Table of ContentsTABLE OF CONTENTS

UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of


the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No.      )

Filed by the Registrant

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant

Check the appropriate box:

Preliminary Proxy Statement

Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))

Definitive Proxy Statement

Definitive Additional Materials

Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12

Filed by the Registrant ☒

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ☐
Check the appropriate box:

Preliminary Proxy Statement

Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))

Definitive Proxy Statement

Definitive Additional Materials

Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12
Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

No fee required.

Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.

(1)

Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:

(2)

Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:

(3)

Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):

(4)

Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:

(5)

Total fee paid:

Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.

Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.

(1)

Amount Previously Paid:

(2)

Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:

(3)

Filing Party:

(4)

Date Filed:


Table

(Name of Contents

Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

Picture 1

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)
Payment of Filing Fee (Check all boxes that apply):

No fee required

Fee paid previously with preliminary materials

Fee computed on table in exhibit required by Item 25(b) per Exchange Act Rules 14a6(i)(1)
and 0-11

TABLE OF CONTENTS
[MISSING IMAGE: tm223369d1-cov_meetinbw.jpg]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
[MISSING IMAGE: lg_reliance-pn.jpg]
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 5100
Los Angeles, California 90071
(213) 687-7700
NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

To Be Held May 18, 2016

TIME AND PLACE
[MISSING IMAGE: tm223369d1-icon_calendpn.jpg]
May 18, 2022
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_time-pn.jpg]
10:00 a.m. PDT
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_plc-pn.jpg]
Electronically
via live webcast accessible at
www.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/RS2022
RECORD DATE
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_recrd-pn.jpg]
Only stockholders at the close of business on March 25, 2022 are entitled to notice of, and to vote at, the 2022 annual meeting of stockholders ( the ”Annual Meeting”) or any adjournments thereof.
ITEMS OF BUSINESS
1To elect the ten directors nominated by our Board of Directors to hold office until our next annual meeting and until his or her successor is elected and qualified.
2To consider a non-binding, advisory vote to approve the compensation of Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.’s (the “Company” or ”Reliance”) named executive officers.
3To ratify the appointment of KPMG LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for 2022.
4To consider a stockholder proposal regarding changes to the Company’s proxy access bylaw to remove the size limit on the stockholder nominating group, if properly presented at the Annual Meeting.
5To transact such other business, if any, as properly comes before the meeting or any adjournment thereof.

To the Stockholders of

Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Annual Meeting of the Stockholders of Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. (“Reliance” or “Company”) will be held on Wednesday, May 18, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., California time, at the Omni Los Angeles Hotel at California Plaza, 251 South Olive Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, for the following purposes:

1.To elect nine directors to serve for one year and until their successors have been duly elected and qualified. The nominees for election to the Board are Sarah J. Anderson, John G. Figueroa, Thomas W. Gimbel, David H. Hannah, Douglas M. Hayes, Mark V. Kaminski, Robert A. McEvoy, Gregg J. Mollins, and Andrew G. Sharkey, III. The Board of Directors recommends that stockholders vote FOR the election of each nominee as a director.

2.To consider a non-binding, advisory vote to approve the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers. The Board of Directors recommends that stockholders vote FOR the approval of the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers.

3.To ratify the appointment of KPMG LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for 2016. The Board of Directors recommends that stockholders vote FOR the ratification of KPMG LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm.

4.To transact such other business, if any, as properly comes before the meeting or any adjournment thereof.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

These items of business are more fully described in the accompanying proxy statement accompanying this Notice.

statement.

PROXY VOTING
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_intrnet-pn.jpg]
INTERNET
Visit the website noted on your proxy card to vote online.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_phone-pn.jpg]
BY TELEPHONE
Use the toll-free telephone number on your proxy card to vote by telephone.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_mail-pn.jpg]
BY MAIL
Sign, date, and return your proxy card in the enclosed envelope to vote by mail.
[MISSING IMAGE: tm223369d1-icon_mousepn.jpg]
DURING THE MEETING
To vote during the virtual meeting, visit www.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/RS2022 and use your 16-digit control number.
This is an invitation toyear’s meeting will be a completely “virtual” meeting of stockholders. You can attend the Annual Meeting online, vote your shares electronically, and to votesubmit your questions during the Annual Meeting at www.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/RS2022. An audio recording of the Annual Meeting will be available on the matters to be considered. All stockholders are invited to attendInvestors section of our website at investor.rsac.com after the Annual Meeting.

meeting.

Your vote is important. Whether or not you plan to attendparticipate in the Annual Meeting, it is important that your shares be represented, and we hope you will vote as soon as possible.

Only stockholders of record at the close of business on March 31, 2016 are entitled to notice of, and to vote at, the Annual Meeting or any adjournments thereof.

To make it easier, you may vote on the Internetinternet or by telephone. The instructions attached to this Notice describe how to use these convenient services. Even if you give your proxy, you have the right to vote in personelectronically if you attendparticipate in the Annual Meeting.

By Order of the Board of Directors,

Picture 4

[MISSING IMAGE: sg_williamasmith-k.jpg]

Los Angeles, California
April 8, 2022

William A. Smith II


Senior Vice President, General Counsel
and Corporate Secretary

Los Angeles, California

April 8, 2016




IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE
AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS

This Notice presents only an overview of the more complete proxy materials that are available to you on the Internet, if you have not received them by mail. We encourage you to access and review all of the important information contained in the proxy materials before voting. This proxy statement, an Annual Report to Stockholders, an Annual Report on Form

THIS PROXY STATEMENT, OUR ANNUAL REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS, OUR 2021 ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K and a proxy form for voting are available online at www.proxyvote.com by using the 12-digit control number provided to you. If you want to receive a paper or e-mail copy of these documents, you must request one. There is no charge to provide you a copy. Please request a copy (1) by Internet at www.proxyvote.com; (2) by telephone at 1-800-579-1639; or (3) by email to sendmaterial@proxyvote.com, on or before May 4, 2016 to facilitate timely delivery.

Except as stated otherwise, information on our website is not a part of this proxy statement.

ii

AND A PROXY FORM FOR VOTING ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE AT WWW.PROXYVOTE.COM BY USING THE 16-DIGIT CONTROL NUMBER PROVIDED TO YOU.

PROXY STATEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROXY STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Proxy Summary

Page

1

PROXY SUMMARY

Voting Information
14

Information Concerning Our Common Stock

16

INFORMATION CONCERNING PROXY

Proposal No. 1 — Election of Directors
17

18

INFORMATION CONCERNING OUR SECURITIES

Proposal No. 3 — Ratification of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
19

Proposal No. 4 — Stockholder Proposal Requesting Proxy Access Bylaw Amendment

21

PROPOSAL NO. 1 – ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

38

PROPOSAL NO. 2 – ADVISORY VOTE ON THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPENSATION OF OUR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

10 

PROPOSAL NO. 3 – RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

12 

MANAGEMENT

14 

Directors and Executive Officers

14 

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

20 

Executive Summary

20 

Pay-for-Performance Philosophy

22 

22 

23 

25 

26 
45

Changes to 2016 Compensation Program

26 45

27 

27 

29 

32 

32 

33 

33 

33 

34 
51

34 

35 

35 

36 

36 

36 

38 

39 

40 

40 

40 

Stock Ownership Requirements

40 

Stock Retention Requirements

41 

Clawback Policy

41 

Agreements; Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control

56
41 
59

iii



41 

42 

61

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

42 

Executive Compensation Tables

64

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

43 

Summary Compensation Table

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

47 

47 

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

Director Compensation
48 
70

48 

Securities Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management

72

SECURITIES OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT

50 

Board of Directors and Corporate Governance

52 
74

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

82

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE INTERLOCKS AND INSIDER PARTICIPATION

Audit Committee Report
57 
83

Related Person Transactions and Indemnification

84

AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT

Participation in the Annual Meeting
58 
84

Stockholder Proposals and Nominations for the 2023 Annual Meeting

85

RELATED PERSON TRANSACTIONS

Stockholders Sharing the Same Address
59 
86

Annual Report

SECTION 16(A) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE

59 

STOCKHOLDER PROPOSALS AND NOMINATIONS FOR the 2017 ANNUAL MEETING86

59 

STOCKHOLDERS SHARING THE SAME ADDRESS

60 

ANNUAL REPORT

60 


PROXY SUMMARY

Picture 2

350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 5100

Los Angeles, California 90071

(213) 687-7700


PROXY SUMMARY

This summary highlights information contained elsewhere in this proxy statement and in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.2021. This summary does not contain all of the information that you should consider, and you should read the entire proxy statement carefully before voting.

ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

TIME AND PLACE

TIME AND DATE:

[MISSING IMAGE: tm223369d1-icon_19calendpn.jpg]
May 18, 2022
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_time-pn.jpg]
10:00 a.m., California time, May 18, 2016

PDT

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_plc-pn.jpg]
Electronically
via live webcast accessible at
www.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/RS2022
RECORD DATE

PLACE:

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_recrd-pn.jpg]

Omni Los Angeles Hotel

Only stockholders at California Plaza

251 South Olive Street

Los Angeles, California  90012

RECORD DATE:

Stockholders of record as of the close of business on March 31, 201625, 2022 are entitled to receive this Noticenotice of, and to vote at, the meeting.

ITEMS OF BUSINESS:

1.

To elect nine directors to serve for one year and until their successors have been duly elected and qualified.

2.

To consider a non-binding, advisory vote to approve the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers.

3.

To ratify the appointment of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2016.

4.

To transact such other business, if any, as properly comes before the meetingAnnual Meeting or any adjournmentadjournments thereof.

PROXY VOTING

VOTING AND ATTENDANCE AT THE MEETING:

Stockholders of record as of

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_intrnet-pn.jpg]
INTERNET
Visit the close of businesswebsite noted on the record date are entitled to vote. Each share of common stock is entitled to one vote on each matter to be voted on. Voting may be done over the Internet, by telephone, by completing and mailing theyour proxy card orto vote online.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_phone-pn.jpg]
BY TELEPHONE
Use the toll-free telephone number on your proxy card to vote by telephone.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_mail-pn.jpg]
BY MAIL
Sign, date, and return your proxy card in person at the Annual Meeting. Additional information is provided under “Information Concerning Our Securities” on page 8.  

enclosed envelope to vote by mail.

We hope you will attend the meeting in person. If you do, please bring with you a valid form of government-issued photo identification, such as a valid driver’s license or passport, and proof of ownership of our common stock as of the record date.

[MISSING IMAGE: tm223369d1-icon_mousepn.jpg]

DURING THE MEETING

To vote during the virtual meeting, visit www.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/RS2022 and use your 16-digit control number.

1

      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

PROXY SUMMARY

VOTING MATTERS
PROPOSALVOTING
RECOMMENDATION
PAGE
1To elect the ten directors nominated by our Board of Directors to hold office until our next annual meeting and until his or her successor is elected and qualified.
FOR
each nominee
2To consider a non-binding, advisory vote to approve the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers.
FOR
3To ratify the appointment of KPMG LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for 2022.
FOR
4To consider a stockholder proposal regarding changes to the Company’s proxy access bylaw to remove the size limit on the stockholder nominating group, if properly presented at the Annual Meeting.
AGAINST
5To transact such other business, if any, as properly comes before the meeting or any adjournment thereof.
VIRTUAL STOCKHOLDER MEETING
This year’s meeting will be a “virtual” meeting of stockholders. If you were a stockholder as of the close of business on March 25, 2022 (the “Record Date”), you can attend the Annual Meeting online, vote your shares electronically, and submit your questions and view our list of stockholders as of the Record Date during the Annual Meeting, by visiting www.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/RS2022. You will need to have your 16-digit control number included on your Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials (the “Notice of Internet Availability”) or your proxy card (if you received a printed copy of the proxy materials) to join the Annual Meeting. The meeting webcast will begin promptly at 10:00 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time. Online check-in will begin approximately 15 minutes before then and we encourage you to allow ample time for check-in procedures. If you encounter any difficulties accessing the virtual meeting during the check-in or meeting time, please call the technical support number that will be posted on the Virtual Shareholder Meeting login page. An audio recording of the Annual Meeting will be available on the Investors section of our website after the meeting.
Additional information about our virtual stockholder meeting, including procedures for submitting questions at the Annual Meeting, is provided under “Participation in the Annual Meeting” on Page 84.
The Company anticipates that the Notice of Internet Availability will first be mailed on or about April 8, 2022 to all stockholders entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting and we will post our proxy materials on the website referenced in the Notice of Internet Availability. As more fully described in the Notice of Internet Availability, all stockholders may choose to access our proxy materials on the website referred to in the Notice of Internet Availability or may request to receive a printed set of our proxy materials.

RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      2


PROXY SUMMARY

PROXY STATEMENT

Your vote is very important. TheReliance’s Board of Directors of Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. is requesting that you allow your common stock to be represented and voted at the Annual Meeting by the proxiesCompany’s officers (proxies) named on the proxy card. ThisThe proxy statement is being sent or made available to you in connection with this request and has been prepared for the Board by our management. The proxy statement isfirst being sent and made available to our stockholders on or about April 8, 2016.

Business Highlights

2022.
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE HIGHLIGHTS(see page 74)

·

HIGHLIGHTS OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Cash flow from operations in 2015 was a record $1.03 billion, compared to $356.0 million in 2014.

·

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

Strong working capital management, reducing first-in, first-out (“FIFO”) inventory

All directors are elected annually by $433.1 million in 2015.

·

Increased gross profit margin to 27.2% in 2015 from 25.1% in 2014.

·

Invested $172.2 million in capital expenditures the significant majority of which is designedvotes cast.

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Stockholder right to expand and improve efficienciesact by written consent.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Independent, non-executive Chairman of the Board.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Special meetings may be called by stockholders holding shares entitled to cast not less than 10% in our value-added processing capabilities.

·

Improved our leverage position by paying down $376.6 million of debt.

·

Sales of $9.35 billion and earnings per diluted share of $4.16 in 2015.

·

We also increased our market share as our performance outpaced the industry data reported by the Metals Service Center Institute, which indicated industry shipments were down 7.5% in 2015 compared to our same-store tons sold decline of only 3.2%.

Returning Value to Stockholders (see page 20)  

·

We repurchased $355.5 millionvoting power of our common stock in 2015, or 6.2 million shares, at an average priceoutstanding stock.

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Prohibition of $57.39 per share.

speculative and hedging transactions by all directors and executive officers.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Market-standard, robust proxy access right.

·

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

We have repurchased approximately 22.1 million shares at an average cost

All standing committees of $30.93 per share since initiating our share repurchase plan in 1994. On October 20, 2015, our Board amended our share repurchase plan increasing the total shares authorized for repurchase by 7.5 million and extending the plan through December 31, 2018.

·

We paid regular quarterly cash dividends of $0.40 per share, totaling $120.1 million in 2015 compared to $108.7 million in 2014. Our cash dividends per share paid in 2015 were $1.60 compared to $1.40 in 2014.

·

We have increased our dividend 22 times since our initial public offering in 1994, including a 14% increase in the first quarter of 2015. We have paid regular quarterly dividends to our stockholders for 56 consecutive years.

Corporate Governance Highlights (see page 52)  

All directors are elected annually by majority of votes cast.

Eight of our current ten directors are independent directors. All of our standing committees are composed entirely of independent directors.

·

We have a separate Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

·

As previously announced, if re-elected, Mr. Hannah will retire from the position of Executive Chairman in July 2016, at which time he will remain a director and the Board will appoint a non-executive Chairman from theconsist solely of independent directors.

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Board oversight in executive succession planning.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Independent directors elected at the Annual Meeting.

meet regularly in executive sessions.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
No super-majority voting requirements to approve mergers or other business combinations.

2


Independent directors meet regularly in executive sessions without management.

Reliance has adopted a Code of Conduct that applies to all executive officers and senior management. Reliance has also adopted a Director Code of Conduct that applies to all directors.

Directors are required to own shares of our common stock having a market value of at least $400,000 within five years of joining the Board. All of our directors are in compliance with this requirement.

·

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

Policy that directors should not stand for re-election after reaching age 75.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
No stockholder rights plan or poison pill.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
98% Board and committee meeting attendance in 2021.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Code of Conduct that applies to all directors, executive officers and senior management.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Stock ownership and retention requirements applicable to all directors and officers.

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Annual Board and committee self-evaluations.

3Our stockholders have the right to request a special meeting of stockholders and act by written consent. Special meetings may be called by stockholders holding shares entitled to cast not less than 10% of the votes at the meeting.

      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

PROXY SUMMARY
KEY EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PRACTICES

·

Our Bylaws provide our stockholders with a proxy access right.

No super‑majority voting requirements to approve mergers or other business combinations.

No stockholder rights plan or poison pill.

3


Key Executive Compensation Practices

WHAT WE DO AND DON’T DOSee
Pages

What

We Do:

ü

align executive compensation with the interests of our stockholders

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Strong pay-for-performance compensation structure with approximately 75%74% of our CEO’sChief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and 60%64% of our other named executive officers’officers (“NEOs”) target level total direct compensation tied to performance metrics (see discussion beginning on page 20).

metrics.
39 & 49

ü

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

Target total direct compensation forof our named executive officersNEOs designed to approximate the market median forof our executive compensation peer group when targeted performance levels are achieved (see page 35).

achieved.
39

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Performance-based equity awards represented 80% of our CEO and our President’s equity awards and 60% of our other NEOs’ equity awards.43

��

Clawback policy for cash and equity compensation (see page 41).

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

ü

Stock ownership and retention requirements applicable to all directors and corporate officers, including our namedNEOs.59
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Clawback and recoupment policy for cash and equity compensation.59
Our executive compensation program is designed to reward the Company’s executive officers for strong operational and directors (see pages 40financial performance and 41).

to avoid excessive risk taking

ü

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Double trigger provisions for accelerated vesting of restricted stock unitsequity awards upon a change in control (see page 41).

control.
58

ü

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

All named executive officerNEO performance-based equity awards have beenare tied to a three-year performance targets since 2012 (see page 38).

target.
39

ü

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

Broad and deep distribution of equity awards throughout management (see page 55).

while managing the dilutive impact and expense associated with those awards.
54

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Limited perquisites.56

ü

Limited perquisites (see page 40).

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

ü

Annual stockholder advisory vote to approve named executive officer compensation (see page 10).

NEO compensation.
18

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Independent compensation committee.50

ü

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Independent compensation committee (see page 33).

consultant.
50

We adhere to executive compensation best practices
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Independent, non-executive Chairman of the Board enhances the effectiveness of the Board’s oversight and governance and compensation practices.79

ü

Utilization

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Minimum vesting provisions in our equity plan provide that awards must be subject to a minimum one-year vesting period, except with respect to a maximum of an independent compensation consultant (see page 33).

5% of the remaining shares available for grant under the plan (currently 1,463,455) shares.
n/a
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      4

PROXY SUMMARY
WHAT WE DO AND DON’T DOSee
Pages

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_donot-pn.gif]

No incentive plan design or feature which would encourage excessive risk-taking.n/a

What We Don’t Do:

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_donot-pn.gif]
No unlimited compensation; all variable compensation plans have caps on plan formulas.n/a

r

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_donot-pn.gif]
No employment agreements, severance agreements, change in control/golden parachute agreements or other similar agreements with any executive officer.

