banks. But an NFL linebacker says his decision to rely on Bank of America to manage his finances cost him millions of dollars and led to the closing of his budding restaurant business. [More]
NFL Linebacker Files $20M Lawsuit Against Bank Of America For Alleged Fraud
Best Buy Also Falls Victim To Embezzling Buyers
Another electronics store was taken for millions by an invoice-fixing scheme: a buyer for Best Buy and a vendor have been charged with overcharging Best Buy $31 million over four years.
Bloomingdales Employee Charged In Bogus Gift Card Scam
The Manhattan District Attorney's office is prosecuting a Bloomingdale's salesperson for running a month-long bogus gift card scam that netted $34,515 from the store, says the NY Sun.
It says Bloomingdale's sales receipts were the key element of Ms. Ng's alleged scheme.
Woman Embezzled $2.89 Million To Finance Shopping Addiction
Shopping addiction is really sad, especially when it compels otherwise normal people to do something insane like steal $2.89 million dollars just to buy shoes and jewelry.
Kmart Settles A Bunch of Lawsuits
It's a big day at Kmart. They've settled a bunch of lawsuits and they're ready to move on. To what, I don't know. I haven't been inside a K-mart since 1983, and neither has anyone else without a lawsuit pending.


text:
Friday, April 13, 2012
4 comments
I have been out of control with my food today! really makes me mad that before easter I was so with it but ... Read more
Thursday, April 12, 2012
2 comments
I am not working Friday@!! so happy!!! I need to do a ton of errands and ST!! big time!
Our refridge is given us issues I hope we can save it! it is only 10 years old.
My Pray to god for me today is! Please please please Use me to he... Read more
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
3 comments
i am having trouble now that I am working 4 days I just can't seem o hold it together the way I was last week. Not giving up but not making progress.... Read more
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
2 comments
I worked a full day again and am as always done. I am heading to my favorite place my comfy bed to visit with my cats and read! later... Read more
Monday, April 09, 2012
3 comments
I am just to tired. This working a full day is so hard for me when I don't normally do it.... Read more
Sunday, April 08, 2012
1 comments
I did not track today. I know I was really off but all will be fine when I get up in the morning!... Read more
Saturday, April 07, 2012
1 comments
I have done lots of preparing the house/food and my heart so that I will enjoy the real meaning of Easter. My Lord and Savior Died so that I could go to heaven when I die. Thank you Jesus!!!!... Read more
Friday, April 06, 2012
3 comments
I am really happy that I have asked God to help me in my Journey to stop Food from being my emotional answer.... Read more
Thursday, April 05, 2012
2 comments
I am looking forward to the service tonight and Friday Night. It will be the first time I went to a Maunday Thursday/Good Friday service at my Church. My sole is so in need of a closer relationship with God. This lenten season has been very enli... Read more
Wednesday, April 04, 2012
2 comments
The sun is shining here in Nj! I have had a Great food day. I am tired now and look forward to my getting into bed. Read more
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
0 comments
today was a good day!... Read more
Monday, April 02, 2012
3 comments
I am not good at blogging! But decided even if it is just one line it still leaves me accountable!
Today was 2 weeks in a row of being accountable to myself. I have tracked everyday and exercised constantly. I can't tell you how great is i... Read more
Sunday, April 01, 2012
0 comments
Thank You Lord For This wonderful day. For sending Your son to earth to die for my Sin.... Read more
Saturday, March 31, 2012
2 comments
I have to say March was a great month. It has been a long time since I have had a good month!... Read more
Friday, March 30, 2012
0 comments
still doing ok even though I felt a little out of control and board.... Read more