56

r

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_donot-pn.gif]

No repricing or replacement of stock options.

r

No tax gross-ups for perquisites, change in control excise taxes or otherwise.

n/a

r

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_donot-pn.gif]

No dividends on unvested restricted stock units.units (“RSUs”). Dividends accrue and are paid only paid upon thevesting subsequent to achievement of the applicable vestingperformance and/or service criteria.

n/a

r

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_donot-pn.gif]

No hedging of Reliance common stocksecurities by directors and executive officers.59
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_donot-pn.gif]
No pledging of Reliance securities by directors and executive officers.59
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_donot-pn.gif]
No share recycling.n/a
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_donot-pn.gif]
No acceleration of unvested awards permitted, except for death, disability, a qualified retirement or termination without cause following a change in control.n/a
5      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

PROXY SUMMARY
CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY
We recognize a corporate social responsibility not only to our investors, but also to our people, their families and the communities in which we live and conduct our business. Accountability to our stockholders, employees, and communities, and to ethical business practices, motivates and anchors us. Our responsibility to stockholders requires a diligent commitment to excellence and a focus on sustainable profitability. This commitment to excellence also requires that we set the highest standards for business practices, ensure a safe and productive workplace for our colleagues, are stewards of the natural environments in which we operate and give back to our communities.
We are committed to promoting the health, safety, and wellbeing of our employees and their families, as well as supporting the communities in which we live and work. We strive to foster a culture of excellence by generating industry leading results while operating responsibly, safely and ethically, minimizing environmental impacts, and leveraging the diversity of talent and perspectives within our family of companies.
Our commitment to corporate responsibility and sustainability is highlighted in our six core values—People, Diversity, Integrity, Leadership, Service and Partnerships. We have always focused on delivering strong financial results and returns to our stockholders, and we remain committed to doing so in a sustainable manner that respects the communities in which we operate.
In 2021, we completed a materiality assessment to determine the environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) issues that are most critical to our business and our stakeholders. As a result of the materiality assessment, we determined that Reliance’s most significant ESG issues are: (i) the health and safety of our colleagues; (ii) human capital management; (iii) emissions from company-operated trucks that deliver our products; and (iv) our overall energy usage. We expect to update this materiality assessment on a periodic basis to ensure it reflects changes in our business and the environment.
We look forward to communicating our progress over time as we continue to maintain focus on ESG matters. Please refer to the ESG section of our website at https://www.rsac.com/environmental-social-and-governance/​ for further information on our environmental, social and governance matters and initiatives. (The website addresses presented above and elsewhere in this proxy statement are not intended to function as hyperlinks, and the information contained in our website is not part of this proxy statement and is not soliciting material.)
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      6

PROXY SUMMARY
Set forth below are some highlights of our corporate responsibility and sustainability initiatives.
PEOPLE AND DIVERSITY
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
The health and safety of our employees, customers, suppliers and communities is our most important core value. Our safety programs are designed around recognized standards with appropriate variations addressing the multiple jurisdictions and regulations, specific hazards and unique working environments of our operations.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Our SMART Safety program focuses on embedding our culture of safety across all of our operations.
Worker Safety
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
We strive to have zero fatalities and no life-threatening or life-altering injuries and illnesses from working at our facilities. Our executive team supports a safety management system that includes policies, standard practices and goals at our facilities, including:

conducting regular safety assessments;

monitoring best practices and compliance with regulatory requirements;

training our employees to improve safety practices;

integrating video-based safety programs into substantially all Company-operated trucks; and

maintaining emergency preparedness and response plans.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
The Company utilizes a mixture of indicators to assess the health and safety performance of its domestic operations. Lagging indicators include the OSHA Total Recordable Incident Rate (“TRIR”) and Department of Transportation Recordable Accident Rate per million miles (“DOT Rate”).
The following table sets forth the TRIR and DOT Rate for each of the last three years ended December 31.
Safety Indicator202120202019
TRIR2.121.862.43
DOT Rate0.540.600.75
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Our focus on safety is evident in our TRIR, which is lower than the 2020 Metals Service Center Institute average of 3.5. A lower TRIR means that fewer people are injured and fewer lives are impacted. We have not identified a universally accepted and annually updated benchmarking standard for DOT Rate.
7      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

PROXY SUMMARY
PEOPLE AND DIVERSITY
Employee Wellness
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
To help attract and retain the best employees, we offer competitive compensation and benefits. In addition to base salaries, our compensation programs can include annual bonuses, stock-based compensation awards, a 401(k) plan with employer matching opportunities, healthcare and insurance benefits, health savings and flexible spending accounts.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
We believe that we provide industry-leading healthcare benefits to our employees. We funded approximately 86% of the costs associated with our U.S. employees’ health insurance coverage in 2021.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
As part of our comprehensive benefits offering, we provide employees and their covered spouses/domestic partners with on-site health screenings, individualized health and wellness assessments and personalized wellness coaching. This one-on-one coaching program integrates phone and mail-based communications and is designed to support employees’ physical and mental health by providing individualized tools and coaching resources to help improve or maintain their health status and encourage engagement in healthy behaviors.
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
We are committed to being an inclusive, equitable, and diverse workplace that welcomes all individuals.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
We offer an unbiased opportunity for our colleagues to perform, contribute, and achieve their career aspirations. We embrace and encourage one another’s unique perspective and experience because we believe these characteristics foster a company-wide culture of innovation and creative problem solving contributing to individual and company performance.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
We value teamwork as an ongoing practice that calls for inclusiveness, representation, and participation and that engages various groups and points-of-view. We strive to recruit high performers with a desire to achieve at industry-leading levels and hire people from all backgrounds, experiences, and skillsets. We are committed to providing a work-life balance and continually promote the understanding of and appreciation for performance and diversity in our workplace and community.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Women comprise 30% of the directors nominated to our Board of Directors and serve in key executive leadership roles at the Company, including: President; Senior Vice President, Chief Information Officer; Vice President, Corporate Initiatives; Vice President, Health & Human Resources; and Vice President, Tax. In addition, our non-executive Chairman of the Board identifies as American Indian and is a member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, further evidencing our commitment to board diversity.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
We expect and require fair, equitable, and respectful treatment of and by all our colleagues. Our commitment to diversity and inclusion is also reinforced by the Code of Conduct, which forbids employment discrimination or harassment based on race, color, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions), national origin, religion, age, disability, genetic information, veteran status, sexual orientation, marital status, or any other characteristic protected by applicable law.
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      8

PROXY SUMMARY
INTEGRITY AND LEADERSHIP
Ethics
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Our Company-wide ethics and compliance program is designed to ensure that integrity guides our business every day, and in every decision we make.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Our entire workforce is required to adhere to our ethics policies and procedures, and to comply with all applicable laws and regulations.
Code of Conduct and Related Policies Promoting Ethical Behavior
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Our Code of Conduct and our Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Policy apply to all Company directors, officers, and employees and set forth expectations regarding how we conduct business worldwide.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Training on the Code of Conduct and Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Policy is assigned to all new colleagues upon hire and to existing colleagues regularly.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
We maintain a confidential hotline and website to allow persons to report, without fear of retaliation, any inappropriate acts or omissions relating to our policies and practices. The hotline and website are provided by an independent third-party and are available worldwide and are translated into the local languages at each of our operations.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
All hotline and website reports/inquiries are administrated by the Vice President, Enterprise Risk. To date, the significant majority of these reports and inquiries have related to employee human resources with a lesser number pertaining to safety and financial reports. The Audit Committee is informed of all hotline and website reports as well as any other matters, whether arising through the hotline, website, management, or otherwise, involving accounting, internal control, or auditing matters.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
The Reliance Policy on U.S. Political Activity and Spending Practices requires that all political contributions, payments or other support to U.S. political parties, committees or candidates from corporate funds must be made in accordance with applicable campaign finance laws. Company funds or resources cannot be used for, or be contributed to, political campaigns or practices under any circumstances unless pre-approved by the Company’s General Counsel. However, it is acceptable for Company employees subjectto make lawful personal political contributions as the Company supports its employees’ involvement in the political process and their communities.
9      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

PROXY SUMMARY
INTEGRITY AND LEADERSHIP
Environment and Sustainability
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
We are committed to mitigating the impact that our products and operations may have on the environment.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
We are not a metals producer or mill — we operate metals service centers. As a distributor and “first-stage” processor of metal products, our operations, by their nature, have a limited environmental impact as we do not emit significant amounts of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Our operations process and distribute steel and aluminum, which are inherently sustainable products, as they (i) are some of the most commonly-recycled materials in the United States and (ii) can be 100% recycled without loss of quality.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
In 2021, we reintroduced over 193 thousand tons of recycled scrap material into the manufacturing life cycle.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
As a processor and distributor of metals, and not a producer, we acknowledge and embrace our role in protecting the environment and are currently assessing our impacts. Our strong desire is to identify and prioritize areas of improvement.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
In 2022, the Company has budgeted over $12.0 million for capital expenditures related to the quarterly trading blackout under our insider trading policy.

installation of solar power equipment, LED lighting and energy-efficient equipment.

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
In the last three years, the Company has invested approximately $4.8 million on LED and energy-efficient lighting and the installation of solar power equipment at its facilities.
Greenhouse Gas Reporting DataThe following table sets forth information regarding our greenhouse gas emissions for each of the last three years ended December 31.
Emissions Indicators202120202019
Scope 1 emissions MT CO2e(1)
180,000173,000187,000
Scope 2 emissions MT CO2e(2)
100,00099,000111,000
Total MT CO2e280,000272,000298,000
Greenhouse Gas Intensity by Revenue(3)
19.930.927.2
Greenhouse Gas Intensity by Total Tons
Transacted(4)
22.924.823.5
(1)
Scope 1 emissions (in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent) represent direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from fuel consumed to operate our trucking fleet and facility operations. As a distributor, approximately 75% of our Scope 1 emissions arise from fuel consumption for product delivery. Scope 1 (GHG) emissions are derived from our fleet of approximately 1,720 trucks, 315 locations and 36.4 million square feet of owned and leased facility square footage.

r

No(2) pledging
Scope 2 emissions (in metric tons of sharescarbon dioxide equivalent) represent indirect GHG emissions from purchased electricity. Emissions at each facility vary based on amount of energy purchased and emissions efficiency of grid energy source.
(3)
The greenhouse gas intensity by revenue metric is the sum of our Scope 1 and location-based Scope 2 emissions in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent divided by our revenues (in millions).
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      10

PROXY SUMMARY
INTEGRITY AND LEADERSHIP
(4)
The greenhouse gas intensity by total tons transacted metric is the sum of our Scope 1 and location-based Scope 2 emissions in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent divided by the aggregate of our tons sold and tons toll processed (in thousands of tons).
SERVICE AND PARTNERSHIPS
Community Service
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Reliance is committed to investing in and enriching the communities in which we live and work.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Giving back to those in need and enriching people’s lives is a deep-rooted philosophy embedded in our corporate culture that extends to our employees around the world primarily through our support of non-profit organizations that provide active duty, veterans and transitioning service members and their families with advanced manufacturing training and other support services.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Our dedication to each and every member of our family of companies is the foundation for “Reliance Cares,” our emergency assistance fund dedicated to supporting employees impacted by natural disasters.
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Through employee funded contributions, matched dollar-for-dollar by Reliance, we have been able to provide approximately 1,000 grants to employees (including over 170 grants to support employees and their families responding to COVID-19-related personal impacts) since the inception of Reliance common stock by directors, officers or employees subject to the quarterly trading blackout under our insider trading policy except for grandfathered pledging arrangements by two directors.

Cares in 2017.
11      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

PROXY SUMMARY
BOARD NOMINEES(see page 17)
Committee Memberships

4


Board Nominees (see page 9)  

Name and Occupation

Committee
Memberships

Independent

Audit
Compensation
Nominating
and
Governance
Other Public
Company
Boards

Name

[MISSING IMAGE: ph_lisabaldwin-4c.jpg]

Occupation

Independent

LISA L. BALDWIN
Former Chief Information Officer, Tiffany & Co.

AC

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

CC

NGC

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

Other Public
Company Boards

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

Sarah J. Anderson

[MISSING IMAGE: ph_karencolonias-4c.jpg]

Retired, Partner, Ernst & Young LLP

X

C

X

X

American States Water Company

John G. Figueroa

KAREN W. COLONIAS
President and Chief Executive Officer, Genoa Healthcare

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc.

X

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

C

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

X

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc.

Thomas W. Gimbel

[MISSING IMAGE: ph_frankjdell-4clr.jpg]

Former Trustee, Florence Neilan Trust

X

FRANK J. DELLAQUILA
Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Emerson Electric Co.

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

X

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_member-pn.gif]

David H. Hannah*

[MISSING IMAGE: ph_johnfigueroa-4c.jpg]

JOHN G. FIGUEROA
Chairman and Chief Executive Chairman, Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.

Officer, Carepathrx

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

Boise Cascade Company

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_member-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Apria, Inc.

Douglas M. Hayes

[MISSING IMAGE: ph_jameshhoffman-4c.jpg]

President, Hayes Capital Corporation

X

X

X

Circor International, Inc.

Mark V. Kaminski**

Executive Chairman and Director (and member of the audit and compensation committees) of Graniterock

X

X

X

X

Robert A. McEvoy

Investment Advisor, Brasil Warrant LLC; Retired Managing Director, Goldman Sachs

X

Gregg J. Mollins

President and

JAMES D. HOFFMAN
Chief Executive Officer, Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.

Andrew G. Sharkey, III

[MISSING IMAGE: ph_markkaminski-4c.jpg]

MARK V. KAMINSKI*
Executive Chairman, Graniterock
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: ph_karlarlewis-4clr.jpg]
KARLA R. LEWIS
President, Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
[MISSING IMAGE: ph_robertmcevoy-4c.jpg]
ROBERT A. MCEVOY
Retired Managing Director, Goldman Sachs
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: ph_davidwseeger-4clr.jpg]
DAVID W. SEEGER
Former President of Zekelman Industries (formerly JMC Steel Group)
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: ph_douglasstotlar-4c.jpg]
DOUGLAS W. STOTLAR
Former President and Chief Executive Officer, American Iron and Steel Institute

Con-Way, Inc.

X

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

X

X

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

C

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_member-pn.gif]
AECOM
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.jpg]
Member
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_member-pn.jpg]
Chair
*
Non-executive Chairman of the Board of Directors
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      12

PROXY SUMMARY
VOTING MATTERS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

AC

Audit Committee

Proposal
Board
Recommendation
Page

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS:

CC

Compensation Committee

1

NGC

Nominating and Governance Committee

C

Chair

*

If re-elected, Mr. Hannah will retire from the position of Executive Chairman in July 2016, at which time he will remain a director and the Board will appoint a non-executive Chairman from the independent directors elected at the Annual Meeting.

**

Independent Lead Director

5


Voting Matters and Recommendations

Proposal

Board Recommendation

1. Election of Directors:The Board and the Nominating and Governance Committee believe that the combination of the various qualifications, skills and experiences of the director nominees will contribute to an effective and well-functioning Board and that, individually and as a whole, the director nominees possess the necessary qualifications and diversity to provide effective oversight of and quality advice and counsel to the Company’s management. See page 9.

FOR
the election of all named nominees

ADVISORY VOTE ON THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPENSATION OF OUR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS:

22. Advisory Vote on the Approval of the Compensation of our Named Executive Officers:
We manage our business with the long-term objective of creating and maximizing value for our stockholders. Our pay-for-performance philosophy is aligned with and supports this objective. We are asking our stockholders to approve, on an advisory, non-binding basis, the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in this proxy statement. See page 10.

FOR

RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM:

33. Ratification of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm:
The Audit Committee has selected KPMG LLP to serve as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for Reliance for 2016.2022. KPMG LLP has served in this role since 2008. AtWe are asking our stockholders to ratify this selection at the Annual Meeting, stockholders will beMeeting.
FOR
STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL REGARDING CHANGES TO THE COMPANY’S PROXY ACCESS BYLAW:
4
Stockholders are being asked to ratify and approve this selection. See page 12.

consider a stockholder proposal requesting that the Board amend the Company’s proxy access bylaw to allow an unlimited number of stockholders to aggregate their shares to meet the stockholder ownership threshold.

FOR

AGAINST

6

13      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

Table of ContentsTABLE OF CONTENTS

VOTING INFORMATION

INFORMATION CONCERNING PROXY

We are furnishing this proxy statement to the holders of our common stock in connection with the solicitation of proxies on behalf of our Board of Directors for use at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at the Omni Los Angeles Hotel at California Plaza, 251 South Olive Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.

Meeting.

The Board of Directors selected Karla R. Lewis,Arthur Ajemyan, our Senior Executive Vice President, and Chief Financial Officer, and William A. Smith II, our Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, or their designees, to be named as proxyholders to vote the shares of common stock represented by the proxies at the Annual Meeting. Reliance will pay the cost to solicit the proxies. The Board of Directors will solicit proxies by mail, by telephone, and electronically via the Internet.internet. In addition, certain of our officers and agents may solicit proxies by telephone, email and personal interview (the cost of which will be nominal). We expect that banks, brokerage houses and other custodians, nominees and fiduciaries will forward soliciting material to beneficial owners and obtain authorizations to execute proxies. We will reimburse the reasonable out-of-pocket expenses they incur to forward theour proxy materials.
We have retained D.F. King & Co., Inc. (“D.F. King”) to assist in the distribution and solicitation of proxies. Based on our agreement with D.F. King, we anticipate paying fees of approximately $10,000, plus-out-of-pocket expenses, for these services. Your bank, broker or financial institution is not able to vote on your behalf for the election of directors or on any compensation issue,or incentive award plan matter unless you provide specific instructions by completing and returning a proxy or voting instruction form or by following instructions provided to you by your bank, broker or financial institution to vote your shares which often include instructions on how to vote your shares via telephone or the Internet.internet. Voting your shares is important to ensure that you have a say in the governance of our Company.

We intend only the threefour matters described in this proxy statement to be presented at the Annual Meeting. We willHowever, we may also transact any other business as maythat properly comecomes before the meeting or any adjournments thereof.

Unless you instruct us otherwise on the proxy, each proxy will be voted FOR the election of all of the nominees named herein as directors, FOR the approval of the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers,and FOR the ratification of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2016.2022, and AGAINST

the stockholder proposal requesting that the Company amend its proxy access bylaw.

We intend to make this proxy statement and accompanying material available to each stockholder on the Internetinternet beginning on or about April 8, 2016.2022. An Annual Report,annual report, including a letter to theour stockholders from the President andour Chief Executive Officer, theOfficer; President; and our Senior Executive Vice President, and Chief Financial Officer, and the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, and an Annual Report on Form 10-K, will also will be available electronically. Some stockholders will receive these materials by mail and other stockholders may request copies of these materials at no cost. The Annual Reportannual report and stockholder letter are not incorporated in, and are not a part of, this proxy statement and do not constitute proxy-soliciting material.

If you are a stockholder of record and execute a proxy or submit a proxy via the Internetinternet or telephone, the proxy may be revoked at any time before it is voted:

·

by filing with our Corporate Secretary either an instrument revoking the proxy or a proxy bearing a later date, duly executed in either case; or

·

by voting in person at the meeting. Any written instrument or later dated proxy should be sent or delivered to the Corporate Secretary at the address shown on the first page above and must be received prior to the Annual Meeting.


by filing with our Corporate Secretary either an instrument revoking the proxy or a proxy bearing a later date, duly executed in either case; or

by voting electronically at the virtual meeting.
Any written instrument or later dated proxy should be sent or delivered to the Corporate Secretary at the address shown on the first page of this proxy statement and must be received prior to the Annual Meeting.
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      14

VOTING INFORMATION
In addition, prior to the deadline for Internetinternet or telephone voting, you may change your vote using the Internetinternet or telephone method, in which case only your latest Internetinternet or telephone proxy submitted before the deadline will be counted.

7


If you hold your shares through a broker, bank, financial institution, or other nominee, then you are a beneficial holder, and you may change your vote by complying with the procedures contained in the voting instructions provided to you by your broker, bank, financial institution or other nominee.

Even if you currently plan to participate in the Annual Meeting, the Company recommends that you also submit your proxy as described above so your vote will be counted if you later decide not to participate at the Annual Meeting. If you submit your vote by proxy and later decide to vote electronically at the Annual Meeting, the vote you submit at the Annual Meeting will override your proxy vote.
The presence in person, electronically or by proxy of the holders of a majority of the shares entitled to vote at the meeting shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Broker non-votes and abstentions are counted for purposes of determining whether a quorum is present. A broker non-vote occurs when a nominee holding shares for a beneficial owner (i.e., in “street name”) does not vote on a particular proposal because the nominee does not have discretionary voting power with respect to that item and has not received instructions from the beneficial owner. We believe that nominees only have discretionary voting power with respect to the ballot item onaddressing the ratification of our independent registered public accounting firm described in this proxy statement.firm.
15      

2022 PROXY STATEMENT


INFORMATION CONCERNING OUR SECURITIESCOMMON STOCK

Our only voting securities are shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share. As of the record date of March 31, 2016,25, 2022, we had a total of 72,222,79361,947,585 shares of common stock issued and outstanding, all of which may be voted at the Annual Meeting. Only holders of shares of record on our books at the close of business on the record date will be entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting.

The election of directors at the Annual Meeting will be uncontested. As a result, each

Each nominee for election as a director at the Annual Meeting will only be elected if the votes cast “FOR” such nominee exceed the number of votes cast “AGAINST” such nominee, with abstentions and broker non-votes not counted as either votes “FOR” or “AGAINST” that nominee’s election. As required by the Company’s Bylaws, in the event that an incumbent director fails to receive a majority of votes cast in an uncontested election, such incumbent director is required to submit his or her resignation to the Board of Directors within ten calendar days of the date of the certification of the election results. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in theour Bylaws, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will make a recommendation to the Board of Directors within ten calendar days as to whether to accept or reject the resignation, or whether other action should be taken. The Board of Directors will then act on the resignation, taking into account the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s recommendation, and the Company will publicly disclose such decision by the Board of Directors with respect to the director nominee. TheEach of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, in making its recommendation, and the Board of Directors, in making its decision, each may consider any factors and other information that they consider appropriate and relevant. A director who tenders his or her resignation is not permitted to participate in the recommendation of the committeeNominating and Governance Committee or the decision of the Board of Directors with respect to his or her resignation.

The affirmative vote of a majority of votes present in person, electronically or by proxy and entitled to vote on the matter is required toto: (i) approve, on a non-binding advisory basis, the compensation of the named executive officers, andofficers; (ii) ratify the engagement of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2016.2022; and (iii) approve the stockholder proposal to amend our proxy access bylaw. Accordingly, abstentions will count as votes “AGAINST” such proposals.
Broker non-votes will have no effect on such proposals.

8

Proposal Numbers 1, 2 and 4. Because the ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP (Proposal No. 3) is considered a “routine” proposal, a broker holding shares as the nominee for a beneficial owner may vote for the proposal without voting instructions and, accordingly, we do not expect there to be any broker non-votes on Proposal No. 3.
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      16

PROPOSAL NO. 1 - ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.jpg]
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS THAT STOCKHOLDERS VOTE “FOR” THE ELECTION OF EACH NOMINEE AS A DIRECTOR.
The term of office for each director elected at the Annual Meeting will be one year, until the next Annual Meeting of Stockholders and until his or her successor is duly elected and qualified.

It is proposedBoard proposes that nineten directors, seveneight of whom are independent, directors, be elected to hold office until the next annual meeting2023 Annual Meeting of stockholdersStockholders and until their successors have been elected and qualified, subject to their earlier death, resignation or removal. Mr. Hoffman and Mrs. Lewis are not considered independent directors because Mr. Hoffman is our Chief Executive Officer and Mrs. Lewis is our President.

The Board possesses a broad range of qualifications and skills that facilitate strong oversight of the Company’s management and strategy. The following matrix identifies the primary skills that the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee has recommended toand the Board considered in connection with the re-nomination of the current directors.* For additional information regarding each nominee, see “Board of Directors and the Board of Directors has approved, and recommends to the stockholders, the individuals named below:

Management” beginning on page 25.

Sarah

Lisa L.
Baldwin
Karen W.
Colonias
Frank J. Anderson


Dellaquila

John G.
Figueroa
James D.
Hoffman
Mark V.
Kaminski

Karla R.
Lewis
Robert A.
McEvoy
David W.
Seeger
Douglas W.
Stotlar

John G. Figueroa

Senior leadership experience

Robert A. McEvoy

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

Thomas W. Gimbel

Accounting/financial experience

Gregg J. Mollins

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

David H. Hannah

Other public company board experience

Andrew G. Sharkey, III

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

Douglas M. Hayes

Operational management

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Capital markets/banking
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Mergers and Acquisitions
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Information Technology/​Cybersecurity
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Industry Experience
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Military Veteran
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

*
The absence of a mark does not necessarily indicate that the director does not possess that qualification or skill.
A majority of the votes cast is required for the election of directors in an uncontested election (which is the case for the election of directorseach director at the 20162022 Annual Meeting). YourMeeting. Neither Reliance nor your bank, broker or financial institution is not able to vote on your behalf for the election of directors unless you provide specific instructions by completing and returning a proxy or voting instruction form or you follow instructions provided to you by your bank, broker or financial institution, which often include instructions on how to vote your shares via telephone or the Internet.

internet.

Our Board of Directors currently has tentwelve members. Leslie A. WaiteTwo directors, Sarah J. Anderson and Andrew G. Sharkey, III, will retire from the Board of Directors effective at the 20162022 Annual Meeting, at which time the size of the Board will be reduced to nineten members. We expect each nominee for election as a director will serve if elected. If any nominee is not able to serve, proxies may be voted by the proxyholders for substitute nominees, unless the Board of Directors chooses to reduce the number of directors serving on the Board of Directors.

If re-elected, Mr. Hannah will retire from the position of Executive Chairman in July 2016, at which time he will remain a director and the Board will appoint a non-executive Chairman from the independent directors elected at the Annual Meeting.

Certain information with respect to each nominee is set forth in “Management” below. See page 14.  

The Board“Board of Directors recommends that stockholders vote FOR the election of each nominee as a director. Unless otherwise indicatedand Management” beginning on your proxy, the proxyholders will vote your proxy FOR the election of all named nominees.

9

page 25.
17      2022 PROXY STATEMENT


PROPOSAL NO. 2 - ADVISORY VOTE ON THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPENSATION OF OUR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

In accordance with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, we

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.jpg]
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” THE COMPENSATION OF THE COMPANY’S NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS.
We are asking our stockholders to approve, on an advisory, non-binding basis, the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in this proxy statement. OurIt is Reliance’s current policy is to provide our stockholders with an opportunity to approve the compensation of our named executive officers each year at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders. It is expectedMeeting. Accordingly, we anticipate that the next advisory, non-bindingsuch vote to approve executive compensation will be heldoccur at the 20172023 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

In voting on this proposal, the Board of Directors encourages you to consider the detailed discussion of compensation matters in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section, or CD&A, beginning on page 20. As discussed in detail in the CD&A, the Company’s executive compensation program is a pay-for-performance program designed to align the interests of our executive officers with the interests of our stockholders by tying a majority of our executives’ incentive compensation directly to Company performance. Approximately 75% of our CEO’s target level total direct compensation and 60%, on average, of our other named executive officers’ target level total direct compensation in 2015, was subject to performance targets.

Our performance-based compensation in 2015 consisted of our annual cash incentive awards and performance-based equity awards:

·

Annual cash awards in 2015 could only be earned if actual return on beginning stockholders’ equity (ROBE) exceeded pre-established targets based on long-term objectives.

38.

·

All of our performance-based equity awards issued in 2015 vest after a three-year period only if the Company achieves certain levels of return on assets and cumulative levels of operating income growth.

We believe that our executive compensation program has been integral to our success, as described in more detail in the CD&A.

While we strive for and believe that we have achieved outstanding performance within our industry over the long-term, the executive compensation program targets total direct compensation to approximate the market median for the peer group we use in making compensation decisions, which consists of other companies in our industry and other industrial companies outside of our industry of comparable size, market capitalization and complexity.

None of the Company’s officers, including the named executive officers, has an employment agreement, severance agreement, change in control/golden parachute agreement or similar agreement and therefore compensation and benefits are determined annually. The Company’s compensation policy provides for NO guaranteed minimum bonuses or salary increases; NO tax gross ups for perquisites, change in control excise taxes or otherwise; NO repricing or replacement of stock options; and includes a clawback policy for cash and equity compensation. See “Key Executive Compensation Practices - What We Do” and “What We Don’t Do” on page 25 for a list of our key executive compensation practices.

The Board of Directors recommends that stockholders vote FORthe following resolution:

“RESOLVED, that the stockholders of Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation paid to Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.’s named executive officers, as disclosed in the 20162022 Proxy Statement pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s compensation disclosure rules, including the CD&A, the Summary Compensation Table and other compensation tables and the accompanying footnotes and narratives and any related material.”

10


Because your vote is advisory, it will not be binding upon the Board. However, the Board values our stockholders’ opinions and the Compensation Committee will take into account the outcome of the vote when considering future executive compensation decisions. The affirmative vote of a majority of votes present in person electronically or by proxy and entitled to vote is required to approve this proposal. Your

Neither Reliance nor your bank, broker or financial institution is not able to vote on your behalf to support the Company’s executive compensation unless you provide specific instructions by completing and returning a proxy or voting instruction form or you follow instructions provided to you by your bank, broker or financial institution, which often include instructions on how to vote your shares via telephone or the Internet.

The Board of Directors recommends a vote FOR the advisory vote on compensation of the Company’s named executive officers. Unless otherwise indicated on your proxy, the proxyholders will vote your proxy FOR the above resolution approving the compensation of our named executive officers.

11

internet.
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      18

PROPOSAL NO. 3  RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED

PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Audit Committee selected, and the Board of Directors ratified the selection of,

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.jpg]
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS THAT STOCKHOLDERS VOTE “FOR” THE RATIFICATION OF THE SELECTION OF KPMG LLP AS OUR INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR 2022.
KPMG LLP, to serve as the Company’sour independent registered public accounting firm, for 2016. We incurredbilled us the fees set forth in the table below for services provided in the last two years by our independent registered public accounting firm. years.
Audit Fees
2021$3,910,000
2020$3,730,000
Audit-related Fees
2021$91,000
2020$144,000
Tax Fees
2021$19,000
2020$17,000
All Other Fees
2021$
2020$
Audit fees arerelate to services rendered in connection with the aggregate fees for services of the independent registered public accounting firm for auditsaudit of our annual financial statements and the independent registered public accounting firm’s audit of our internal control over financial reporting, including testing and compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, andquarterly review of our quarterly financial statements, included in our Forms 10-Q, andaudit services that are normally provided by the independent registered public accounting firm in connection with statutory and regulatory filings, including consents and comfort letters, and discussions surrounding the proper application of financial accounting and/or engagements for those years, such as any filings related to acquisitions or our publicly traded debt securities. This category also includes advice on accounting matters that arose during, or as a result of, the audit or review of interim financial statements and statutory audits required by non-U.S. jurisdictions. reporting standards.
Audit-related fees are those fees for services provided by the independent registered public accounting firm that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of our financial statements and not included as audit fees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Audit Fees

 

 

 

 

2015

    

 

    

$

3,550,000

 

2014

 

 

 

$

3,210,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Audit-Related Fees

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2015

 

 

 

$

12,000

 

2014

 

 

 

$

5,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tax Fees (1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2015

 

 

 

$

39,000

 

2014

 

 

 

$

44,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All Other Fees

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2015

 

 

 

$

-

 

2014

 

 

 

$

-

 

Tax fees are fees and expenses for professional services rendered by KPMG LLP in connection with U.S. and foreign tax compliance and planning, and consultation and advice on tax examinations.

(1)

Fees and expenses for professional services rendered by KPMG LLP in connection with U.S. and foreign tax compliance and planning, and consultation and advice on tax examinations.

The Audit Committee approved all of these services in advance. The Audit Committee has adopted a Pre-Approval Policypre-approval policy that requires that the Audit Committee approve in advance the services to be provided, the terms of the engagement letter, and all associated fees set forth in such letter for the independent registered public accounting firm. In addition, the Audit Committee will review proposed audit, audit-related, tax and other services that management desires the independent registered public accounting firm to perform to ensure that such services and the proposed fees related to the services will not impair the independent registered public accounting firm’s independence and that such services and fees are consistent with the rules established by the Securities and Exchange Commission.SEC. Each quarter, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company reports to the Audit Committee whatwhich services, have beenif any, were performed and whatthe amount of any fees that were incurred. The Audit Committee has delegated to the Chair of the Audit CommitteeChief Financial Officer the authority to add to, amend or modify the list of services to be provided or the amount of fees to be paid; provided that the ChairChief Financial Officer will report any action taken to the Audit

12


Committee at its next scheduled meeting and provided further that the fees involved are reasonably expected to be less than $100,000.

19      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

PROPOSAL NO. 3 — RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
The Audit Committee selected KPMG LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accountantaccounting firm for 2016.2022. KPMG LLP has served as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm since 2008. The Board of Directors ratified this selection.
The Board of Directors believes there are significant benefits to having an independent registered public accounting firm with extensive history with the Company. These benefits include:

the high quality of their audit work and accounting advice, as a result of their institutional knowledge of our businesses, global operations, key risks, accounting policies, financial systems and internal control framework;

audit efficiency and effectiveness, resulting in a lower fee structure due to history and familiarity with our businesses; and

time and expense avoided by management and staff in onboarding a new independent registered public accounting firm.
At the Annual Meeting, stockholders will be asked to ratify and approve this selection. We are not required to have the stockholders ratify the selection of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm. Nevertheless, we are presenting the selection of KPMG LLP to our stockholders because we believe it is a good corporate practice. If the stockholders do not ratify the selection, the Audit Committee will reconsider whether or not to retain KPMG LLP, but may still retain the firm. Even if the selection is ratified, the Audit Committee, in its discretion, may change the appointment at any time during the year if it determines that such a change would be in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders.

A representative of KPMG LLP willis expected to be present at the Annual Meeting, will have an opportunity to make a statement if he or she desires to do so, and will be available to respond to appropriate questions. The affirmative vote of a majority of votesshares present in person electronically or by proxy and entitled to vote is required to ratify the selection of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2016.2022. Because the ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP is considered a “routine” proposal, a bank, broker or financial institution holding shares as the nominee for a beneficial owner may vote for the proposal without voting instructions and, accordingly, we do not expect there to be any broker non-votes on this proposal.

RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      20

PROPOSAL NO. 4 — STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL REQUESTING PROXY ACCESS BYLAW AMENDMENT
[MISSING IMAGE: tm223369d1-icon_crosspn.jpg]
THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS THAT STOCKHOLDERS VOTE “AGAINST” PROPOSAL NO. 4. PROXIES SOLICITED BY THE BOARD WILL BE SO VOTED UNLESS STOCKHOLDERS SPECIFY A CONTRARY CHOICE IN THEIR VOTING INSTRUCTIONS.
In accordance with SEC rules, we have set forth below a stockholder proposal, along with the supporting statement of the stockholder proponent. The stockholder proposal and the supporting statement are included exactly as submitted to us by the stockholder proponent. The proposal may contain assertions about the Company or other matters that the Company believes are incorrect, but the Company has not attempted to refute all of those assertions. The Company disclaims responsibility for the accuracy and content of the stockholder proponent’s proposal and supporting statement. The stockholder proposal is required to be voted on at the Annual Meeting only if properly presented. The name and address of the stockholder proponent is set forth below. As explained below, the Board of Directors unanimously recommends a vote “AGAINST” the stockholder proposal.
We have been advised that stockholders vote FORMr. John Chevedden, 2215 Nelson Avenue, No. 205, Redondo Beach, California 90278, who has represented to us that he has held for at least three years prior to the ratificationdate of submission of his proposal 50 shares of our common stock, intends to submit the selection of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2016. Unless otherwise indicated on your proxy,following proposal at the proxyholders will vote FOR the ratification of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2016.2022 Annual Meeting:
Proposal No. 4-Improve Our Catch-22 Proxy Access
[MISSING IMAGE: tm223369d1-fc_share4clr.jpg]
Shareholders request that our board of directors take the necessary steps to enable as many shareholders as may be needed to combine their shares to equal 3% of our stock owned continuously for 3-years in order to enable shareholder proxy access.
It is time to realize that the current arbitrary limit of 20 shareholders to initiate shareholder proxy access is not workable. This is the 8th year that more than 500 companies have had a shareholder right to proxy access. There has not been one serious attempt of shareholder proxy access at any of 500 companies.
A reasonable ability to elect a new director by using proxy access can prompt better director performance even if the ability to elect a new director is not used. For example, proxy access could be used to replace the director who received the most negative votes at the annual meeting. For Reliance Steel this was Douglas Stotlar who received up to 14-times the negative votes as other RS directors.
The current arbitrary limit of 20 shareholders to initiate shareholder proxy access can be called Catch-22 Proxy Access. In order to assemble 20 shareholders, who have owned 3% of company stock for an unbroken 3-years, one would reasonably need to start with 60 shareholders who own 9% of company stock for an unbroken 3-years because initiating proxy access is easily susceptible to errors.
21      

2022 PROXY STATEMENT

PROPOSAL NO. 4 — STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL REQUESTING PROXY ACCESS BYLAW AMENDMENT

The 60 shareholders could then be whittled down to 40 shareholders because some shareholders would be unable to timely meet all the paper chase requirements. After the 40 shareholders submit their paperwork—then management might somewhat arbitrarily claim that 10 shareholders do not meet the requirements and management might convince another 10 shareholders to drop out—leaving 20 shareholders.
But the current bylaws do not allow 40 shareholders to submit their paperwork to end up with 20 qualified shareholders.
But how does one begin to assemble a group of 60 potential participants if potential participants cannot even be assured of participant status after following the tedious rules that are 3500-words of legalese with the directors having the last word on interpreting the 3500-words. A single shareholder always takes the risk that one will be the 21st shareholder that could be excluded by the arbitrary limit of 20 shareholders.
It is important to remember that the largest shareholders can be the least likely shareholders to take on the administrative burden of initiating shareholder proxy access. Management has not claimed that any of our largest shareholders have ever submitted a rule 14a-8 shareholder proposal which is less work than initiating shareholder proxy access.
Please vote yes:
Improve Our Catch-22 Proxy Access—Proposal 4
[MISSING IMAGE: tm223369d1-icon_crosspn.gif]   Statement in Opposition to Proposal No. 4
Your Board has carefully considered this proposal seeking to modify our proxy access bylaw provisions and believes it would not enhance stockholder value and is not in the best interests of the Company and all of its stockholders.
Reliance has received proposals to modify its existing proxy access bylaw from this same proponent twice in the last five years and, in both cases, the proposal failed to receive majority support. As in previous years, we continue to believe that the elimination of the group aggregation limit in our proxy access bylaw advocated by the proponent is not necessary because Reliance stockholders already have an effective and market-standard mechanism for proxy access. If approved, this proposal could have negative unintended consequences, including increasing the risk of abuse by small special interest groups, putting both the Company and stockholder value at risk.
Our existing proxy access bylaw permits a stockholder, or a group of up to 20 stockholders, owning at least 3% of the Company’s outstanding common stock continuously for at least three years to nominate and require the Company to include in its proxy materials director nominees constituting up to the greater of two individuals or 25% of the Board, provided that the nominating stockholders and the nominees satisfy certain specified requirements.
The Company’s decision to adopt a proxy access bylaw in February 2016 was informed by numerous discussions with corporate governance experts. The Company carefully considered whether to adopt proxy access and, if so, the terms on which to do so, given the Company’s mix of stockholder rights and corporate governance practices. After considering the feedback and advice received and after carefully reviewing market terms for proxy access bylaws, the Board adopted a proxy access bylaw that it believed was fair and reasonable and appropriately tailored to the Company and its stockholder base.
The proposal requests removal of the reasonable limitation on the number of stockholders that can aggregate their stock to meet the 3% ownership threshold; rather, the proposal would place no limit on the size of the nominating group. As a protection for our stockholders against outside interests, our market-standard proxy access bylaw requires stockholders in the nominating group to prove their purported stock ownership when submitting a proxy access director nominee. We

RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      22


PROPOSAL NO. 4 — STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL REQUESTING PROXY ACCESS BYLAW AMENDMENT

believe the 20-stockholder aggregation limit included in the Company’s proxy access bylaw is a reasonable limitation to control the administrative burden on the Company to confirm and monitor share ownership within any group seeking proxy access. Without any aggregation limit, the Company could potentially be required to review and verify the information and representations of hundreds of stockholders to establish a group’s eligibility and make burdensome and time-consuming inquiries into the nature and duration of the share ownership.
Furthermore, the existing aggregation limitation strengthens the proxy access right for all stockholders by ensuring that the proxy access mechanism is available to stockholders that have a sufficient financial stake in the Company with interests that are properly aligned with stockholders as a whole. Without a reasonable limitation on the number of stockholders in a group participating in a proxy access nomination, proxy access could be abused by a group including stockholders that do not have a substantial economic stake in the Company or who may have special or short-term interests not shared by all stockholders. Based on data from regulatory filings by certain of our institutional investors, four of the Company’s stockholders each have owned at least 3% of the Company for at least three years, and 12 of the current top 20 largest stockholders have held more than 1% for at least three years. Accordingly, a significant number of the Company’s existing stockholders could, on their own or in combination with one or only a few fellow stockholders, currently meet the existing 3% ownership criteria. There are ample opportunities for groups of far fewer than 20 stockholders to aggregate their shares to reach the 3% ownership requirement, and any stockholder, no matter how small, is eligible to join a group meeting the 3% ownership requirement. As a result, we believe that the existing proxy access bylaw provides Reliance’s stockholders a meaningful, practical, balanced and actionable proxy access right.
In connection with our 2020 and 2018 annual meetings, this proponent submitted, and we included in our proxy materials for each annual meeting, a similar proposal, which requested that we amend our proxy access bylaw to remove the limitation on the number of stockholders that can aggregate their stock to meet the 3% ownership threshold. Each time the proposal received the approval of fewer than 30% of the votes cast, signaling that a significant majority of our stockholders believe that the current 20-stockholder aggregation limit provides a fair and reasonable proxy access opportunity for all stockholders with a vested long-term interest in the Company, while minimizing undue administrative burden, complexity, and expense. In addition, the terms of our proxy access provision has not been raised as a topic of discussion by any of our stockholders during our extensive annual engagements with key stockholders.
Overall, our proxy access bylaws are well within the mainstream of public company practices and share similar features with the proxy access bylaws of many other companies.
The unnecessary changes requested by this proposal should be viewed in light of the full array of stockholder-focused governance practices the Company has adopted. These practices include:
Maintain open lines of communication with stockholders.
Annual election of all directors and director majority voting policy.
Separation of Chairman and CEO.
All standing Board committees consist solely of independent directors.
Special meetings may be called by stockholders holding shares entitled to cast no less than 10% in voting power of our outstanding stock.
Stockholders’ ability to act by written consent.
No super-majority voting requirements to approve mergers or other business combinations.
No stockholder rights plan or poison pill.
Retirement policy for Directors that promotes Board refreshment.