text:
Tarte Amazonian Clay 12-Hour Blush in Amused
35 reviews
80% would repurchase
Package Quality: 4.3
Price: $$$
Package Quality: 4.3
Price: $$$
Age: 36-43
Skin: Dry, Fair, Not Sure
Hair: Brown, Other, Other
Eyes: Hazel
If there was one beauty product I can't live without - it would be blusher. I need to put some color on my face because I am very, very pale. This blush works better than the regular powder blush and the color flatters me. I would say this is more for daytime wear and prefer to put on some Nars for the night ( which has some gold pigments ). This color looks more flat but gives a natural flush.
Age: 36-43
Skin: Combination, Medium, Neutral
Hair: Brunette, Straight, Medium
Eyes: Hazel
I bought this product along with Dollface in search of the perfect pink flush. Unfortunately, this went on as red rather than pink which is a problem I have with most pink blushes, but you never know until you try it! You have to use a very light hand when applying it since it is very pigmented & blend, blend, blend. This shade, once applied, reminds me of how NARS Amore looks on my skin. As for the 12-hour wear time, I would say I get about 5-6 hours before it starts to vanish. By 8-hours it's completely gone, so I still haven't found a blush that would last my entire work day without having to be touched up.
Age: 19-24
Skin: Combination, Tan, Not Sure
Hair: Brown, Other, Other
Eyes: Brown
I had heard about these blushes but wasn't convinced until someone I work with raved about them. It's a little pricey for a blush but SO worth it! It looked scary in the pan but looks natural on the skin. They last so long and I haven't had to reapply throughout the day yet. I will be buying more soon!
Age: 30-35
Skin: Dry, Fair, Cool
Hair: Brunette, Straight, Medium
Eyes: Hazel
I love the Tarte Amazonian Clay blushes!! The one in Amused is a very pink, cool-toned blush and is very pigmented. I apply very lightly to my cheeks and make sure to blend like a mofo, and I get the prettiest flush. This blush is matte and has no sparkles, like some of the AC's do. Lasts all say on me ( i have dry skin), does not fade at all, or oxidise.
Age: 36-43
Skin: Normal, Medium, Cool
Hair: Blond, Straight, Fine
Eyes: Hazel
Love this blush! I have a medium neutral/cool skin tone (about NW30 now) and this looks great. My other all time favorite girly pink blush is Pink Swoon by MAC, but this one is slightly more intense and I can use less to build up color. It looks like a pretty, girly pink blush on my cheeks. I look healthy and naturally glowy! Lasts long, not sure about twelve hours but definitely 6-7. This definitely became a staple for me.
Age: 25-29
Skin: Very Oily, Other, Not Sure
Hair: Brunette, Other, Other
Eyes: Brown
I bought this blush for my sister but now part of me regrets giving it to her. This is a super pigmented bright hot pink blush. A little goes a long way. I ever so slightly tap my brush onto the blush and that's more than enough to get a beautiful flush. I can definitely see why these blushes are all the rave.
Age: 30-35
Skin: Combination, Medium, Neutral
Hair: Brown, Wavy, Coarse
Eyes: Green
ABSOLUTELY love this blush as my "summer color". I typically wear Dollface, but once the sun came out - despite my liberal use of sunscreen - my olive-y skin just tanned like crazy...and the light pink Dollface just disappears when I'm tan. So, I purchased this shade. This bright pink looks garish in the pan, but on my skin produces an awesome, natural flush. One sweep across each cheek makes for nice, even color. Since I don't need to apply multiple layers of color, this pan will last me forever! Blends well and lasts the full day for me. No problems with breakouts. LOVE LOVE LOVE!
Age: 19-24
Skin: Other, Fair-Medium, Not Sure
Hair: Black, Other, Other
Eyes: Black
i got this and dollface lol i have no idea what i was thinking that these two would be similar colors. yes they're both pink but i should have obviously noticed this is a bright intense pink. i cannot wear this for the life of me even when i apply it VERY lightly. it makes me look lik i scratched my cheeks really hard. i think itd look good on people with tanner skin.
Age: 25-29
Skin: Other, Other, Not Sure
Hair: Silver, Other, Other
Eyes: Other
I know a lot of people say that this is "universally flattering," but I just need to disagree, with a caveat. I typically use "Dollface," which is actually the color that my skin turns when I blush. Amused is gorgeous, but for daytime wear, it's a little too bright and unnatural-looking on my very fair skin. I tend to flush easily, so the colors tend to clash. That being said, this looks gorgeous if I'm wearing a ton of foundation or going out at night, since any natural variations in my skin tone are completely concealed.
Age: 30-35
Skin: Dry, Fair, Not Sure
Hair: Brown, Straight, Fine
Eyes: Green
This blush lasts forever, both on your skin and in the compact! I use it every day and have had it for about a year. The bright pink shade, when lightly applied, gives the skin a nice, healthy glow. Can be layered for wear at night. Tarte is a great line! Can't wait to try more of their products!
Popular Blush Products
365 Reviews
20 Reviews
5200 Reviews
239 Reviews
266 Reviews
449 Reviews