23      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

PROPOSAL NO. 4 — STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL REQUESTING PROXY ACCESS BYLAW AMENDMENT
Given the Company’s commitment to strong governance practices, which includes the adoption of a proxy access bylaw that is broadly consistent with current market practice, and the potential administrative burden and costs that the Company could incur should it adopt the proponent’s suggested modification, the Board does not believe that changing the Company’s existing proxy access bylaw is necessary or advisable at this time.
The Company intends to continue monitoring developments regarding proxy access rights as part of its consideration of broader governance issues, and remains committed to fostering an open and honest dialogue with its stockholders regarding its corporate governance policies and practices.
For all of the reasons above, the Board recommends a vote “AGAINST” Proposal No. 4.
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      24

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT

Directors and Executive Officers

DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
The following table sets forth certain information regarding our directors and executive officers:

Name

Age

Age

Position with Reliance

David H. Hannah

James D. Hoffman

64

63

Executive Chairman of the Board; Director

Gregg J. Mollins 

61

President; Chief Executive Officer; Director

Karla R. Lewis

50

56

President; Director
Arthur Ajemyan46Senior Executive Vice President;President, Chief Financial Officer

James D. Hoffman

Jeffrey W. Durham

57

59

Executive Vice President; Chief Operating Officer

William K. Sales, Jr.

59

Executive Vice President, Operations

Stephen P. Koch

49

Senior Vice President, Operations

MichaelStephen P. Shanley

Koch

58

55

Senior Vice President, Operations

Sean M. Mollins

43Senior Vice President, Operations
Michael P. Shanley64Senior Vice President, Operations
William A. Smith II

48

54

Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary

Suzanne M. Bonner

47Senior Vice President, Chief Information Officer
Sarah J. Anderson(1) (2) (3)

65

71

Director

Lisa L. Baldwin

53Director
Karen W. Colonias64Director
Frank J. Dellaquila65Director
John G. Figueroa(2) (3)

53

59

Director

Thomas W. Gimbel (3)

64

Director

Douglas M. Hayes (1) (2)

72

Director

Mark V. Kaminski(1) (2) (3) (4)

60

66

Director,

non-executive Chairman of the Board

Robert A. McEvoy

49

55

Director

David W. Seeger

65Director
Andrew G. Sharkey, III(1) (2) (3)

69

75

Director

Leslie A. Waite (1) (2) (5)

Douglas W. Stotlar

70

61

Director

(1)
Ms. Anderson and Mr. Sharkey are each retiring from the Board and not standing for re-election at the 2022 Annual Meeting. Accordingly, their biographies are not presented below.
25      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT
DIRECTORS
Lisa L. Baldwin
[MISSING IMAGE: ph_lisabaldwin-4c.jpg]
Director Since: 2019
Age: 53
Independent
Current Committee Memberships:

Audit

Compensation
Recent Business Experience:
Lisa L. Baldwin was appointed a director of Reliance in October 2019. From 2013 until 2021, she served as the Chief Information Officer of Tiffany & Co. (“Tiffany”), after having served as Vice President Strategic Services from 2011 to 2013. Prior to joining Tiffany, Ms. Baldwin served as Vice President Information Services at Coach Inc. (“Coach”) from 2008 to 2011. Prior to joining Coach, Ms. Baldwin worked at International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) from 1997 to 2008 as an information technology consultant in IBM’s retail practice. Earlier in her career, Ms. Baldwin worked at PricewaterhouseCoopers as a consultant.
Key Qualifications:
The Board believes that Ms. Baldwin’s leadership experience at Tiffany and other firms provides valuable insights on mitigating cybersecurity risk, incorporating technology into our ongoing operations and utilizing technology-based solutions to streamline our business. Based on her information technology and management experience, she provides valuable insight on risk management, cybersecurity and internal controls.
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      26

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT

(1)

Karen W. Colonias

Member

[MISSING IMAGE: ph_karencolonias-4c.jpg]
Director Since: 2016
Age: 64
Independent
Current Committee Memberships:

Audit

Compensation
Other Public Board Service:
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc.
Recent Business Experience:
Karen W. Colonias was appointed a director of Reliance in October 2016. Ms. Colonias has been the President and Chief Executive Officer of Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. (NYSE: SSD) (“SSD”), a manufacturer of building materials, since January 2012. Ms. Colonias has also served on SSD’s board of directors since 2013. From May 2009 to January 2012, Ms. Colonias served as SSD’s Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary. Prior to that, Ms. Colonias was Vice President of SSD’s global structural product solutions subsidiary, Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. and, in that capacity, managed Simpson Strong-Tie’s manufacturing facility in Stockton, California from 2004 to 2009. From 1998 to 2009, as SSD’s Vice President of Engineering, Ms. Colonias was responsible for Simpson Strong-Tie’s research and development efforts. Ms. Colonias joined Simpson Strong-Tie in 1984 as an engineer in the research and development department, where she was responsible for the design and testing of new products and code development.
Key Qualifications:
Ms. Colonias is experienced in strategic planning, mergers and acquisitions, facility and plant operations, international business and global finance. Based on her executive experience, including as the Chief Executive Officer of SSD, Ms. Colonias provides valuable insight on the management of the Audit Committee.

Company and its operations.

(2)

Member of the Compensation Committee.

27      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT

(3)

Frank J. Dellaquila

Member

[MISSING IMAGE: ph_frankjdell-4clr.jpg]
Director Since: 2021
Age: 65
Independent
Current Committee Memberships:

Audit (Chair)
Recent Past Public Board Service:
Aptiv PLC
Recent Business Experience:
Frank J. Dellaquila was appointed a director of Reliance in October 2021 and is the Chair of our Audit Committee. Mr. Dellaquila is the Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Emerson Electric Co. (NYSE:EMR) (“Emerson”), a global technology, engineering and industrial software company providing solutions across a broad range of industries and markets. He joined Emerson in 1991 and previously held several senior financial executive positions with Emerson including, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer of a $3.6 million business unit, and Senior Vice President of Acquisitions and Development before being named Chief Financial Officer in 2009. Mr. Dellaquila was a director of Aptiv PLC (NYSE:APTV) ("APTV") from 2017 to 2020. During such time, Mr. Dellaquila also served on APTV's finance and audit committees. Mr. Dellaquila was identified as a director candidate by a third-party search firm and was then recommended to the Board by the Nominating and Governance Committee.

Mr. Dellaquila earned a Bachelor of Science degree in accounting from Fordham University and a Masters of Business Administration in finance from Columbia University.
Key Qualifications:
Mr. Dellaquila has significant expertise in international finance and tax strategy and financial management from his experience as Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Emerson. He also possesses extensive experience in financial controls, risk management, and mergers and acquisitions. These experiences will be valuable to Reliance and its stockholders in both the near-term and in the years to come.
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      28

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT

(4)

John G. Figueroa

[MISSING IMAGE: ph_johnfigueroa-4c.jpg]
Director Since: 2010
Age: 59
Independent
Current Committee Memberships:

Compensation (Chair)

Nominating and Governance
Other Public Board Service:
Apria, Inc.
Recent Business Experience:
John G. Figueroa was appointed a director of Reliance in October 2010. Mr. Figueroa is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Carepathrx, a company providing innovative pharmacy solutions to Hospital Health Systems centered on end-to-end service for all pharmacy needs including specialty, infusion, and continuous home solutions for all prescriptions. From July 2014 to September 2018, Mr. Figueroa was the Chief Executive Officer of Genoa Healthcare, LLC the leading behavioral health specialty pharmacy in the United States. Mr. Figueroa has served as Chairman of the board of directors of Apria, Inc. (Nasdaq: APR) (“Apria”), one of the nation’s leading providers of integrated home medical equipment, since November 2012 and also served as the company’s Chief Executive Officer from November 2012 until January 2014. Mr. Figueroa also serves on Apria’s compensation committee. From January 2011 until June 2012, Mr. Figueroa served as a director and the Chief Executive Officer of Omnicare, Inc., which was a public company during that time and a leading provider of pharmaceuticals to seniors. From 2006 to December 2010, Mr. Figueroa served as President of the U.S. Pharmaceutical Group of McKesson Corporation, the largest pharmaceuticals distributor in North America. Mr. Figueroa served in other senior management positions with McKesson Corporation from 1997 to 2006. Mr. Figueroa has served as an officer in the United States Army.
Key Qualifications:
Mr. Figueroa has developed an expertise in distribution and supply chain management and operations. In August 2010, when he was President of the U.S. Pharmaceutical Group of McKesson, Mr. Figueroa was named the Supply Chain Executive of the Decade by the Global Supply Chain Leaders Group for making significant contributions to the advancement of supply chain management and maintaining sustainable, responsible business practices in global operations. Mr. Figueroa’s expertise allows him to assist management in increasing efficiency in and marketing for our distribution operations. Mr. Figueroa’s experience in the healthcare industry and mergers and acquisitions provides a different perspective and increased diversity on the Board of Directors.
29      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT
James D. Hoffman
[MISSING IMAGE: ph_jameshhoffman-4c.jpg]
Director Since: 2019
Age: 63
Recent Business Experience:
James D. Hoffman was appointed a director of Reliance in October 2019 and became Chief Executive Officer in January 2019. Mr. Hoffman also served as our President from January 2019 until January 2021, when Mrs. Lewis was appointed President. From March 2016 until his promotion to Chief Executive Officer in January 2019, Mr. Hoffman served as our Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. Mr. Hoffman served as the Company’s Executive Vice President, Operations from May 2015 to March 2016, and as Senior Vice President, Operations from 2008 to May 2015. Mr. Hoffman served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of our subsidiary, Earle M. Jorgensen Company (“EMJ”), from April 2006 to September 2008. Mr. Hoffman was appointed Executive Vice President of EMJ in 2006, having been a Vice President of EMJ since 1996. Mr. Hoffman is a member of the board of directors of the Metals Service Center Institute (“MSCI”).
Key Qualifications:
Mr. Hoffman has spent his entire career in the metals service center industry and has been exposed to every operational area of the business. As our Chief Executive Officer, he offers in-depth industry expertise and has developed extensive contacts in the metals service center industry and with mills and other suppliers. As our Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Hoffman analyzes the Company’s organic growth initiatives and evaluates potential acquisitions and opportunities to expand our business and has the skills and experience with the day-to-day operations of the Company necessary to guide its strategy. Mr. Hoffman is actively involved in the integration of new acquisitions into the Company’s culture.
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      30

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT
Mark V. Kaminski
[MISSING IMAGE: ph_markkaminski-4c.jpg]
Director Since: 2004
Age: 66
Independent
Non-executive Chairman
Current Committee Memberships:

Audit
Recent Business Experience:
Mark V. Kaminski was first appointed a director of Reliance in November 2004. Mr. Kaminski was elected our non-executive Chairman of the Board in July 2016, after having served as our Lead Director for non-managementsince January 2015. Mr. Kaminski serves as a director, executive chairman and independenta member of the audit, nominating and governance, and compensation committees of Graniterock, a privately-held company that provides products and services to the construction industry, and during 2012 served as Chief Executive Officer of Graniterock. Mr. Kaminski was President and Chief Executive Officer and a director meetings.

of Commonwealth Industries Inc. a then publicly-traded company (now Novelis, Inc.), and manufacturer of aluminum products, from 1991 until his retirement in June 2004. Mr. Kaminski had served in other capacities with Commonwealth Industries Inc. since 1987. Mr. Kaminski also served as a member of our Compensation Committee and our Nominating and Governance Committee until 2019. Mr. Kaminski is an American Indian, descendant and citizen of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation.
Key Qualifications:
Based on his experience as executive chairman of Graniterock and as President and Chief Executive Officer of Commonwealth Industries Inc., where he grew sales from $240 million to $2.5 billion, Mr. Kaminski offers valuable insight in the management of the Company and its growth. During his over 40-year career in the metals and mining industry and as the former chief executive officer of an aluminum producer, he has developed strong contacts with aluminum suppliers and peer companies that are aluminum distributors. Because of his manufacturing background, Mr. Kaminski is also able to provide guidance on improving and maintaining the Company’s excellent operational efficiency and safety performance.
31      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT

(5)

Karla R. Lewis

[MISSING IMAGE: ph_karlarlewis-4clr.jpg]
Director Since: 2021
Age: 56
Other Public Board Service:
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Recent Business Experience:
Karla R. Lewis was appointed a director and President of Reliance in January 2021. From March 2015 until her promotion to President, Mrs. Lewis served as our Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Mrs. Lewis joined Reliance in 1992 as Corporate Controller and has held various positions of increasing responsibility since then, including serving as Chief Financial Officer from 1999 until January 2021. She was promoted to Senior Vice President in 2000, Executive Vice President in 2002 and Senior Executive Vice President in 2015. Prior to joining Reliance, Mrs. Lewis, a certified public accountant (inactive), was employed by Ernst & Young LLP (Ernst & Whinney) in various professional staff positions. Mrs. Lewis serves as a member of the board of directors of the MSCI. Mrs. Lewis is also a member of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Nasdaq: GT) (“Goodyear“) board of directors.
Key Qualifications:
As the President and former Chief Financial Officer of the Company, Mrs. Lewis has long-time relationships with the Company’s investors and an in-depth knowledge of the Company’s operations, financial position and its strategic vision. Mrs. Lewis has been a long-time member of the board of directors of the MSCI and is well respected within the metals service center industry, by investors and by financial institutions and credit rating agencies. She has proven her ability to raise debt and equity capital for the Company. Mrs. Lewis is active in overseeing the Company’s acquisition strategy and has been involved with over 70 acquisitions since our initial public offering in September 1994.
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      32

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT
Robert A. McEvoy
[MISSING IMAGE: ph_robertmcevoy-4c.jpg]
Director Since: 2015
Age: 55
Independent
Current Committee Memberships:

Compensation

Nominating and Governance
Recent Business Experience:
Robert A. McEvoy was appointed to the Board of Directors in October 2015. Mr. Waite is retiringMcEvoy has a wealth of knowledge of the metals industry, mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance, and equity portfolio management. Mr. McEvoy retired from The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., a multinational investment bank and financial services company, in April 2014 after nine years with the firm. As a managing director at Goldman Sachs, Mr. McEvoy was a portfolio manager focused on the materials and industrials sectors. From 1989 to 2001, Mr. McEvoy held various positions with the investment banking firms of Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette and Credit Suisse First Boston.
Key Qualifications:
Mr. McEvoy’s investment banking and equity investment background, including his particular focus on the metals and mining industry and prior investment banking and analyst experience covering Reliance, enables him to assist the Board and the Company with the benefit of his knowledge of our Company, our industry and competitors, capital markets and financing strategies. Mr. McEvoy’s experience as an investor provides the Board and management perspective on the landscape in which Reliance competes for capital. Mr. McEvoy’s investment banking experience offers insight and experience in evaluating capital market activities and merger and acquisition opportunities. Mr. McEvoy’s historical knowledge of Reliance and the global metals industry as a former analyst covering Reliance and other metals companies affords him a unique perspective and understanding of our business.
33      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT
David W. Seeger
[MISSING IMAGE: ph_davidwseeger-4clr.jpg]
Director Since: 2021
Age: 65
Independent
Current Committee Memberships:

Compensation

Nominating and Governance
Recent Business Experience:
David W. Seeger was appointed a director of Reliance in July 2021. Mr. Seeger served on the board of directors of Zekelman Industries (formerly JMC Steel Group) from 2014 to 2021 and as President from 2010 to 2016. Mr. Seeger has held numerous leadership positions in the metals industry throughout his career, including President of Atlas Tube, a division of JMC Steel Group, from 2005 to 2009. Other than his service on Zekelman Industries board of directors, Mr. Seeger has been retired since 2016. Mr. Seeger was identified as a director candidate by an internal referral and was then recommended to the Board by the Nominating and Governance Committee. Mr. Seeger received a Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration from Michigan State University and a Masters of Business Administration from Loyola University Chicago.
Key Qualifications:
Mr. Seeger has a strong knowledge of the metals industry. As the former President and director of Zekelman Industries, Mr. Seeger has extensive knowledge of steel suppliers and our peer companies and potential acquisition targets that operate in the steel distribution industry, as well as familiarity with the management teams and owners of these companies. Mr. Seeger understands the factors that impact pricing and demand, as well as market factors that impact mills and how they will ultimately impact metals service centers. We believe Mr. Seeger’s experience offers a perspective of the Company’s suppliers and will be valuable to Reliance and its stockholders.
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      34

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT
Douglas W. Stotlar
[MISSING IMAGE: ph_douglasstotlar-4c.jpg]
Director Since: 2016
Age: 61
Independent
Current Committee Memberships:

Audit

Nominating and Governance (Chair)
Other Public Board Service:
AECOM
Recent Past Public Board Service:
LSC Communications, Inc.
Recent Business Experience:
Douglas W. Stotlar was appointed a director of Reliance in October 2016. Mr. Stotlar served as President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Con-way, Inc., a transportation and logistics company (previously known as CNF Inc.) from April 2005 until October 2015. He served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Con-way Transportation Services Inc., a regional trucking enterprise (“CTS”) and a subsidiary of Con-way, Inc., from 2004 until 2005. Mr. Stotlar also served as CTS’ Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer from 2002 until 2004, and as CTS’ Executive Vice President of Operations from 1997 until 2002. He served as Vice President at large and was a member of the executive committee of the American Trucking Association and as a director for the Detroit branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago from December 2014 until December 2016. Mr. Stotlar currently serves as the Chairman of the Board and is not standing for re-electiona director at AECOM (NYSE: ACM). Mr. Stotlar is the chair of the nominating and governance committee and serves on the audit committee of AECOM. Mr. Stotlar was previously a director of LSC Communications, Inc. from 2016 Annual Meeting.  Accordingly, his biographyto 2021, a then NYSE-listed public company.
Key Qualifications:
Mr. Stotlar brings substantial knowledge of the logistics industry, which is not presented below.

important in our business. We believe that Mr. Stotlar’s prior experience as a chief executive officer of a public company provides insight on stockholder relations and management matters. In addition, Mr. Stotlar’s experience on boards of other public companies positions him well to serve as a member of our Audit Committee and as Chair of our Nominating and Governance Committee.

Directors

Sarah J. Anderson 35was appointed a director of Reliance in July 2012. Ms. Anderson retired from Ernst & Young LLP in June 2008 after more than 24 years with the firm, including as an assurance and advisory services partner from 1987 to 2008. Ms. Anderson is a certified public accountant and is a member of the AICPA and the California Society of CPAs. Ms. Anderson was appointed by the Governor to the California Board of Accountancy for two four-year terms, which ended in 2015, and had served as president of the board. Ms. Anderson serves on the board of American States Water Company, a NYSE-listed public company, which has three principal business units: water and electric service utility operations and contracted services, for which Ms. Anderson serves as the chair of the audit committee. Ms. Anderson also served on the board and as audit committee chair of Kaiser Ventures LLC (the reorganized successor to Kaiser Steel Corporation that filed for bankruptcy protection in 1987) until May 2013 when the company’s assets were transferred to a liquidating trust. Ms. Anderson serves on the audit committee of the Orange County Community Foundation and as a director of Pacific Symphony, a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization for which she previously served four years as chair of the board. In July 2015, Ms. Anderson joined the Board of Trustees of South Coast Repertory, a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, where she serves as a member of the finance committee. Ms. Anderson serves as Chair of our Audit Committee and a member of our Compensation Committee and our Nominating and Governance Committee. The Board of Directors has determined that Ms. Anderson is an independent director and that she qualifies as an audit committee financial expert.