text:
Kenichi Watanabe Jun 13, 2012 1:25 AM
in response to DebWillard
You'll need to clarify. The iMac just randomly reboots for no reason? Or are you saying that when you shut down (to power off), the iMac reboots instead of shutting down? Or is it something else, like the iMac never finishes the startup sequence, because it reboots continously.
If it's the second one (reboots instead of shutting down), it may be a USB device. I had a USB device that, when connected directly, would make my iMac restart whenever I tried to shut down. Try disconnecting ALL devices, except for standard keyboard and mouse, and shutting down.
In any case, (since you reset PRAM already) you may want to try resetting the SMU (power management)
Be sure to follow the steps precisely.
DebWillard Jun 13, 2012 12:39 PM
in response to Kenichi Watanabe
Thanks for your quick response.
Here's what happens: I press the power-on button.....it goes through the usual start-up sequence of screens.....the fan comes on.....then it restarts itself.....same sequence......same restart-itself......loop-de-loop....
I tried resetting the SMU; the only problem was pressing the power button and plugging in at the same time due to distance between the two, so I got a clamp for the power button, which I think I had positioned properly. At any rate, didn't work.
I guess I need to try to next option, i.e.removing the back cover, to see if my IMac G5 has the little button on the main logic board. I don't know which model I have. I acquired my IMac G5 after the original owner died. Haven't removed the back cover before, so I'll have to find instructions for that. Or find a friend who knows what to do.
Kenichi Watanabe Jun 13, 2012 7:30 PM
in response to DebWillard
If that iMac G5 is the type with a flat back panel, it is an earlier model that was easy to work on internally. Apple even published "DIY" instructions
If the back is more curved, then it is not as easy to open up. These are later models.
I don't know what would cause this problem. If the iMac is the type that is easy to open, you could troubleshoot by disconnecting the hard drive and optical drive, in turn, to see of the continous rebooting will stop.
Since this model is fairly old at this point, it may have a dead PRAM battery (especially if it has been disconnected from power for a while). However, I have not heard of it causing the problem you describe.
If you press and hold the Option key during startup, do you get to Startup Manager before it does the reboot thing? Startup Manager is a screen that shows a list of available startup disks. If you get there, are there any startup disk choices shown?
rccharles Jun 13, 2012 7:45 PM
in response to DebWillard Helpful
What are the screens you are seeing on the mac during boot? What is the last one before the reboot?
Try a safe boot.
Shutdown your machine. Hold down the shift key. Poweron. Wait awhile Wait awhile while you harddrive
is being checked.
Do you have the orginal dvd/s for the machine? Should boot one of them & run disk utility.
You should run disk utility. It under on of the pulldown after you enter the language.
a) verify the disk
b) update your permissions.
Try a startup manager boot. Should give you an idea if the hardware is working.
Try holding down the option key then power on. This brings up the startup manager. Click on your hd. Click on right arrow key.
Shut down the Mac, then power it up, and before the screen lights up, quickly hold down the Command, Option, P, and R keys, until the Mac has chimed twice more after the powerup chime. Then, before the screen lights up, hold down Command-Option-O-F until the Open Firmware screen appears. Then enter these lines, pressing Return after each one:
"The reset-all command should restart your Mac. If so, you have successfully reset the Open Firmware settings."
How to eject a cd from the internal cd drive:
eject cd
List of devices:
List of variables:
( nvram is the equivalent Mac OS X terminal command. )
Resetting your Mac's PRAM and NVRAM
reset the PMU
-Rotten Apple- Jun 14, 2012 7:59 AM
in response to DebWillard
If you have integrated camera, then you have iSight model. I think that model does not have SMU reset button. There was also "ALS" which had similar case and build like the original model had but I don't know wheter or not it has that button, but the original model has.
It might be power supply or capacitor problem. ALS and iSight models also suffered graphics card solder faults which can also cause reboots without any error messages. It is of course best to rule software and hard disk problems out first, but if hard disk is fine and you are sure you haven't messed OS I think it is caps, power supply or solder fault. All of those can be fixed, capacitors can be replaced as well as power supply, solder fault is trickier but the the solder can be relflown or the chip can be reballed or the eniter chip can be replaced if it is bad, but of course these solder repairs usually require a professional to do it.
DebWillard Jul 16, 2012 4:22 PM
in response to rccharles
Hi again,
Thanks for the detailed instructions last month. I may need them at some point. But I think my main problem is
that the hard drive is nearly full. I have a Western Digital EIDE Caviar SE 320GB Hard Drive, never used. According to documentation, I need a Mac-compatible ATA/100 controller card.
I have heard that there is some kind of USB adapter that I may be able to get in order to use this as an external drive. Is there such a device?
thanks, Deb.
rccharles Jul 16, 2012 6:35 PM
in response to DebWillard Helpful
that the hard drive is nearly full. I have a Western Digital EIDE Caviar SE 320GB Hard Drive, never used. According to documentation, I need a Mac-compatible ATA/100 controller card.
I have heard that there is some kind of USB adapter that I may be able to get in order to use this as an external drive. Is there such a device?
thanks, Deb.
If you want to boot off of external drive, you need a firewire drive.
I recommend you do a google search on any external harddrive you are looking at.
I bought a low cost external drive enclosure. When I started having trouble with it, I did a google search and found a lot of complaints about the drive enclosure. I ended up buying a new drive enclosure. On my second go around, I decided to buy a drive enclosure with a good history of working with Macs. The chip set seems to be the key ingredient. The Oxford line of chips seems to be good. I got the Oxford 911.
Here is an external hd enclosure.
Folks in these Mac forums recommend LaCie, OWC or G-Tech.
Here is a list of recommended drives:
FireWire compared to USB. You will find that FireWire 400 is faster than USB 2.0 when used for a external harddrive connection.
How to format an external harddrive:
You need to delete some files ASAP. Best to have greater than 2gig of free space. Many posters to these forums state that you need much more free space: 5 gig to 10 gig or 10 percent of you hd size.
Be careful when deleting files. A lot of people have trashed their system when deleting things. Place things in trash. Reboot & run your applications. Empty trash.
Go after large files that you have created & know what they are. Do not delete small files that are in a folder you do not know what the folder is for. Anything that is less than a megabyte is a small file these days.
"The simple, fast way to save disk space"
OmniDiskSweeper is now free!
This will give you a list of files and folders sorted by size. Go after things you know that are big.