Ms. Anderson brings extensive financial and accounting expertise and audit committee experience to our Board of Directors and Audit Committee. Ms. Anderson offers financial experience that enables her to

      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

understand and analyze accounting matters and to communicate well with both our internal and external auditors. She keeps abreast of current accounting and financial topics and is able to ask appropriate questions of management and auditors alike. Ms. Anderson has an understanding of tax, audit procedures, financial reporting requirements and risk identification and assessment issues and has knowledge of practices at other public companies in other industries through her work as an auditor and board member of two other public companies.

John G. Figueroa was appointed a director of Reliance in October 2010. Since July 2014, Mr. Figueroa has been the chief executive officer of Genoa Healthcare, one of the leading behavioral health specialty pharmacy companies. Mr. Figueroa has served as chairman of the board of directors of Apria Healthcare Group Inc., one of the nation's leading home healthcare companies, since November 2012 and also served as the company’s chief executive officer from November 2012 until January 2014. From January 2011 until June 2012, Mr. Figueroa served as the chief executive officer of Omnicare, Inc., which is a public company that is a leading provider of pharmaceuticals to seniors, and he also served on its board of directors. From 2006 to December 2010, Mr. Figueroa served as president of the U.S. Pharmaceutical Group of McKesson Corporation, the largest pharmaceuticals distributor in North America. Mr. Figueroa served in other senior management positions with McKesson Corporation from 1997 to 2006. Mr. Figueroa has served as an officer in the United States Army. Mr. Figueroa serves as Chair of our Compensation Committee and as a member of our Nominating and Governance Committee. The Board of Directors has determined that Mr. Figueroa is an independent director.

Mr. Figueroa has developed an expertise in distribution and supply chain management and operations. In August 2010, when he was president of the U.S. Pharmaceutical Group of McKesson, Mr. Figueroa was named the Supply Chain Executive of the Decade by the Global Supply Chain Leaders Group for making significant contributions to the advancement of supply chain management and maintaining sustainable, responsible business practices in global operations. Mr. Figueroa’s expertise allows him to assist management in increasing efficiency in and marketing for our distribution operations. Mr. Figueroa’s experience in the healthcare industry and mergers and acquisitions provides a different perspective and increased diversity on the Board of Directors.

Thomas W. Gimbel was appointed a director of Reliance in January 1999. Mr. Gimbel has been retired since 2006, except that until recently he served as Trustee of the Florence Neilan Trust, which for many years was one of Reliance’s largest stockholders. Between 1984 and 2006, Mr. Gimbel was the president of Advanced Systems Group, an independent computer consulting firm servicing database requirements for diverse businesses of various sizes. From 1975 to 1984, Mr. Gimbel was employed by Dun & Bradstreet. Mr. Gimbel serves as a member of our Nominating and Governance Committee. The Board of Directors has determined that Mr. Gimbel is an independent director.

Mr. Gimbel is the great nephew of the Company’s founder and the son of the Company’s former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Bill Gimbel. As one of our largest individual stockholders, Mr. Gimbel provides the Board with a stockholder perspective. Mr. Gimbel also knows and understands the history and culture of the Company as it has grown from a privately-held company to a Fortune 500 company. Mr. Gimbel, who has never been an employee of the Company, respects the proven management strategy of our Company and seeks to protect the Company’s core values as it grows. Mr. Gimbel’s background in information technology also enables him to offer the Board and management guidance regarding the Company’s technology systems.

David H. Hannahwas appointed a director of Reliance in 1992 and became the Executive Chairman of the Board of Reliance in May 2015. Mr. Hannah served as Chief Executive Officer of Reliance from January 1999 to May 2015 and was Chairman of the Board from October 2007 to May 2015. Mr. Hannah served as President of Reliance from November 1995 to January 2002. Prior to that, he was Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer from 1992 to 1995, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer from 1990 to 1992 and Vice President and Division Manager of the Company’s Los Angeles Reliance Steel Company division from 1989 to 1990. Mr. Hannah has served as an officer of the Company since 1981. For eight years before joining Reliance in 1981, Mr. Hannah was employed in various professional staff positions by Ernst & Whinney (a

15


predecessor to Ernst & Young LLP, which was our independent registered public accounting firm through 2007). As previously announced, Mr. Hannah will retire from his employment with the Company in 2016, after which he will continue serving on the Board.

As the former Chief Executive Officer of the Company, Mr. Hannah has an in-depth knowledge of the Company’s operations and its strategic vision. He developed and implemented the Company’s merger and acquisition growth strategy that has resulted in 60 acquisitions since our initial public offering in September 1994. Mr. Hannah’s financial background and business management experience enable him to assess and value potential target companies. Mr. Hannah is well respected within the metals service center industry, by investors and by financial institutions and credit rating agencies. He has proven his ability to raise capital for the Company in both debt and equity offerings and has effectively led our management team. Mr. Hannah previously served as chairman of the board of directors of the Metals Service Center Institute. Since November 2014, Mr. Hannah has served as a director of Boise Cascade Company, a NYSE-listed public company, and serves on its compensation committee and corporate governance and nominating committee.

Douglas M. Hayeswas appointed a directorof Reliance in September 1997. Mr. Hayes retired from Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation (“DLJ”), where he was managing director of Investment Banking from 1986 to February 1997. DLJ was an underwriter in our 1997 public equity offering and was also the underwriter in our initial public offering in 1994. Thereafter, he established his own investment firm, Hayes Capital Corporation, in Los Angeles, California, and serves as its President. Mr. Hayes is also a director of Circor International, Inc., a NYSE-listed public company, for which he serves as chairman of the compensation committee and as a member of the nominating and governance committee. Mr. Hayes is also a director of Thermark Holdings, Inc. and Cyber-Rain, Inc., both privately-held companies. Mr. Hayes serves as a member of our Audit Committee, Nominating and Governance Committee and our Compensation Committee, and served as our Lead Director from May 2004 to January 2015. The Board of Directors has determined that Mr. Hayes is an independent director.

Mr. Hayes’ investment banking background, including his service to Reliance, enables him to support the Board and the Company with the benefit of his combined knowledge of our Company, the capital markets and financing strategies. Mr. Hayes’ experience with analysts and investors provides valuable perspective and, by virtue of his membership on other boards of directors and his investment banking experience, provides insight into how other public companies operate and into various end market industries. He is also able to assist the management team in evaluating and structuring mergers and acquisitions.

Mark V. Kaminski was appointed a director of Reliance in November 2004. Mr. Kaminski was elected our Lead Director in January 2015. Mr. Kaminski serves as a director, executive chairman and a member of the audit and compensation committees of Graniterock, a privately-held company that provides products to the construction industry, and during 2012 served as acting chief executive officer of Graniterock. Mr. Kaminski was president and chief executive officer and a director of Commonwealth Industries Inc. (now Aleris International, Inc.), a manufacturer of aluminum products, from 1991 until his retirement in June 2004. Mr. Kaminski had served in other capacities with Commonwealth Industries Inc. since 1987. Mr. Kaminski also serves as a member of our Compensation Committee, Audit Committee and our Nominating and Governance Committee. From October 2010 to January 2015, Mr. Kaminski was the chairman of the Compensation Committee. The Board of Directors has determined that Mr. Kaminski is an independent director.

Based on his experience as executive chairman of Graniterock and as president and chief executive officer of Commonwealth Industries Inc., where he grew sales from $240 million to $2.5 billion, Mr. Kaminski offers valuable insight in the management of the Company and its growth. During his 39-year career in the metals and mining industry and as the former chief executive officer of an aluminum producer, he has developed strong contacts with aluminum suppliers and peer companies that are aluminum distributors. Because of his

16


manufacturing background, Mr. Kaminski is also able to provide guidance on improving and maintaining the Company’s excellent operational efficiency and safety performance.

Robert A. McEvoy was appointed to the Board of Directors in October 2015. Mr. McEvoy brings a wealth of experience in the metals industry, mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance, and equity portfolio management. Mr. McEvoy currently serves as an investment advisor to Brasil Warrant LLC, a Brazilian group whose main operating businesses are in asset management, banking, and mining. Mr. McEvoy retired from Goldman Sachs, an investment bank, in April 2014 after nine years with the firm. As a managing director at Goldman Sachs, Mr. McEvoy was a portfolio manager focused on the materials and industrials sectors. From 1989 to 2001, Mr. McEvoy held various positions with the investment banking firms of Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette and Credit Suisse First Boston. The Board of Directors has determined that Mr. McEvoy is an independent director.

Mr. McEvoy’s investment banking and equity investment background, including his particular focus on the metals and mining industry and prior investment banking and analyst experience covering Reliance, enables him to assist the Board and the Company with the benefit of his combined knowledge of our Company, our industry and competitors, the capital markets and financing strategies. Mr. McEvoy’s experience as an investor provides the Board and management perspective on the landscape in which Reliance competes for capital. Mr. McEvoy’s investment banking experience offers insight and experience in evaluating merger and acquisition opportunities. Mr. McEvoy’s historical knowledge of Reliance and the metals industry as a former analyst covering Reliance and other metals companies affords him a unique perspective and understanding of our business.

Gregg J. Mollinswas appointed a director of Reliance in September 1997 and became Chief Executive Officer in May 2015. Mr. Mollins became President in 2002 and served as Chief Operating Officer from May 1994 to May 2015. Mr. Mollins was Executive Vice President from November 1995 to January 2002. He also served as Vice President and Chief Operating Officer from 1994 to 1995 and as Vice President from 1992 to 1994. Mr. Mollins joined Reliance in 1986 as Division Manager of the former Santa Clara division, following ten years with certain of our competitors in various sales and sales management positions.

Mr. Mollins has spent his entire career in the metals service center industry and has been exposed to every operational area of the business. As our President and Chief Executive Officer, he has extensive industry expertise and has developed extensive contacts in the metals service center industry and with mills and other suppliers. Mr. Mollins evaluates potential acquisitions and opportunities to expand our business and has the skills and experience necessary to supervise the day-to-day operations of the Company and to guide its strategy. Mr. Mollins is actively involved in the integration of new acquisitions into the Company’s culture.

Andrew G. Sharkey, III was appointed a director of Reliance in July 2007. Mr. Sharkey served as president and chief executive officer of the American Iron and Steel Institute from 1993 until his retirement in October 2008. From 1978 to 1993, Mr. Sharkey was president, executive vice president and director of education for the Steel Service Center Institute (currently the Metals Service Center Institute), which represents the metals service center industry as well as steel suppliers and mills. Mr. Sharkey serves as the Chair of our Nominating and Governance Committee and as a member of our Compensation Committee and our Audit Committee. From February 2009 through December 2013, Mr. Sharkey also served as a director and a member of the compensation committee and the governance and nominating committee of General Moly, Inc., a publicly traded company with securities listed on the NYSE MKT. The Board of Directors has determined that Mr. Sharkey is an independent director.

Mr. Sharkey has a strong knowledge of the metals industry and, as the former president of the Steel Service Center Institute and as the former president and chief executive officer of the American Iron and Steel Institute has extensive knowledge of steel suppliers and our peer companies and potential acquisition targets that operate in the steel distribution industry, as well as familiarity with the personalities of the management teams and

17


owners of these companies. Mr. Sharkey understands the factors that impact pricing and demand, as well as market factors that impact mills and how they will ultimately impact metals service centers. Mr. Sharkey’s experience offers a perspective of the global market and insight into steel trade issues.

Executive Officers

In addition to Messrs. HannahMr. Hoffman and Mollins, the following areMrs. Lewis, the other executive officers of Reliance:

Reliance are as follows:

Karla R. LewisArthur Ajemyan, age 50, became Senior Executive Vice President, in May 2015, Executive Vice President in January 2002 and was appointed Assistant Corporate Secretary in 2007. Mrs. Lewis continues as our Chief Financial Officer havingin February 2022. Mr. Ajemyan had served as Senior Vice President, and Chief Financial Officer since February 2000. Mrs. LewisJanuary 2021, having been promoted from Vice President, Corporate Controller, a position which he had held since May 2014. From 2012 to 2014, Mr. Ajemyan served as Vice Presidentthe Company’s Corporate Controller. From 2005 to 2012, Mr. Ajemyan held various positions in the accounting and Chieffinance department at Reliance, including Group Controller and Director of Financial Officer from 1999 to 2000 and was Vice President and Controller from 1995 to 1999. Mrs. Lewis served as Corporate Controller from 1992 to 1995. For four years priorReporting. Prior to joining Reliance, Mrs. Lewis,Mr. Ajemyan, a certified public accountant (inactive), was employed by Ernst & Young inheld various professional staff positions. Mrs. Lewis also serves as a member of the board of directors of the Metals Service Center Institute.and manager positions at PricewaterhouseCoopers from 1998 to 2005.
Suzanne M. Bonner

James D. Hoffman, age 57, became ExecutiveSenior Vice President, and Chief OperatingInformation Officer in March 2016. Mr. HoffmanFebruary 2022. Ms. Bonner became Vice President, Chief Information Officer in July 2019, having been promoted from Executive Director of Reliance Technology Solutions (“RTS”), a position which she had held since September 2013. Prior to that time, Ms. Bonner served as the Company’s Executive Vice President, Operations since May 2015,Director of Finance at RTS from September 2009 until September 2013. Ms. Bonner worked in various finance, accounting, and asinformation systems positions before joining Reliance in 2009.

Jeffrey W. Durham became Senior Vice President, Operations since 2008.in January 2019. From 2014 until January 2019, Mr. Hoffman served as executive vice president and chief operating officer of our subsidiary, Earle M. Jorgensen Company, from April 2006 to September 2008. Mr. HoffmanDurham was appointed executive vice president of Earle M. Jorgensen Company in 2006, having been a vice president of Earle M. Jorgensen Company since 1996. Mr. Hoffman also serves as a member of the board of directors of the Metals Service Center Institute.

William K. Sales, Jr., age 59, became Executive Vice President, OperationsMerchandising at EMJ. Mr. Durham joined EMJ in May 2015. Mr. Sales served as Senior Vice President, Operations since 2002. Mr. Sales joined Reliance as Vice President, Non-Ferrous Operations1985 and has held various leadership roles in September 1997. From 1981 to 1997, Mr. Sales served in various sales, general management and management positions with Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. (now DCO Management, LLC, a subsidiary of Kaiser Aluminum Corporation), a producer of aluminum products and a supplier of Reliance. Mr. Sales also serves as chair of the aluminum products division council of the Metals Service Center Institute.

purchasing.

Stephen P. Koch, age 49, became Senior Vice President, Operations in April 2010. From July 2007 until he joined Reliance, Mr. Koch was presidentPresident of Chapel Steel Corp., a subsidiary of Reliance. Prior to that he held the positions of executive vice presidentExecutive Vice President of Chapel Steel Corp. from 2005 to June 2007, and vice presidentVice President of Chapel Steel Corp. from 1995 to 2005 and had previously served as sales managerSales Manager of Chapel Steel Corp.
Sean M. Mollins

became Senior Vice President, Operations in July 2021. From 2015 until being promoted to Senior Vice President, Operations, Mr. Mollins served as President of PDM Steel Service Centers, Inc., a subsidiary of Reliance. Mr. Mollins joined the Reliance family of companies in 2008 and has held leadership positions in sales and general management. Mr. Mollins began his career at Kaiser Aluminum Corp.

Michael P. Shanley, age 58, was appointed Senior Vice President, Operations in April 2015. Mr. Shanley was presidentPresident of Liebovich Bros., Inc., a subsidiary of Reliance, since September 2009, having been vice presidentVice President and general managerGeneral Manager of Hagerty Steel and Aluminum, a division of Liebovich Bros., from January 2005 to September 2009. Mr. Shanley joined Liebovich Bros. in 1978 and held various sales and management positions prior to 2005. Mr. Shanley has more than 38 years of metals service center industry experience.

William A. Smith II, age 48, was appointed Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary in May 2015, having served as Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary since May 2013. From August 2009 to May 2013, Mr. Smith served as senior vice president, chief legal officerSenior Vice President, Chief Legal Officer and secretarySecretary of Metals USA Holdings Corp., a publicly traded metals service center business acquired by Reliance in April 2013. From June 2005 to August 2008, Mr. Smith served as senior vice president, general counselSenior Vice President, General Counsel and secretarySecretary of Cross Match Technologies, Inc. and also as directorDirector of corporate developmentCorporate Development from September 2006 to August 2008. Prior to that, he was a partner in the corporate and securities practice group of the international law firm DLA Piper, where he practiced corporate law, including mergers and acquisitions.

18

RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      36

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND MANAGEMENT

Other Corporate Officers

OTHER CORPORATE OFFICERS
In addition, the following Reliance officers are expected to make significant contributions to our operations:

Arthur Ajemyan,Vandy C. Lupton age 40, became Vice President, Corporate ControllerHealth & Human Resources in May 2014,2021, having been promoted from Corporate Controller,Executive Director, Health & Human Resources, a position which heshe had held since August 2012. From 2005 toMarch 2020. Ms. Lupton joined Reliance in 2012 Mr. Ajemyan held various positions in the accounting and finance department at Reliance, including Group Controller andas Director of Financial Reporting.Change Management. Prior to joining Reliance, Mr. Ajemyan,Ms. Lupton served as a certified public accountant, held various professional staff and manager positions at PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP from 1998 to 2005.

Susan C. Borchers, age 54, became Chief Information Officer in March 2012. From December 1997 to February 2012, Mrs. Borchers was the director of information technology at Precision Strip, Inc.,consultant with Accenture. Ms. Lupton is a subsidiarymember of the Company.

Society for Human Resource Management.

Brenda S. Miyamoto, age 43, became Vice President, Corporate Initiatives in August 2012, having been promoted from Vice President, and Corporate Controller, a position which she had held since May 2007. Prior to that time, Ms. Miyamoto served as Corporate Controller sincefrom January 2004 until May 2007 and Group Controller from December 2001 to January 2004. For six years prior to joining Reliance, Ms. Miyamoto, a certified public accountant (inactive), was employed by Ernst & Young LLP in various professional staff and manager positions.
John A. Shatkus

Donna Newton, age 62, became Vice President, BenefitsEnterprise Risk in May 2011,January 2021, having previously served as Vice President, Human Resources since January 2002. Ms. Newton joined Reliance as Director of Employee Benefits and Human Resources in February 1999. Prior to that time, she was director of sales and service for the Los Angeles office of Aetna U.S. Healthcare and also held various management positions at Aetna over a 20-year period.

Donald J. Prebola, age 61, became Vice President, Health, Safety & Human Resources in June 2015, having served as Vice President, Human Resources since August 2011. Mr. Prebola served as Senior Vice President, Operations of our subsidiary, Infra-Metals Co., from 2008 to July 2011. Prior to that he had served as Co-General Manager of Infra-Metals Co. since 1990.

John Shatkus, age 55, became Vice President, Internal Audit in August 2012, having been promoted from Director, Internal Audit, a position which he had held since May 2005.August 2012. Mr. Shatkus joined Reliance in 2005 and served as Director, Internal Audit until August 2012. Prior to joining Reliance, Mr. Shatkus was Audit Manager at Sempra Energy and held various management positions at Sempra Energy over a 20-year period, including Regulatory Affairs Manager and Accounting Manager. Mr. Shatkus is a certified public accountant.

Brian M. Yamaguchi

became Vice President, Supplier Development in July 2021, having previously served as Senior Director, Supplier Development, a position which he had held since 2014. Mr. Yamaguchi has held various positions of increasing responsibility in sales and merchandising since he joined EMJ in 1986.

Silva Yeghyayanage 48, became Vice President, Tax in August 2012, having been promoted from Director, Tax, a position which she had held since October 2005. Ms. Yeghyayan is a certified public accountant and was a tax consultant from April 2004 until joining Reliance in 2005. Ms. Yeghyayan was Senior Tax Manager at Grant Thornton LLP from 2000 to 2004, and held various professional staff and manager positions at Arthur Andersen LLP from 1989 to 2000.

19

37      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”) describes our executive compensation philosophy and program and how it applies tophilosophy, the compensation decisions made by the Compensation Committee and the factors considered in making those decisions. This CD&A focuses on 2021 compensation decisions for our executive officers,executives, including our named executive officersthe Named Executive Officers (“NEOs”) identified below (whom we sometimes refer to collectively as our “NEOs”).

below.

Named Executive Officer

Title

(during 2021)

David H. Hannah

James D. Hoffman

Executive Chairman

Gregg J. Mollins

President and Chief Executive Officer

Karla R. Lewis

(1)

President
Arthur Ajemyan(1)Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
Stephen P. KochSenior Vice President, Operations
Michael P. ShanleySenior Vice President, Operations
William A. Smith IISenior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
William K. Sales, Jr.(2)Special Advisor and Former Executive Vice President, and Chief Financial Officer

James D. Hoffman

Operations

Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer

William K. Sales, Jr.

Executive Vice President, Operations

(1)
In accordance with the Company’s executive leadership succession plan, Mrs. Lewis was promoted to President and appointed to the Company’s Board of Directors on January 15, 2021. Prior to her promotion to President, Mrs. Lewis served as the Company’s Senior Executive SummaryVice President and Chief Financial Officer. Concurrent with Mrs. Lewis’ promotion, Mr. Ajemyan was promoted to Vice President, Chief Financial Officer from his position as Vice President, Corporate Controller. On February 15, 2022, Mr. Ajemyan was promoted to Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer from his position as Vice President, Chief Financial Officer.
(2)


Effective as of July 1, 2021, Mr. Sales transitioned from his role as Executive Vice President, Operations to Special Advisor. Mr. Sales retired from the Company Performance

Our strong operationalon January 31, 2022.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We generated record financial performance in 2015 once again generated industry leading2021 across nearly every key metric. The resilience of our business model combined with outstanding execution throughout our family of companies resulted in record financial performance across nearly every metric despite significant operational challenges that included the continuing pandemic and supply chain disruptions, including raw material shortages and labor constraints.
Certain key financial results withfor 2021 were:

Record net sales of  $14.09 billion in 2021, up $5.28 billion, or 59.9%, from $8.81 billion in 2020;

Record gross profit of  $4.49 billion in 2021 eclipsed our previous, pre-pandemic record cash flow from operationsgross profit of  $1.03 billion. Our$3.33 billion in 2019;

Record gross profit margin of 31.9% in 2021;

Record pretax income and margin of  $1.88 billion and 13.4% in 2021, which increased to 27.2% in 2015 compared to 25.1% in 2014 despite declines in consolidated salesby 293.8% and 800 basis points, respectively;

Record earnings per diluted share of  10.5% due to a 2.8% decline in tons sold$21.97 were more than triple that of 2020; and an 8.6% decline in average selling price per ton sold in 2015 compared to 2014. The decline in sales and tons was mainly attributable to the continued convergence of (i) industry-wide challenges that pressured metals pricing attributable mainly to historically high levels of imports given the strength of the U.S. dollar and weak global markets, and (ii) the significant reductions in demand in the energy end market. Combining our increased gross profit margins with management’s effective working capital management, including a $433.1 million reduction of our FIFO inventory, we generated record cash flow from operations of $1.03 billion which we used to: (i) invest in the further growth of our Company with $172.2 million of capital expenditures; (ii) improve our leverage position by paying down $376.6 million of debt; and (iii) enhance stockholder returns with payment of $120.1

$177.0 million of dividends to stockholders and $355.5$323.5 million of share repurchases. We also increased our market share as our performance outpaced the industry data reported by the Metals Service Center Institute, which indicated industry shipments were down 7.5%repurchases in 20152021 compared to our same-store tons sold decline$164.1 million of only 3.2%. See “2015 Financialdividends and Operating Highlights” below.

Compensation$337.3 million of share repurchases in 2020.

Consistent with both the philosophy and design of our named executive officerscompensation plans, the compensation of our NEOs in 20152021 was generally aligned with our record performance. As described in greater detail below, payments toOur NEOs received the NEOsmaximum payout under our 2015 Annual Cash Incentive Plan were below target,2021 annual cash incentive plan, and the 2013 performance-based equity awards which vested on December 31, 2015granted to our
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      38

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
NEOs in 2019 paid out significantly below target levels and only slightly aboveat the threshold. Despitemaximum level based on Company performance over the Company's strong 2015three-year performance period, each reflecting management’s delivery of industry-leading operating results our stock price, along with the stock price of most other metals and mining companies, declined in 2015. Our stockholders’ total shareholder return (TSR) for the year ended December 31, 2015 decreased 2.9% – significantly outperforming our executive compensation group peers which decreased 29.3% and our industry peers which decreased 22.7%, and outperforming the Russel 2000 which decreased 4.4%, but underperforming the S&P 500 which increased 1.4%, all in 2015. 

Key Compensation Decisions

The key compensation decisions supporting our compensation strategy and pay-for-performance philosophy in 2015 and 2016 included the following:

·

Changes to 2015 Annual Cash Incentive Plan. In February 2015, the Compensation Committee adjusted the ROBE median performance target for our 2015 annual cash incentive plan awards from 13% (which had been used for the previous 5 years) to 10% to align our target bonus opportunities with our executive compensation peer group and to reflect the current and prolonged environment of lower metals prices globally, a factor that significantly impacts our earnings but is outside of management’s control and that has adversely impacted our industry peers and the

record financial performance.

20

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM DESIGN

broader metals industry. The Compensation Committee’s intention was to establish balance among demanding yet reasonable performance goals, appropriate motivation and retention of our executives, and achievement of annual performance objectives. The Compensation Committee retained the 6% ROBE minimum and 25% maximum.

·

Changes to 2015 Performance Awards. The Compensation Committee retained the return on assets (ROA) and operating income cumulative growth (CAGR) performance award structure for the 2015 long-term equity incentive awards. In 2015, in response to the prolonged environment of lower metals prices and to better align achievement objectives with the Company’s executive compensation peer group, the Compensation Committee adjusted the ROA threshold, target and maximum for ROA to 6%, 8%, and 13%, respectively, and also adjusted the target and maximum for operating income CAGR to 8% and 13%, respectively. Similar to the adjustment of the ROBE target in the 2015 annual cash incentive plan, the Committee had used the same ROA and CAGR performance targets for the three previous performance cycles (2012, 2013 and 2014), although the Company did not achieve the ROA target or the operating income CAGR target upon vesting of the 2012 awards at the end of 2014 or upon vesting of the 2013 awards at the end of 2015 despite the Company’s industry-leading performance which generated above median performance relative to its executive compensation peer group.

·

Payouts Aligned with Company Performance. Consistent with the Company’s strong operating results relative to industry peers, management’s annual cash incentive payments in 2015 were below target but above threshold at 122% of the NEOs’ base salaries. However, industry challenges negatively affected our three-year performance awards under our long-term equity incentive plan. Our 2013 performance-based equity awards, which had a three-year performance period ending on December 31, 2015, paid out significantly below target levels. The number of shares earned by our NEOs was 24.8% of the target number of shares awarded at the start of the period.

·

Executive leadership changes and succession planning. Mr. Hannah, who served as Reliance’s Chief Executive Officer since 1999 and Chairman of the Board and CEO since 2007, transitioned to the role of Executive Chairman in May 2015. Mr. Mollins, who previously served as our President and Chief Operating Officer, succeeded Mr. Hannah as President and CEO at that time. Each of our other named executive officers was also promoted in connection with our management succession plan, including the recent promotion of Mr. Hoffman to Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer in March 2016. In 2015, we increased our use of service-based equity awards from 20% to 40% for the NEOs other than the CEO, and from 0% to 20% for the CEO, in an effort to increase the holding and retention objectives of our compensation program at a critical time of leadership change and succession.

·

Changes to Compensation Program in 2016. In February 2016, the Compensation Committee determined to move away from ROBE as the metric for measuring the Company’s financial performance under the annual cash incentive plan. Instead, the Compensation Committee determined to use pre-tax income margin as the metric for measuring the Company’s financial performance under the annual cash incentive plan beginning in 2016. The Committee also determined to retain the ROA metric but eliminate the operating income CAGR metric for the 2016 performance-based equity awards. See “Changes to 2016 Compensation Program” below for more information on these changes.

·

Focus on long-term objectives and stockholder value. We manage our business with the long-term objective of creating and maximizing value for our stockholders. Our pay-for-performance philosophy is aligned with and supports this objective. By linking a majority of our executives’ compensation to Company performance, our executive compensation program is designed to drive our financial and operating performance and increase stockholder value.

21


·

Continue to be competitive. In order to focus on our long-term objectives, we need to retain and motivate our talented and skilled executives. In furtherance of that goal and consistent with our past practice, the Compensation Committee has structured our overall direct compensation at target results to be competitive with the median compensation paid by companies with whom we may compete for executive talent, including those in both our executive compensation peer group and our industry peer group.

Pay-for-Performance Philosophy

Our executive compensation program is designed to reward the Company’s executive officers for strong operational and financial and operating performance, to attract and retain key executive talent, and to align compensation with the long-term interests of our stockholders. TheOur stockholders have been highly supportive of our program’s pay-for-performance structure, as demonstrated by our say-on-pay voting results exceeding 96% in each of the last five years from 2017 through 2021.

As described in more detail below, we structure our executive officers’ target total direct compensation to be competitive with the median compensation paid by companies with whom we may compete for executive talent, including those in our executive compensation peer group. We link a majority of our executives’ compensation to Company performance to drive our financial and operating performance and maximize stockholder value. We believe that this pay-for-performance philosophy has been instrumental to our success.
We manage our business with the long-term objective of creating and maximizing value for our stockholders. Our pay-for-performance philosophy is aligned with and supports this objective.
Consistent with our past practice, the Compensation Committee evaluates performance by reviewing:

·

our operating and financial results, including performance against our executive compensation peer group, our industry peer group and general economic factors that impact our business and industry;

·

economic return to stockholders over time, both on an absolute basis and relative to other companies, including the S&P 500, our executive compensation peer group and our industry peers; and


·

our operating and financial results, including performance against our executive compensation peer group, our industry peer group, and general economic factors that impact our business and industry;


economic return to stockholders over time, both on an absolute basis and relative to other companies, including the S&P 500, our executive compensation peer group and our industry peers; and

achievement of the Company’s goals and objectives (including management development, safety performance, working capital management, and capital allocation).

In furtherance of our pay-for-performance philosophy, the Company’s goals and objectives (including management development and succession, safety performance, working capital management, and capital allocation).

The Compensation Committee has linked a majority of our executives’ total direct compensation directly to the achievement of specific, pre-established Company performance targets. Approximately 75%In 2021, approximately 74% of our CEO’s target level total direct compensation and approximately 60%, on average,64% of our other NEOs’ target level total direct compensation in 2015 was subjecttied to performance targets. See page 32
39 for further discussion of our allocation of the elements of executive pay.

2015 Financial and Operating Highlights      2022 PROXY STATEMENT


COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
2021 FINANCIAL AND OPERATING HIGHLIGHTS
The following table highlights our financial and operating results in 20152021 compared to 2014:

2020:
20212020Change
Sales$14.09 billion$8.81 billion59.9%
Tons sold in ‘000s(1)5,472.95,230.54.6%
Average selling price per ton sold(1)
$2,594$1,68154.3%
Gross profit margin(2)
31.9%31.5%0.4% pts.
Operating income$1,948.9 million$565.8 million244.5%
Cash flow from operations$799.4 million$1,173.0 million(31.8)%
Net income$1,413.0 million$369.1 million282.8%
Earnings per diluted share$21.97$5.66288.2%
Closing market price of stock at December 31$162.22$119.7535.5%
Pretax income margin13.4%5.4%8.0% pts.
Pretax income margin—Annual Cash Incentive Plan(3)
13.46%7.46%6.0% pts.
Annual return on assets (“ROA”)(4)
22.24%8.91%13.3% pts.
Dividends paid per share$2.75$2.5010.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

2015

    

2014

    

% Change

 

Sales

 

$

9.35

billion  

$

10.45

billion  

(10.5)

%

Tons sold in '000s

 

 

5,918.9

 

 

6,086.9

 

(2.8)

%

Average selling price per ton sold

 

$

1,572

 

$

1,719

 

(8.6)

%

Operating income

 

$

546.6

million  

$

617.4

million  

(11.5)

%

Net income

 

$

311.5

million  

$

371.5

million  

(16.2)

%

Cash flow from operations

 

$

1.03

billion  

$

356.0

million  

187.9

%

Earnings per diluted share

 

$

4.16

 

$

4.73

 

(12.1)

%

Closing market price of stock at December 31

 

$

57.91

 

$

61.27

 

(5.5)

%

Return on beginning stockholders' equity(1)

 

 

9.0

%  

 

10.0

%  

(1.0)

%

Return on assets(2)

 

 

8.0

%  

 

8.4

%  

(0.4)

%

Dividends paid per share

 

$

1.60

 

$

1.40

 

14.3

%

(1)
Our tons sold and average selling price per ton sold exclude tons toll processed.
(2)
Gross profit, calculated as net sales less cost of sales, and gross profit margin, calculated as gross profit divided by net sales, are non GAAP financial measures as they exclude depreciation and amortization expense associated with the corresponding sales. About half of Reliance’s orders are basic distribution with no processing services performed. For the remainder of its sales orders, Reliance performs “first-stage” processing, which is generally not labor intensive as it is simply cutting the metal to size. Because of this, the amount of related labor and overhead, including depreciation and amortization, is not significant and is excluded from cost of sales. Therefore, Reliance’s cost of sales is substantially composed of the cost of the material it sells. Reliance uses gross profit margin as shown above as a measure of operating performance. Gross profit margin is an important operating and financial measure, as fluctuations in our gross profit margin can have a significant impact on Reliance’s earnings. Gross profit margin, as presented, is not necessarily comparable with similarly titled measures for other companies.
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      40

(1)

Adjusted for $355.5 million of share repurchases in 2015. Excludes various non-recurring charges and credits, including impairment charges in 2015.

(2)

Operating income for the year divided by the average total assets for the year.Excludes various non-recurring charges and credits, including impairment charges in 2015.

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

In addition

(3)
Presented below is pretax income margin (pretax income as a percentage of sales) calculated in accordance with our annual cash incentive plan, which excludes various non-recurring charges and credits. NEO performance-based equity awards are tied to investing $172.2 millionachieving an ROA target over a three-year measurement period.
(dollars in millions)20212020
Pretax income$1,883.1$478.2
Impairment charges4.7108.0
Restructuring charges0.149.8
Acquisition-related and non-recurring expenses of acquisitions14.3
Postretirement benefit plan settlements19.4
Debt restructuring charge1.8
Gains related to sales of non-core assets(5.7)
Non-GAAP pretax income$1,896.5$657.2
Sales$14,093.3$8,811.9
Pretax income margin—Annual Cash Incentive Plan13.46%7.46%
(4)
Presented below is ROA calculated in accordance with our performance-based restricted stock awards, which is calculated as operating income, excluding various non-recurring charges and credits for the year divided by average total assets for the year.
(dollars in millions)20212020
Operating income$1,948.9$565.8
Impairment charges4.7108.0
Restructuring charges0.149.8
Acquisition-related and non-recurring expenses of acquisitions14.3
Gains related to sales of non-core assets(5.7)
Non-GAAP operating income$1,962.3$723.6
Total assets—beginning of year$8,106.8$8,131.1
Total assets—end of year$9,536.0$8,106.8
Total assets—average$8,821.4$8,119.0
ROA22.24%8.91%
See Notes 13 and 19 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 for further information on our postretirement benefit plan settlements and impairment and restructuring charges.
We continued to execute our balanced capital expenditures to continue growing our business and paying down $376.6 million of debt to improve our financial condition, we used our strong 2015allocation strategy in 2021 using cash flow from operations to return value to our stockholders.stockholders through $500.5 million of stock repurchases and dividend payments. In addition, we continued to fund organic growth by investing $236.6 million in capital expenditures. During 2021, we invested in our growth by acquiring four companies for $439.3 million that aligned with our business model and strategy of investing in profitable, high quality businesses that expand our product, end market and geographic diversity.
During 2021, we repurchased approximately 2.1 million shares of our common stock at an average cost of  $153.55 per share, or $323.5 million in total.
We have increased our dividend 29 times since our 1994 IPO and have paid regular quarterly dividends to our stockholders for over 62 consecutive years. In February 2015,2022, we increased our
41      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
quarterly dividend by 14%27.3% to $0.40$0.8750 per share from $0.35$0.6875 per share. We paid a total of $120.1$177.0 million in dividends to our stockholders in 2015.2021. Since 2012, the Company’s quarterly dividend has nearly tripledmore than quintupled from $0.15 per share to $0.40$0.8750 per share.

We have never reduced or suspended our regular quarterly dividend.

22


In addition to paying dividends, we also returned value to our stockholders through share repurchases. On October 20, 2015, we amended our share repurchase plan to increase the total number of shares authorized for repurchase by 7.5 million shares and extend the program through December 2018. Since initiating the share repurchase plan in 1994 we have purchased approximately 22.1 million shares at a weighted average cost of $30.93 per share. In 2015, we used available cash to repurchase 6.2 million shares, or approximately 8% of our shares outstanding on December 31, 2014, at an average price of $57.39 per share, for a total of $355.5 million. As of March 31, 2016, we had authorization under the plan to purchase an additional 8.4 million shares, or about 12% of current shares outstanding. The Company expects to continue opportunistically repurchasing shares of its common stock going forward.

See “Management's“Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed withfor the SEC on February 26, 2016year ended December 31, 2021 for a more detailed discussion of our results of operations in 20152021 compared to 20142020 and our financial condition and return of capital.

Relationship Between Pay and Performance

condition.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PAY AND PERFORMANCE
A majority of our executive compensation is tied to performance through annual cash incentive awards and long-term equity incentive awards. AlthoughWe believe our compensation of our NEOs in 2021 was aligned with the Company’s 2021 operational and financial performance. Management delivered industry-leading operating results and the Company achieved multiple financial records, including net sales, and net income declined 10.5% and 16.2%, respectively, in 2015 compared to 2014, management’s operational performance in 2015, including sequential increases in gross profit margins in each fiscal quarter and margin, pretax income and margin, and earnings per share. Consistent with the generationdelivery of a record $1.03 billion in cash flow from operations, yielded increased, but less than target, payouts under the 2015 ROBE performance scale. 2015 ROBE was 9.0%, down from 10.0% in 2014, which resulted inindustry-leading results, each NEO receiving a paymentreceived the maximum payout under the 2015our annual cash incentive plan, equal to 122%and the maximum number of his or her base salary. Payouts under the 2015 annual cash incentive plan increased 20% as a percentage of base salary compared to 2014, but were still below target.

Results for the 2013 performance-based equity awards were determinedearned in the first quarter of 2016. Performance results for the 2013 ROA awards were 33% andthree-year performance results for the 2013 operating income CAGR awards were 0%, each significantly below target levels. Accordingly, total performance shares earned by our NEOs were 24.8% of the target. Although we delivered industry leading results, outperformed our executive compensation peer group, and our TSR was at the median of our executive compensation peer group for the three year period ended December 31, 2015, payouts under the three year performance awards were significantly below target.

Annual Cash Incentive Awards (ROBE).from 2019 through 2021.

In 2015 as in prior years,2021, our NEOs participated in our annual cash incentive plan which pays out only if the Company achieves certain levels of ROBE. ROBEpretax income margin at or above a threshold. Pretax income margin is calculated by dividingbased on the Company’s annual income before income taxes as a percentage of net income for the calendar year (as may besales as adjusted for significant, unusual orcertain non-recurring events) by total stockholders’ equity at December 31 of the previous year (as adjusted for stock issuances or repurchases, if any). For 2015, each NEO had a targetitems. The 2021 annual cash incentive awardplan opportunity was established on a sliding scale, ranging from zero for results below the 3.00% pretax income margin threshold, 20% of base salary for results at the 3.00% pretax income margin threshold, a target of 150% of base salary which would be earned ifat 5.75% pretax income margin and up to a maximum of 300% of base salary for pretax income margin of 8.50% or higher.
If the Company achieved ROBEachieves a pretax income margin within the range of 10%. However, no NEO would receive a payout under3.00% and 8.50%, then mathematical interpolation is applied to determine the plan if ROBE was less than 6%actual incentive award in the applicable range (threshold to target or target to maximum). The maximum payout under the plan of 300% would be triggered if ROBE equals or exceeds 25%. Forof base salary has only been achieved twice in the fivelast ten years. These metrics were unchanged from prior years priorand were established in February 2021. 2021 pretax income margin (as calculated in accordance with our annual cash incentive plan) was 13.46%, which resulted in each NEO receiving the maximum award under the 2021 annual cash incentive plan equal to 2015,300% of base salary.
The Compensation Committee, in consultation with Pay Governance, LLC (“Pay Governance”), the Committee hadCompensation Committee’s independent executive compensation advisor, and with input from management, selected pretax income margin as the performance metric for the annual cash incentive opportunity for 2021 because it aligns with how management and the Board measure the Company’s performance and is typically the most important metric used a 13% ROBE target, butin the Company’s corporate and operational decision-making. However, as discussed below, beginning in 2022, the Company achieved 13% ROBE in only one of those years, even thoughwill also use Tons Sold Growth as an additional metric for measuring the Company’s overall financial performance was at or near the median of its executive compensation peer group and above its industry peers in each of those years. In February 2015, the Compensation Committee determined to adjustunder the annual cash incentive plan by adjusting the ROBE performance target from 13% to 10% to reflect the current prolonged environment of lower metals prices globally, which significantly impacts our profitability, and to better align achievement objectives withhold NEOs accountable for operational growth in our business.
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      42

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
As exhibited by the table below, over the past 10 years, the Company has achieved pretax income margin below the threshold level zero times, between the threshold and target level three times, between the target level and maximum level five times and at or above the maximum level two times, which demonstrates that the Company’s executive compensation peer group. The Committee also believed that this adjustment was necessarypretax income margin goals are (i) reasonably demanding relative to address the Company’s current size, growth expectationsthreshold and the desiretarget, and (ii) extremely demanding relative to establish balance among demanding yet reasonable performance goals, appropriate motivation and retention of our executives, and achievement of long-term performance objectives. The Compensation Committee retained the 6% ROBE minimum and 25% maximum in 2015.