text:
Joe Walsh shouldn't be in Congress. He should be in a mental institution. For example:
"So at the Democratic Convention Wednesday night their first prime time speaker was Sandra Fluke, whatever her name is," Walsh said. "Think about this, a 31-32 year old law student who has been a student for life, who gets up there in front of a national audience and tells the American people, 'I want America to pay for my contraceptives.' You're kidding me. Go get a job. Go get a job Sandra Fluke."
So he's either deliberately lying to his supporters (??) about the Affordable Care Act's contraception provisions or he's just seriously effing stupid. Or both. Taxpayers don't pay for contraception. Ever. And if they did, so what?!
Either way, it's obvious that he's a seriously unhinged, psychotic man and unfit for office. Please, Illinois, kick this guy out of Congress. Anyone this awful doesn't deserve to be one of 535 elite Americans tasked with passing federal laws.


text:
Commercial banks--CRC 1979 creditors survey
A. Charlene Sullivan, Debra K. Dennis, Krannert Graduate School of Management. Credit Research Center
Credit Research Center, Krannert Graduate School of Management, Purdue University, 1980 - Business & Economics - 170 pages
From inside the book
37 pages matching consumer credit in this book
Where's the rest of this book?
Results 1-3 of 37
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Common terms and phrases
0ther time period 14 Less 18 Average 30 days delinquent 30-59 days delinquent 9 Average 90 days American Bankers Association Arkansas banks ATMs auto purchased automatic teller machines automobile loans average rate bank managers Banks in Arkansas banks in Wisconsin car loans car paper Card 1 Column Card 4 Column Charge-offs in 1977 Code commercial banks competition consumer credit Credit Research Center credit unions deficiency judgment depositors direct auto loans direct consumer loans dollar amount DP Less finance companies Illinois Lake Charles Less than 75 Little Rock Loan/Dealer Cost loans Q loans than banks Louisiana banks major competitors managers were asked market area Misc Mobile Home Model Used Car mortgage/value Number Percent delinquent percent in Arkansas percent in Louisiana percentage direct loans period delinquent Provide 12 Purdue University Recoveries in 1977 restrictive rate ceilings second mortgage loans thousands of dollars Total delinquencies turndown rate types of loans unsecured personal loans


text:
What does AMY stand for?
What does AMY mean? This page is about the various possible meanings of the acronym, abbreviation, shorthand or slang term: AMY.
We've found a total of 5 definitions for AMY:
Filter by: Sort by:PopularityAlphabeticallyCategory
Ambatomainty, Madagascar
Arizona Museum for Youth
Ampere Modulated Yielding
Anger Management for Youth
Andrey Mikheyevich Yanyuk
What does AMY mean?
- Amy(ProperNoun)
- .
Still can't find the acronym definition you were looking for? Use our Power Search technology to look for more unique definitions from across the web!
"AMY." Abbreviations.com. STANDS4 LLC, 2016. Web. 9 Feb. 2016. <http://www.abbreviations.com/AMY>.


text: The new renovations on the top floor are great. More room, nicely done. Still a great location at a reasonable price. Friendly service, decent breakfast, great staff, convenient for proximity to Palma and the Airport. While it has no parking, one can usually find a spot in the near proximity.


text:
Video Interviews
If traveling to interview in person is not feasible, an employer may be willing to conduct a "virtual" interview.
Barring unprecedented demand, each academic year, 2L and 3L students are entitled to five domestic video conferencing sessions of up to one hour each.
Due to the high costs of international video conferencing, all international video conferencing sessions must be individually pre-approved by Career Services staff, and students may be responsible to pay a portion of international charges.
Please see Director of Career Services with any questions.
The employer with whom you would like to interview must have ISDN or IP videoconferencing capacity to interface with the law school's technology.
Contact Michael d'Estries, the law school's Educational Technologies Manager, by email so that he can set up the video conference. In your email, provide the following:
- Name of the employer
- Name of the IT contact at the employer
- Date and time on which you would like to conduct the interview
- Whether the employer uses ISDN or IP technology
- Employer's ISDN or IP number
Email Michael with the above information at least one week before you would like to conduct the interview so that a connection test can be run prior to your interview date.
Employers are increasingly turning to Skype as a free, easy-to-use technology for virtual interviews. Most laptops bought within the last few years contain the requisite technology for using Skype. However, for students who do not have this technology, the IT Department has computer microphones and video cameras available to borrow.
Many employer, particularly those interviewing for 1L summer interns, will be satisfied with a simple telephone interview. Just be sure to sit in a quiet area with good cell reception so that you are not distracted during your call.