23

performance.

[MISSING IMAGE: tm223369d1-bc_relianstlbw.jpg]
Goal% Time
Company
Achieved
Goal Rank vs.
Proxy Peers
(Percentile)
Threshold: 3.00%100%30th
Target: 5.75%70%46th
Max: 8.50%20%61st

For a discussion of the Company’s historical ROBEannual cash incentive compensation achievement versus the minimum, target and maximum, see “Principal Components of Our Executive Compensation Program - Program—​Annual Cash Incentive Awards.”

See “ChangesAwards” ​(page 53).

The NEOs’ performance-based equity awards are tied to 2016achieving an ROA target over a three-year measurement period. The Compensation Program” below forCommittee has determined that a discussion ofthree-year ROA measurement period, which is directly influenced by management’s decisions, is an effective metric to measure management’s long-term performance. ROA also complements and achieves an appropriate balance with the replacement of ROBE with pre-taxone-year pretax income margin as the financial metric under ourthe annual cash incentive plan.

Long-Term Equity Incentive Awards. In 2015, 80%award program by holding management responsible for the efficient use of Mr. Hannah’sthe assets used to produce operational and Mr. Mollins’pretax profits over a multi-year period. The issued and outstanding 2020, 2021 and 2022 performance-based equity awards and 60% of our other NEOs’ equity awards were tied towill vest if the Company achieves an ROA result at or above a minimum threshold over the three-year performance targets. The remaining awards are service based. periods.

The allocation of performance-based and service-based equity awards was generallyis intended to balance performance and retention objectives. For 2015, performance-based awards vest whenIn striking the Company achieves a ROA target and an operating income CAGR target over the performance period, balancing the ROBE focus of our annual cash incentive plan. The performance period for all NEOs, other than Mr. Hannah, remains a three-year performance period consistent with prior years. Mr. Hannah’s performance-based awards have a shorter eighteen-month performance period to align with his planned retirement in 2016.

From the introduction of our three-year performance based awards in 2012 until 2015, 100% of our CEO’s equity awards, and 80% of our other NEOs’ equity awards, were tied to three-year performance targets. In 2015, however,appropriate balance, the Compensation Committee determinedsought to increase the allocation of service-based restricted stock unit awards to enhancedesign a program that incentivizes strong performance while also strengthening the retention objectiveaspects of the long-term equity incentive awards. Sinceawards since the Company does not maintain employment agreements with its executive officersofficers. Accordingly, from 2016 through 2021, 80% of our CEO and due to the implementation of the executive leadership changes described above, the Compensation Committee determined that it needed to strengthen the retention aspects of the long-termPresident’s target equity awards to support this transition. The Committee also considered the difficulty in selecting three-year performance targets given the impact of metals pricing and other market factors on the Company’s financial results, which impact is outside of the control of the named executive officers. The Compensation Committee also considered the below target results of the 2012 and 2013 awards and the expectation that target levels are not expected to be achieved for the three-year performance awards granted in 2014.

We believe that these adjustments, considered collectively, are consistent with both the Company’s executive compensation peer group and the primary objectives60% of our executive compensation program: aligning pay and performance and promoting executive retention.

other NEOs’ target equity awards were performance-based. In 2022, 80% of all NEO target equity awards issued were performance-based. The remaining awards are service-based.

Results for the performance-based equity awards granted in 20132019 were determined in the first quarter of 2016. Performance results for2022 based on the 2013Company’s ROA awards were 33%. Performance results forin the 2013 operating income CAGR awards were 0%. Accordingly, total performance shares earned by our named executive officers were 24.8%three-year measurement period ended December 31, 2021. The Company’s ROA in the three-year measurement period was 14.56%, which is in excess of the maximum payout and resulted in the maximum number of awards vesting, or 200% of the target.

At present, we believe The three-year measurement period ended December 31, 2021, was the first time in which the maximum payout of the performance-based equity awards granted in 2014 will also produce payouts below target given the challenging metals pricing environment. The performance-based equity awards granted in 2015 are expected to produce near target payouts for the ROA metric, but significantly below target payouts for the operating income CAGR performance metrics.

See “Changes to 2016 Compensation Program” below for a discussion of the removal of operating income CAGR as a performance metric under our long-term equity awards in 2016.

24

was achieved.
43      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Key Executive Compensation Practices

KEY EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PRACTICES

WHAT WE DO AND DON’T DOSee
Pages

What

We Do:

ü

align executive compensation with the interests of our stockholders

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Strong pay-for-performance compensation structure with approximately 75%74% of our CEO’s and 60%64% of our other NEOs’ target level total direct compensation tied to performance metrics (see discussion beginning on page 20).

metrics.
39 & 49

ü

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

Target total direct compensation forof our NEOs designed to approximate the market median forof our executive compensation peer group when targeted performance levels are achieved (see page 35).

achieved.
39

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Performance-based equity awards represented 80% of our CEO and President’s equity awards and 60% of our other NEOs’ equity awards at target. In 2022, 80% of all NEO target equity awards were performance-based.43

ü

Clawback policy for cash and equity compensation (see page 41).

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

ü

Stock ownership and retention requirements applicable to all directors and corporate officers, including our NEOs, and our directors (see pages 40 and 41).

NEOs.
59

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Clawback and recoupment policy for cash and equity compensation.59

ü

Our executive compensation program is designed to reward the Company’s executive officers for strong operational and financial performance and to avoid excessive risk taking
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Double trigger provisions for accelerated vesting of restricted stock unitsequity awards upon a change in control (see page 41.)

control.
58

ü

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

All NEO performance-based equity awards have beenare tied to a three-year performance targets since 2012 (see page 38).

target.
39

ü

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

Broad and deep distribution of equity awards throughout management (see page 55).

while managing the dilutive impact and expense associated with those awards.
54

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Limited perquisites.56

ü

Limited perquisites (see page 40).

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

ü

Annual stockholder advisory vote to approve executive compensation (see page 10).

NEO compensation.
18

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Independent compensation committee.50

ü

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Independent compensation committee (see page 33).

consultant.
50

ü

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]

Utilization

Independent, non-executive Chairman of an independent compensation consultant (see page 33).

ü

Independent Lead Director appointed annually (whenever the chairman is not an independent director) to enhanceBoard enhances the effectiveness of the Board’s oversight and governance and compensation practices (see page 56).

practices.
79

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_tick-pn.gif]
Minimum vesting provisions provide that awards must be subject to a minimum one-year vesting period, except with respect to a maximum of 5% of the remaining shares available for grant under the Amended and Restated 2015 Incentive Award Plan (currently 1,463,455) shares.n/a

RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      44

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

WHAT WE DO AND DON’T DOSee
Pages

We adhere to executive compensation best practices
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_donot-pn.gif]
No incentive plan design or feature which would encourage excessive risk-taking.n/a

What We Don’t Do:

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_donot-pn.gif]
No unlimited compensation; all variable compensation plans have caps on plan formulas.n/a

r

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_donot-pn.gif]
No employment agreements.

r

Noagreements, severance agreements, change in control/golden parachute agreements.

agreements or other similar agreements with any executive officer.
56

r

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_donot-pn.gif]

No repricing or replacement of stock options.

r

No tax gross-ups for perquisites, change in control excise taxes or otherwise.

n/a

r

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_donot-pn.gif]

No dividends on unvested performance-based restricted stock units. DividendsRSUs; dividends accrue and are paid only paid upon thevesting subsequent to achievement of the applicable performance and/or service criteria.

n/a

r

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_donot-pn.gif]

No hedging of Reliance common stocksecurities permitted by directors, officers orand employees subject to the quarterly trading blackout under our insider trading policy including the NEOs.

Insider Trading and Securities Compliance Policy.
59

r

[MISSING IMAGE: icon_donot-pn.gif]

No pledging of Reliance common stocksecurities permitted by directors, officers orand employees subject to the quarterly trading blackout under our insider trading policy including the NEOs,Insider Trading and Securities Compliance Policy.59
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_donot-pn.gif]
No share recycling.n/a
[MISSING IMAGE: icon_donot-pn.gif]
No acceleration of unvested awards permitted, except for grandfathered pledging arrangements by two directors.

death, disability, a qualified retirement or termination without cause following a change in control.

r

No incentive plan design or feature which would encourage excessive risk-taking.

n/a

2021 SAY ON PAY VOTE

25


2015 Say on Pay Vote

In 2015,2021, our stockholders overwhelmingly approved, on a non-binding, advisory basis, the compensation of our NEOs, indicating support for our compensation policies with 98.8%over 96% of the votes cast in favor of such compensation. In addition, we believe our stockholders have been highly supportive of our compensation program, as demonstrated by our say-on-pay voting results exceeding 96% in each of the last five years from 2017 through 2021. The Compensation Committee considered the favorable advisory vote as support for its belief that the Company’s pay-for-performance policy operates as it was designed, to do, aligning the interests of our executive officers and stockholders and driving the NEOs’ performance to enhance long-term stockholder value and achieve Company objectives.

Changes As a result of such approval, the Compensation Committee did not make any structural changes to 2016 Compensation Program

the compensation program for 2021. As discussed under “Changes to 2022 Annual Cash Incentive Plan (Replacing ROBE with Pre-Tax Income Margin)

In February 2016,Plan” below, the Compensation Committee in consultation with its independent compensation consultant, Pay Governance LLC,added the Tons Sold Growth metric and with input from management, determined that it would be inincreased the best interests of the Company’s stockholders to replace ROBE as the metric for measuring the Company’s financial performanceapplicable pretax income margin targets under the annual cash incentive plan for 2022.

2021 EXECUTIVE SUCCESSION
As part of a strategic, deliberate and well-executed long-term succession planning process, the Company’s Board of Directors unanimously promoted Karla R. Lewis to President and appointed her to the Company’s Board of Directors effective January 15, 2021. Mrs. Lewis’ compensation did not change as a result of her promotion to President. Consistent with the Company’s annual income before income taxesdirector compensation policies, Mrs. Lewis receives no additional compensation for her service as a percentagedirector while being an employee of net sales (which we referthe Company.
45      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Concurrent with Mrs. Lewis’ promotion, Arthur Ajemyan was promoted to as “pre-tax income margin”).

The Compensation Committee determined that pre-tax income margin represented a better metric for measuring the Company’s financial performance under theVice President, Chief Financial Officer. In connection with his promotion, Mr. Ajemyan’s annual base salary was increased to $450,000 and he became eligible to receive an annual cash incentive plan as it aligns more closelyaward with how management and the Board measure the Company’s performance. Pre-tax income is typically the most important metric currently used in the Company’s corporate and operational decision-making. While the ROBE metric used in prior years continues to be important, the Compensation Committee believes that pre-tax income margin is a better metric at this time to align pay opportunities with the Company’s financial performance and complements and achieves an appropriate balance with the ROA metric under the long-term equity incentive award program.

As in past years, each named executive officer will continue to have a target award of 150% of his base salary. The target award of 150% will be earned if pre-tax income marginMr. Ajemyan is 5.75%, which would place the Company in the 52nd percentile of pre-tax income margin performance in its executivealso eligible to receive annual equity compensation peer group. No payment will be made if pre-tax income margin is less than 3%, which would place the Company in the bottom quartile performance of pre-tax income margin performance in its executive compensation peer group. The maximum award will be earned if pre-tax income margin equals or exceeds 8.5%, which would place the Company in the 65th percentile of pre-tax income margin performance in its executive compensation peer group. In the five year period from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2015, the Company has achieved pre-tax income margin less than the threshold zero times, equal to or above the threshold but less than target three times, equal to or above target but less than the maximum two times, and equal to or exceeding the maximum zero times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

Pre-Tax Income

    

Payout as Percentage

 

 

 

Margin

 

of Base Salary

 

Threshold

 

3

%  

20

%  

Target

 

5.75

%  

150

%  

Maximum

 

8.5

%  

300

%  

If the Company achieves a pre-tax income margin within the range of 3.00% and 8.50%, then the percentage of pre-tax income margin would be rounded to the nearest quarter percentage point and the incentive award would be adjusted accordingly.

We believe that using pre-tax income margin is both consistent with and will further our objective of pay for performance, and focuses our named executive officers on a metric that is a better and more practical indicator of the Company’s overall profitability. The Committee also considered how pre-tax income margin would work in conjunction with the performance-based equity awards now being tied solely to the ROA

26


performance to focus our named executive officers on the Company’s financial performance and management of our balance sheet through the ROA metric.

Performance-Based Equity Awards (Elimination of Operating Income CAGR)

In the first quarter of 2016,as determined by the Compensation Committee determined, in consultation with Pay Governance LLC and with input from management, that it would be in the best interests of the Company’s stockholders to eliminate operating income CAGR as a metric for measuring the Company’s financial performance under the 2016 long-term equity incentive awards. The Compensation Committee retained the same ROA award structure for the 2016 long-term equity incentive awards, but eliminated the operating income CAGR element. Accordingly, the 2016 performance-based equity awards will vest when the Company achieves a ROA target over the three-year performance period, which the Committee believes complements and achieves an appropriate balance with the pre-tax income metric under the annual cash incentive award program.

Additional 2016 CEO Cash Award Opportunity

In February 2016, the Compensation Committee decided to implement an additional annual cash incentive award for Mr. Mollins which is based on four specific strategic performance achievements. This additional cash award allows Mr. Mollins to achieve a maximum of $100,000, or $25,000 for each individual element, based on the following four criteria:

·

identification and development of key management personnel throughout the Company for succession planning purposes;

Board.

·

improvement in incident-based safety performance metrics;

OVERVIEW OF OUR EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM

·

improvement of our inventory turns to at least 4.75 times based on tons (or 2.5 months on hand); and

·

identification and execution of internal growth initiatives and acquisitions, with emphasis on growing the Company’s automotive and aerospace businesses.

The Compensation Committee believes that this additional performance-based cash award will focus Mr. Mollins on these important strategic and operational goals. Additionally, if Mr. Mollins achieves all four of these criteria in 2016 and receives the maximum $100,000 payment, his total cash compensation will move closer to the median of the chief executive officers in the Company’s executive compensation peer group. The Committee has not made a decision whether or not to continue this type of award after 2016.

Overview of Our Executive Compensation Program

Compensation Program Objectives

Objectives

Our compensation program is designed and managed to align executive compensation with Company performance, to motivate our executives to deliver financial and operating results whichthat create and maximize value for our stockholders, and to attract and retain key executive talent. While the Compensation Committee has structured individual components of pay to vary from market medians, it aims for our NEOs’ total compensation to approximate the median when performance targets are achieved. We believe it is important that our executive compensation program:

·

Aligns the interests of our executives with those of our stockholders. We align the financial interests of our executive officers with the interests of our stockholders by tying a majority of our executives’ incentive compensation directly to Company performance. In addition, we have implemented significant stock ownership requirements for our officers to strengthen this alignment with investors’ interests.

·

Promotes and maintains a performance and achievement-oriented culture. A majority of our NEOs’ total direct compensation is tied directly to Company performance through our annual cash incentive awards and performance-based equity awards. We establish performance targets that are reasonably


27Aligns the interests of our executives with those of our stockholders.

We align the financial interests of our executive officers with the interests of our stockholders by tying a majority of our executives’ incentive compensation directly to Company performance. In addition, we have implemented significant stock ownership requirements for our executive officers to strengthen the alignment of their interests and our stockholders’ interests.


our CEO’s and 64% of our other NEOs’ target total direct compensation was tied to performance metrics. We establish performance targets that are demanding, support our strategic and financial objectives, and promote long-term stockholder value, without encouraging unnecessary or excessive risk taking.

demanding for incentive awards earned, support our strategic and financial objectives and promote long-term stockholder value, without encouraging unnecessary or excessive risk taking.

·

Is competitive. Our program is designed to attract, hire, retain and motivate talented and skilled executives. As such, we structure direct compensation at target to be competitive with the median compensation paid by companies with whom we may compete for executive talent, including those in our executive compensation peer group. While individual pay elements may vary from market medians, we aim to approximate total pay at median when performance targets are achieved.


Is competitive. Our program is designed to attract, retain and motivate talented and skilled executives. As such, we structure total direct compensation at target to be competitive with the median compensation paid by companies with whom we may compete for executive talent, including those in our executive compensation peer group. While individual components of pay may vary from market medians, we aim to approximate total pay at median when performance targets are achieved.
The Company enjoys a team-oriented corporate culture and rewards the entire team of executives and corporate officers for their collaborative effort that is reflected in the Company's industry leadingCompany’s industry-leading performance. Attracting and retaining a team of outstanding executivecorporate officers with complementary skills and expertise has proven successful for the Company'sCompany’s growth, both organically and through acquisitions, and for maintaining the Company'sCompany’s profitable financial performance, each of which enhances stockholder value. In order to promote our team culture, the Compensation Committee considers internal pay equity when setting compensation levels for our executives. This team approach is best illustrated by our annual cash incentive award program in which all NEOs have the same target annual cash incentive award opportunity (150% of their respective base salaries) based on the same performance objectives. Moreover, equity awards for NEOs are also fairly comparable, with the exception of the CEO.

28

CEO and President.
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      46

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Elements of Compensation

ELEMENTS OF COMPENSATION
A summary of the main elements of our executive compensation program is set forth below:

Element

Element

Type

Type

Description

Cash

Cash

Base salaries (see page 36)

53)


The only component composed of fixed cash compensation.

Consistent with the design of our total compensation program, base

Base salaries for our NEOs are slightly below(other than our President) approximate the market median paid to comparable officers in our executive compensation peer group.

Base salary for our President approximates the market’s 75th percentile.

Annual performance-based cash incentive awards (see page 36)

53)

Through 2015, awards based on return on beginning stockholders’ equity, or ROBE, relative to targets
The 2021 annual cash incentive plan opportunity was established at the beginning of the year.

The amount of the ROBE award was determined pursuant toon a sliding scale, ranging from zero for results below the 3.00% pretax income margin threshold, to 38%20% of base salary for results at the 3.00% pretax income margin threshold, a target of 150% of base salary at 5.75% pretax income margin and up to a maximum of 300% of base salary.

ROBEsalary for pretax income margin of 8.50% or higher. Mathematical interpolation is applied to determine the actual incentive award if the calculated pretax income margin result is in 2015the applicable range (threshold to target or target to maximum).


2021 pretax income margin was 9%13.46%, which resulted in each NEO receiving a payment under thean award equal to 300% of base salary.

Target annual cash incentive plan equal to 122% of his or her base salary, which is above the threshold but below the target.

Consistent with the design of our total compensation program, target incentive opportunities approximate: (i) median for our CEO approximateCEO; (ii) the 75th percentile for our President; and (iii) between the median opportunities availableand 75th percentile for our other NEOs, in each case, compared to chiefsimilar executives of companies in our executive compensation peer group.

Consistent with the design of our compensation program and our emphasis on

To promote internal pay equity as well as a desire to reinforce an executive team concept, target annual cash incentive opportunities for other NEOs are equal to those ofbased on the CEO and are above median opportunities available to comparable officers in our executive compensation peer group. As discussed below, this is balanced by maximum long-term equity incentive opportunities as well as base salaries that are both below median for comparable executive officers in our executive compensation peer group.

For 2016, the Compensation Committee determined to replace ROBE with pre-tax income marginsame salary percentages as the sole metric under the annual cash incentive plan.

CEO.

29


Long-Term Equity Compensation

Restricted stock unit awards (see page 38)

54)


In 2015, although Mr. Hannah was CEO on the grant date, the Committee awarded Mr. Hannah a reduced award for 50,000 RSUs with an abbreviated eighteen-month vesting period to align with his planned retirement in 2016 (though he will retain his position as a director thereafter). Even though Mr. Mollins was not yet promoted to CEO as2021, 80% of the grant date, Mr. Mollins received a larger grant of 94,000 RSUs in 2015 in connection with his promotion to CEO.