text: Either I have discovered an obscure fatal error involving callMethodOfServlet or I am using WebKit incorrectly. Firstly, I will apologize if this post is too large, but it seemed better to include the example code instead of trying to explain everything and THEN sending out the code. What is happening is that I have 2 classes 'Ac' and 'Ap' both derived from class 'Ag'. 'Ac' performs a callMethodOfServlet on a method in class 'Ap'. When the code is placed in a context and this set of events happens, WebKit throws a Type error, claiming that class 'Ap' is not of type 'Ag'. BUT, when the same code is moved into a subdirectory of the context and the same set of events is performed, everything works fine. Which is somewhat disturbing and very confusing. The zipped and tarred file that is attached includes my example code and the Application.config file that I am using. The attached file contains a context called 'Anger'. You should be able to find the various examples and the HTML page that contains the longer explanation of what is happening. Simply browse to /Anger and follow the instructions. Some (minor) technical information. Running WebWare version 8.1 Python 2.2.2 Linux redhat 9 Hopefully someone will be able to figure out what is going wrong since I'm stumped. David London


text: Just 10 minutes' walk from Monzen-Nakacho Subway Station Day Nice Hotel Tokyo's convenient location makes it an ideal place to stay when in Tokyo. It is ideally located within a 10-minute walk of Kiba Metro Station. Facilities at the hotel include internet a 24-hour reception and a lift. The hotel's rooms are comfortable and offer cable / satellite channels. Rooms also provide complimentary toiletries for guests to enjoy. Guests of Day Nice Hotel Tokyo can sample Chinese cuisines at the on-site restaurant conveniently situated for those who want to stay nearby for a meal. Haneda Airport is less than a 25-minute drive from Day Nice Hotel Tokyo. It is also a short car trip from Ueno Park Tokyo Tower and Tokyo Skytree Tower.


text:
Category: Health & Safety ×
Subcategory: EHS Compliance and Regulations ×
Industry: Printing ×
Location: Asia & Middle East ×
Location: Oman ×
Pulsar Instruments plc
based in Filey, UNITED KINGDOM
Pulsar Instruments Plc have over 45 years of experience in the noise measurement sector. The company designs, manufactures and markets from their head office in the UK compliant, common sense, practical solutions for industrial, occupational and other noise measurement applications in the work environment via a global distribution network. From the beginning, Pulsar have ...
Anguil Environmental Systems, Inc.
based in Milwaukee, WISCONSIN (USA)
Anguil Environmental Systems is a global provider of industrial air pollution control, emission abatement and energy recovery systems. We design, manufacturer, service and install thermal and catalytic oxidation technologies as well as heat recovery systems for a variety of applications and industries.
Intelex Technologies Inc.
based in Toronto, ONTARIO (CANADA)
(Intelex Technologies, Inc.) Trusted since 1992, Intelex is a global leader in EHS, Quality and Business Performance Management software. We enable organizations to ensure the highest standard of health, safety and environmental conditions as well as superior product and service quality by streamlining and integrating business data for our more than 1,000 clients and ...
Gasmet Technologies Oy
based in Helsinki, FINLAND
Gasmet Technologies is a leading manufacturer of gas monitoring instruments and systems for industrial and environmental applications including continuous emissions monitoring (power plants, waste incinerators, cement kilns etc.) stack testing / comparison measurements, process control, industrial hygiene / indoor air quality, engine exhaust gas, semiconductor ...
Myron L Company
based in Carlsbad, CALIFORNIA (USA)
Myron L Company manufactures cost-effective high performance tools for solution control and water quality analysis, as well as calibration solutions, accessories and kits that keep instrumentation operating at peak performance in diverse applications. Our current product line includes handheld instruments, inline monitor/controllers and field test kits that measure ...
Spill Doctor (SA)
based in Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA
The Jesbra Group, now trading as Spill Doctor in Africa, represents some of the worlds industry leading providers of environmental, safety and health products. With over a decade of international experience and 25 years operating in Africa, Spill Doctor has consolidated a range of internationaly recognised products that both our regional and international clients regard ...
based in Livingston, UNITED KINGDOM
Empteezy is the home of quality engineered spill containment and spill control products. Our overriding aim is to help you comply with legislation and implement best practice in connection with your oil and chemical storage needs, spill response programs, including spill kits & spill kit training, emergency safety shower and tank shower applications and waste handling ...
Watson-Marlow Fluid Technology Group
based in Falmouth, UNITED KINGDOM
Watson-Marlow`s heavy-duty hose pump can reliably handle many harsh materials, including grit-filled sludge, dependably for long periods of time. Peristaltic hose pumps are self-priming, dry running and virtually maintenance-free, with no expensive seals to replace, no check valves to clog, and no rotors and stators to wear out. Unlike other pump types such as gear pumps, ...
Microbac Ltd
based in Consett, UNITED KINGDOM
Microbac is a privately owned company with 30 years experience in microbial biomass engineering, offering complete wastewater treatment packages to worldwide clients. Our services comprise design, planning, procurement, fabrication, equipment supply, installation, commissioning and testing. A wide range of adapted biological products, including customised bacterial ...
Inteliair Ltd
based in Bath, UNITED KINGDOM
Inteliar™ is an Intelligent Air Control System designed to reduce energy consumption, improve efficiency and reduce the environmental impact of dust extraction, fume extraction and ventilation systems.
Need help finding the right suppliers?
Let the XPRTs do the work for you


text:
AdBlock blows! Please disable the add-on to ensure you get the most out of Tube8's features and functionality. Read about why you shouldn't use AdBlock. Close
Add to Favorite List:
Create a new folder:
Next »
Don't tell mommyBrooke hunter Jasmine Lynn
Recognize a pornstar in this video?
Help make pornstars easier to find on Tube8 by telling us who is in this video.
Thanks! The pornstar names will be added to this video when enough users submit the same names.
You must enter a pornstar name that already exists in our database.
- Description: Hell yeah
- Tags: mommy, brooke, hunter, jasmine, lynn
- Pornstars: Add Pornstar
- Favorite by: 1267
- Featured: 6 years ago
- Report This Video
Video Comments
Top Video Comments
All Video Comments (11)
1 year ago
1 year ago
DAMN!i wish i knew a milf like this. i want her to fuck me too while her husband fucks me
- 0 people liked this -
2 years ago
2 years ago
Hot little fuckhole used loike a sweet young cunt should be all her tight young holes reamed hard!
- 0 people liked this -
5 years ago
5 years ago
That's pink panther music u fuckin jerk. Jasmin is a hot fuckin whore!
- 0 people liked this -


text:
Black Mountain
Primary tabs
Course Details
Course Reviews
Front 9 has trees and creek. Fun placements and not too long. Back 9 is open and longer. It was a lot of fun to play for me - 200 ft. and my wife - 125 ft. I recommend this course for any rookie or average player. We vacationed a week and played this one twice instead a new one.
nice course...front nine wooded with creek...short par threes...back nine open fields...cut fairways..with mountain views..huge community garden on other side of back nine...nice to see...very fun course...
Front nine has your standard woodsy-but-has-a-decent-fairway holes and is fairly short. Creek in play on a couple.
Back nine is mostly open, but longer (some uphill shots). They were doing some landscaping on the back when I was there (summer 2011), so the big mulch/dirt piles are the largest obstacles.
Tee pads are gravel and therefore rutted, and the course is only moderately maintained, but decent variety and fun overall!
Front nine provides ample confidence building opportunities while the dual tees on the backside transform the course to a true intermediate level.
Courses Close By
- UNC Asheville, Asheville NC US2(1 vote)
- Richmond Hill, Asheville NC US4(4 votes)
- Crookston Disc Golf Course, Fletcher NC US2(2 votes)
- Marion Disc Golf Park, Marion NC US1(1 vote)
- Enka High School Disc Golf Course, Candler NC US5(1 vote)
- Mars Hill College Disc Golf Course, Mars Hill NC US4(2 votes)
- Meadowbrook Elementary Disc Golf Course, Canton NC US0No votes yet
- Bethel Elementary School, Bethel NC US0No votes yet
- Brevard College Disc Golf Course, Brevard NC US3(1 vote)
- Haywood Community College, Clyde NC US4(1 vote)


text:
Upgrade for a Better Experience
Canandaigua National Bank & Trust would like to encourage all of our customers to update their internet browsers as new releases are made available. Using the most recent browser version ensures the best security, design experience, speed and functionality.
Continue to CNBank.com
If you have any comments or concerns, please contact our Customer Call Center at 585.394.4260 ext. 0.
Security Center | Customer Support | Contact Us
Did you know you can delete all messages in your online banking mailbox using the Mobile Banking App? How: Log in to the CNB Mobile Banking App and select 'Messages & Alerts'. Simply press 'Delete All' and then press 'OK' to confirm. You can delete individual messages in both the Online Banking Center and in the CNB Mobile Banking App, but only the App allows you to delete all of your online banking messages at once. With the CNB Mobile App it is easy to delete all of your messages: whenever, wherever. Related Tips: View Messages & Alerts Using the Mobile Banking App Send a Message to CNB Using the Mobile Banking App Mobile Online Banking App Available ATM/Branch Locations Using the CNB Mobile Online Banking App View Bank Office Hours Using the Mobile Banking App If you have additional questions, please call our Customer Call Center at (585)394-4260 ext. 0 or fill out a contact us form.
Customer Support
Security Alerts
Contact Us
CNC Financials
Privacy Policy
Site Map
About Us
72 South Main Street, Canandaigua NY 14424800.724.2621 | 585.394.4260
CNC Financials | Jobs@CNC | Privacy Policy | Disclosures | Site Map | About Us | Terms of Use72 South Main Street, Canandaigua NY 14424 | 800.724.2621 | 585.394.4260


text:
Slightly more than half of Postsecondary Business Teachers in the United States are seasoned employees who have more than 10 years of experience in the field. Pay ranges from $34K to $67K per year, and the average comes out to $44K per year. A large number report receiving medical coverage from their employers and more than two-fifths collect dental insurance. The majority of Postsecondary Business Teachers (62 percent) who took the survey are women. The majority of workers are highly satisfied with their job. Respondents to the PayScale salary survey provided the data for this report.
Add this chart to your site:
Copy and paste this HTML:
A business teacher in the postsecondary realm teaches the subject of business in a college or university environment. The business teacher will usually have to follow state and school guidelines, as to what should be taught in the curriculum. The teacher may be given the curriculum by the school, but he or she may also choose to suggest changes to the curriculum for future classes. Individual lesson plans are usually left up to the teacher. Therefore, it is important to be able to come up with engaging and meaningful lesson plans, so that the students can easily retain the information. The business teacher may choose to include teaching aids, such as videos, photos, class notes, and other visual aids, which will help the student to understand the material. Creating lesson plans will usually be done outside of class time. This preparation time may or may not be paid, depending on the situation.Read More...
In addition to preparing and teaching classes, the teacher may be expected to have office hours, in which he or she will be available to answer any questions or concerns that students may have. Strong computer skills are necessary, especially if some courses are taught online. However, most teachers will need computer skills for data entry, communication with staff and students, and creating lesson plans and notes. The business teacher should have a minimum of a bachelor's degree or a master's degree in a field related to business. Some schools will require the teacher to have a PhD.
Median of all compensation (including tips, bonus, and overtime) by years of experience.
Postsecondary Business Teachers with a lot of experience do not necessarily enjoy more money. Relatively untried employees who have less than five years' experience have a median salary of $40K. Those who have been around for five to 10 years can expect to take home more — $44K on average. On average, Postsecondary Business Teachers make $44K following one to two decades on the job. Survey participants who have spent more than 20 years on the job report a predictably higher median income of $52K, demonstrating that compensation is roughly commensurate with experience in the end.
|Highly satisfied
Rated 4 out of 5
based on 7 votes.
62 %
38 %