In 2015, eighty percent (80%) of Mr. Hannah’s and Mr. Mollins’ restricted stock unit (“RSU”) awards granted to our CEO and President were performance-based. They willperformance-based and only vest if the Company achieves specifica minimum ROA and operating income CAGR for the performance period. The vesting for the remaining twenty percent (20%)20% of Mr. Hannah’sour CEO and Mr. Mollins’ restricted stock unitPresident’s RSU awards granted in 2015 are2021 is dependent only on their respective continued service duringthrough the performancethree-year period. Mr. Hannah has an abbreviated eighteen-month performance period to align with his planned retirement in 2016 (though he will retain his position as a director thereafter). Mr. Mollins has a standard three-year performance period.


In 2015, sixty percent (60%)2021, 60% of the restricted stock unitRSU awards ofgranted to the other NEOs were performance-based and subject to the same three-year ROA and operating income CAGR performance objectives. The vesting for the remaining forty percent (40%)40% of the restricted stock unitRSU awards areis dependent only on the NEOs’ continued service duringthrough the three-year period.


In 2015, values2021, the value of restricted stock unitRSU awards forgranted to each of our NEOs approximatedwas slightly above the median of the equity awards granted to comparable officers in our executive compensation peer group.


Results for the three-year performanceperformance-based awards that vested on December 31, 2015 were 33% for ROA and 0% for operating income CAGR.

2021 resulted in 200% of the target number of awards vesting, which represented maximum performance over the three-year period. The

3047

      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

ElementTypeDescription
three-year measurement period ended December 31, 2021 was the first time since 2008 in which the maximum payout of the performance-based equity awards was achieved.
Retirement or Deferred Compensation Benefits

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (“SERP”) (see page 39)

55)

Mr. Hannah, Mr. Mollins,
Mrs. Lewis and Mr. Sales are the only NEOs thatparticipating in the Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (“SERP”). Mr. Sales retired from the Company on January 31, 2022. Messrs. Ajemyan, Hoffman, Koch, Shanley and Smith do not participate in the SERP.


The SERP was frozen to new participants as of January 1, 2009.

Benefit

The benefit amount is set to 38% of the average of the participant’s highest five years oftotal cash compensation during the lastfinal ten years of total cash compensation.employment.


In comparing the values of the SERP against the retirement benefits offered to similar executives at companies in our executive compensation peer group, the Compensation Committee found that the values for NEOs who participate in the SERP approximate medianfall between the 50th to 75th percentile of retirement benefits compared to what they couldwould receive if they participated in the programs of companies in our executive compensation peer group.

Deferred Compensation Plan (see page 39)

55)

Mr.
Because they do not participate in the SERP, Messrs. Hoffman, is the only NEO receivingKoch, Shanley and Smith received Company contributions under the Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. Deferred Compensation Plan at this time.(the “Deferred Compensation Plan”). Mr. Hoffman doesAjemyan did not participate in the SERP.Deferred Compensation Plan in 2021.


Provides supplemental retirement benefits to certain key employees through discretionary companyCompany contributions.


In comparing the values of the Deferred Compensation Plan against the deferred compensation benefits offered to similar executives at companies in our executive compensation peer group, the Compensation Committee found that the values fortarget value for: (i) Mr. Hoffman would be in the Deferred Compensation Plan approximatetop quartile; and (ii) Messrs. Koch, Shanley and Smith would be slightly below market median retirement benefits compared toof what he couldthey each would receive if hethey participated in the programs of companies in our executive compensation peer group.

Other Benefits

Standard Benefits Widely Available to Employees (see page 40)


Executive officers, including the NEOs, participate in the same benefit plans broadly available to all full-time employees, including health insurance and 401(k) plans.

All non-union employees of Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co., including the NEOs, are eligible to participate in our Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”).

Limited Perquisites (see page 40)

56)


No perquisites other than certain memberships for thecertain NEOs used primarily for business purposes.

RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      48

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

ALLOCATION OF COMPENSATION COMPONENTS

Allocation of Compensation Components

We compensate our executive officers by using a balanced and strategic combination of the elements described above which combines elements that vary by:


type of compensation (fixed, variable, service-based and performance-based);


length of the performance period (annual and long-term);


form of compensation (cash and equity); and


with respect to equity compensation, performance-based orand service-based.

We believe this balanced mixture supports our compensation objectives, including alignment of our executives’ and our stockholders’ interests, the retention of our key executives, mitigation of excessive risk taking and emphasizesappropriate emphasis of pay-for-performance. The Compensation Committee has designed the overall compensation program to ensure that a majority of our executiveexecutives’ compensation is at risk and weighted towards Company performance, annual and long-term incentives and stock price appreciation. Although a large portionsignificant majority of our NEOs’ compensation is tied to Company performance, the Compensation Committee has no pre-determined mix or allocation among the various elements. The following chart illustrates the targeted allocation of the principal compensation components for our NEOs (other than Mr. Hannah) for 2015. Mr. Hannah is excluded from the following chart because of his transition to Executive Chairman in 2015 and planned retirement in 2016.2021. The percentages reflect the amounts of 2015 salary and targeted2021 salaries, target annual cash incentive compensation and the aggregate grant date fair values of restricted stock unitsthe target number of RSUs granted in 2015.

Mix of Principal Compensation Components

Picture 7

2021.

MIX OF PRINCIPAL COMPENSATION COMPONENTS

32

[MISSING IMAGE: tm223369d1-bc_paymixbw.jpg]
49      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

How We Make Decisions Regarding Executive Compensation

HOW WE MAKE DECISIONS REGARDING EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Compensation Committee and Independent Directors

Directors

The Compensation Committee, which is comprisedcomposed entirely of independent directors, oversees our executive compensation program in concert with all of the Company’s independent directors. Compensation for the NEOs is subject to final approval by the independent directors of the Board upon recommendation of the Compensation Committee.

At the request of the independent directors, our CEO annually provides a review and evaluation of each of the executive officers, including the NEOs (other than himself), identifying accomplishments in the past year, achievement of objectives and results, executive development and proposed objectives for the coming year. This information, along with other data including the Company’s financial results and achievements, is reviewed and discussed by the Compensation Committee and the independent directors.

The Compensation Committee incorporates the CEO’s review into its analysis of the NEOs’ total compensation and its consideration of the appropriate mix and structure of the elements of the NEOs’ total compensation. The achievement of the Company’s goals and objectives (including management development, safety performance, working capital management, and capital allocation) in the past year, as well as the proposed objectives for the coming year, are also considered in the determination of the type, form and total amount of compensation for the CEO. The Compensation Committee also reviews data provided by its independent compensation consultant and discusses that data with the CEO.consultant. Although the base salaries, annual cash incentive awards and long-term incentive awards are considered at different times duringthroughout the year, the Compensation Committee analyzes the proposed total direct compensation package (or the total of base salary, annual cash incentive and long-term incentives) before making any recommendations regarding individual elements of compensation. The Compensation Committee formulates preliminary recommendations on the amount and type of compensation to be paid to the CEO and the other NEOs. The Compensation Committee then discusses with the CEO its preliminary recommendations with respect to the NEOs (other than himself). The Compensation Committee then presents final recommendations to the independent directors in executive session. The independent directors make the final determination of and approve the compensation to be paid to the CEO and the other NEOs.

To ensure that the NEOs and our other executive officers are compensated in a manner consistent with our strategy, competitive market practices, sound corporate governance principles and stockholder interests, the Compensation Committee regularly evaluates our executive compensation program. When doing so, the Committee considers the needs of the business, peer practices, external trends and the results of our annual say-on-pay vote. The Committee also seeks advice from its independent compensation consultant, and senioras well as executive management. In 2016, the Committee made two significant changes to our executive compensation program. First, the Committee replaced ROBE with pre-tax income margin as the metric for measuring the Company’s financial performance under the annual cash incentive plan. Second, the Committee eliminated Operating Income CAGR as a metric for measuring the Company’s financial performance under the long-term equity incentive awards. See “Changes to 2016 Compensation Program” above.

The Compensation Committee also took into account the executive leadership succession plan when making its decisions in 2015 and 2016.

Independent Compensation Consultant

Consultant

The Compensation Committee annually engages an independent compensation consultant to assist it in connection with the review and evaluation of the total compensation package provided to the NEOs and the individual elements of the package. In 2015,2021, the Compensation Committee engaged Pay Governance LLC.as its independent compensation consultant. Pay Governance reports directly to the Compensation Committee and neither it nor any of its affiliates provided any services to the Company, other than the services to the Compensation Committee with respect to executive compensation and the Nominating and Governance Committee with respect to biennial reviews of our director

33


compensation, which the Board believes is consistent with the independence of the consultant. The Compensation Committee conducted an assessment of Pay Governance’s independence, taking into

RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      50

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
account the factors specified in the NYSENew York Stock Exchange listing standards and information provided by Pay Governance, and based on that assessment, determined that Pay Governance is independent.

Compensation Committee Review of Executive Compensation Peer Group and Other Data

Data

When making decisions regarding the compensation of our NEOs, the Compensation Committee considers information from a variety of sources. The Compensation Committee analyzes both the individual elements and the total compensation package for each of the NEOs, as well as the relationship of those packages between NEOs.

Together with its independent compensation consultant, the Compensation Committee reviews our financial statements and compares our financial results (including stock performance) with those of theour executive compensation peer group and our industry peer group, as well as general factors specifically impacting the metals industry, and compares compensation information for our NEOs with that available for comparable executive officers within the executive compensation peer group. The combination of these analyses helps the Committee assess the reasonableness of its incentive plan goals, alignment of pay and performance and potential need for recalibration of its pay and incentive goals and the elements of NEO compensation.executives. In determining each executive’s total compensation package, the Compensation Committee considers both qualitative and quantitative criteria, as well as the CEO’s recommendations and performance evaluations and historical compensation records of the Company. Although a large portionsignificant majority of compensation is based upontied to Company performance, the Compensation Committee has no pre-determined mix or allocation among the various elements. The composition of the executive compensation peer group is reviewed annually.
The Compensation Committee periodicallyannually reviews and, as appropriate, revises the executive compensation peer group in an effort to assure comparability of information.

the group continues to reflect any changes in the Company’s business, strategy and size as measured by revenue, market capitalization and other factors. The Compensation Committee also considers additional factors such as the Company’s stock performance as compared with standard indices, such as the S&P 500, as well as our industry peer group. The Compensation Committee reviews the amount of equity awards and common stock actually held by each NEO and recognizes that the NEOs are directly impacted by the Company’s stock price and, accordingly, their interest in the Company’s performance and the impact it has on the market value of the stock is closely aligned with that of the Company’s stockholders.

The combination of these analyses helps the Compensation Committee assess how our NEOs are compensated compared to their peers—both in terms of individual components and total compensation, the reasonableness of the Company’s incentive plan goals, the alignment of pay and performance, the potential need for recalibration of the Company’s pay and incentive goals, and the actual elements of NEO compensation.
Executive Compensation Peer Group

Group

There are no public companies in the metals service center industry that are comparable to the Company in terms of size, stock market capitalization, complexity and financial performance. Accordingly, in considering executive compensation for 2015,2021, as in prior years, the Compensation Committee and the independent compensation consultant used the executive compensation peer group.

Our executivegroup set forth below.

The Compensation Committee, with assistance from the independent compensation consultant, annually reviews specific criteria and recommendations regarding companies to add or remove from the peer group consists ofto ensure that the twenty-five (25) public companies listed below. Thisin the peer group remain relevant and provide meaningful compensation comparisons. The Compensation Committee strives to maintain consistency in the peer group from year-to-year and only makes changes when appropriate in consultation with the independent compensation consultant.
Our executive compensation peer group includes a limited number of companies in similar industries to

34


Reliancethe metals processing and distribution industry and also includes industrial and manufacturing companies of comparable size in terms of revenues and/or stock market capitalization and complexity.

The executive
51      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
compensation peer group has been constructed, in part, such that the Company’s revenues, market capitalization enterprise value and invested capital generally approximate the market median of the executive peer group companies. However, the industrial and manufacturing companies in this peer group are not impacted at all, or are affected to a lesser degree than Reliance, by fluctuations in metal pricing.
For fiscal year 2021, the peer group was updated to remove AK Steel Holding Corporation, Ingersoll-Rand plc and Navistar International Corporation and to include Ball Corporation, Crown Holdings, Inc. and LKQ Corporation. AK Steel Holding Corporation was removed from the peer group as a result of its acquisition by Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. and Navistar International Corporation was removed from the peer group as a result of its acquisition by Traton SE. Ingersoll-Rand plc was removed from the peer group as a result of its decision to spin off its industrial business. Ball Corporation, Crown Holdings, Inc. and LKQ Corporation were added as peers based on their fit as industrial companies with revenues broadly comparable to the Company.

AGCO Corporation

Eaton Corporation plc
Parker-Hannifin Corporation

AGCO Corporation

Allegheny Technologies Incorporated

General Cable Corporation

SPX Corporation

AK Steel Holding Corporation

Genuine Parts Company

Steel Dynamics, Inc.

Alcoa Inc.

Ball Corporation

Illinois Tool Works Inc.

Terex Corporation

Allegheny Technologies Incorporated

Commercial Metals Company

Ingersoll-Rand plc

The Timken Company

Arrow Electronics, Inc.

LKQ Corporation

MRC Global Inc.

United States Steel Corporation

Commercial Metals Company

Crown Holdings, Inc.

Navistar International Corporation

MRC Global Inc.

W.W. Grainger, Inc.

Cummins Inc.

Nucor Corporation

WESCO International, Inc.

Dover Corporation

PACCAR Inc.

Eaton Corporation plc

Parker-Hannifin Corporation

Analysis of 20152021 Company and Executive Compensation Peer Group Compensation

Compensation

In 2015,2021, the Compensation Committee extensively analyzed the Company’s financial statements and stock market data ofperformance in comparison to the Companypeer group’s most currently available financial and the most current available executive compensation peer groupstock market data. Consistent with the Company’s philosophy of pay-for-performance, the Compensation Committee also considered the total direct compensation (base salary, annual cash incentive award and equity awards) and retirement plan benefits of the NEOs as compared to comparable officers in the executive compensation peer group.

Compared to the executive compensation peer group:

·

the Company ranked at the 52nd percentile for revenues in 2014 (the most recent full year information available);

group (based on each peer group member’s most recently released annual financial statements):

·

the Company’s revenue growth ranked at the 93rd and 91st percentiles for the five and one-year periods ended December 31, 2014;


·

the Company’s return on beginning equity ranked at the 33rd percentile in 2014 and the 44th percentile over the five-year period ended December 31, 2014; and

the Company ranked at the 50th percentile for revenues in 2021;

·

the Company’s return on total assets ranked at the 48th percentile in 2014 and 60th percentile for the five-year period ended December 31, 2014.


the Company’s revenue growth ranked at the 86th percentile in 2021 and 75th percentile for the five-year period ended December 31, 2021;

the Company’s pretax income margin ranked at the 66th percentile in 2021; and

the Company’s return on total assets ranked at the 79th percentile in 2021 and 80th percentile for the five-year period ended December 31, 2021.
Based on information provided by the independent compensation consultant, the Compensation Committee founddetermined that in 2015 that2021 the target total direct compensation of our CEO in 2014 approximated the 27th percentilemedian of the chief executive officers in our executive compensation peer group, and the aggregate target total direct compensation of our other NEOs (excludingfell between the CEO) in 2014 approximated the 56th50th and 75th percentile ofto the comparable executive officers in our executive compensation peer group. The Compensation Committee determined that these ranges were appropriate and not in need of modification at this time.
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      52



COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Internal Pay Equity

Equity

The Compensation Committee broadly considers internal pay equity when setting compensation levels for our executives in order to foster a team culture among the executive officers. Our executive compensation program uses the same compensation components for our NEOs, with a few exceptions. From 20122016 through 2014,2021, 80% of our CEO received 100% of hisand President’s target long-term equity incentive award inawards were performance-based restricted stock units while the other NEOs received 80% of their long-term equity incentive award in performance-based restricted stock unitsRSUs and the remaining 20% inwere service-based restricted stock units. In 2015, Mr. Hannah and Mr. Mollins received 80% of their long-term equity incentive award in performance-based restricted stock units and the remaining 20% in service-based restricted stock units,RSUs, while the other NEOs received 60% of their long-term equity incentive awardawards in performance-based restricted stock unitsRSUs and the remaining 40% in service-based restricted stock units.RSUs. In 2022, 80% of all NEO target equity awards issued were performance-based. The remaining awards are service-based. Our annual cash incentive award program provides all NEOs with the same target annual cash incentive award opportunity of 150% of their respective base salaries based on identical

a company profitability performance objective.

35

PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS OF OUR EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM

Base Salary

performance objectives. Also, in 2015, each of our NEOs, except for Mr. Hannah and Mr. Mollins, received a base salary increase of 7%.

Principal Components of Our Executive Compensation Program

Base Salary

The base salary payable to each of our NEOs is the minimum paycompensation that such executive receives in any year. Base salaries reflect the individual skills, experience and roles and responsibilities of the executive officer within the Company.

The Compensation Committee reviews NEO salaries annually and makes adjustments to reflect merit, promotion or change in role and changes in market rates for similar positions. In July 2020, the Compensation Committee, in consideration of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company’s stakeholders, and upon the recommendation of our CEO, elected to freeze base salaries for our corporate officers (including our NEOs) at 2019 levels for 2020.
In July 2021, after a review of the base salaries of comparable officers at companies in our executive compensation peer group and in consultation with the independent compensation consultant, the Compensation Committee recommended and the independent directors of the Board approved base salary increases for the NEOs of: 7.6% for Mr. Hoffman, 5.6% for Mrs. Lewis; 8.7% for Mr. Koch; 8.3% for Mr. Shanley; and 7.3% for Mr. Smith. Mr. Ajemyan received a base salary increase of 22.2% in July 2021 following his promotion to Vice President, Chief Financial Officer in January 2021. In anticipation of his retirement, Mr. Sales did not receive an increase in his base salary in July 2021.
We believe that base salaries of our NEOs (other than our President) continue to approximate the market median of salaries paid to comparable officers at companies in our executive compensation peer group. The base salary for our President approximates the market’s 75th percentile.
We do not have employment agreements with any of our executive officers. No executive officer has a minimum base salary or guaranteed salary increase.

In July 2015, after review of base salaries of comparable officers at companies in our executive compensation peer group and consultation with our independent compensation consultant, the Compensation Committee recommended and the independent directors approved base salary increases of 7% for each of the NEOs, other than Mr. Hannah and Mr. Mollins. Mr. Hannah did not receive a base salary increase in 2015 because of his transition to Executive Chairman in 2015 and planned retirement in 2016; Mr. Mollins received a larger base salary increase consistent with his promotion to CEO. Consistent with our historical pay practices, even after the adjustments, base salaries of our NEOs, excluding Mr. Hannah who is in a temporary transitional Executive Chairman role, remained below the market median of salaries paid to comparable officers at companies in our executive compensation peer group. Mr. Hannah was significantly below the market median the entire 16-year period he was CEO. If re-elected, Mr. Hannah will continue as a director of the Company after he retires from his employment with the Company, at which time he will be compensated as a non-employee director.

Annual Cash Incentive Awards

For 2015, executive officers were eligibleAwards

The Compensation Committee uses pretax income margin as the metric for performance-basedmeasuring the Company’s profitability under the annual cash incentive awards tiedplan. The Compensation Committee selected pretax income margin because it is the primary metric informing the Company’s corporate and operational decision-making, including capital allocation. The Compensation Committee believes that pretax income margin is an appropriate metric for purposes of our annual cash incentive plan as it incentivizes management to ROBE. increase the Company’s long-term profitability and efficiency.
In concert with the Company’s compensation philosophy of overweighting performance-based pay, our NEOs have annual cash incentive opportunities that may result in higher cash payments than those for comparable officers within our executive compensation peer group, but such awards are only
53      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
payable only if the Company meets demanding objectives. This has historically resultedstructure currently results in combined total cash compensation belownear the market median for our CEO compared to the chief executives of companies in our executive compensation peer group, at the 75th percentile for our President and compensationbetween the 50th and 75th percentiles for our other NEOs compared to similar executives of companies in theour executive compensation peer group’s second quartile (between the 50th and 75th percentiles) for meeting the Company’s target ROBE objective.

ROBE is calculated by dividing net income for the period January 1 to December 31 of the applicable year (as may be adjusted for significant, unusual or non-recurring events) by total stockholders’ equity at December 31 of the immediately preceding year (as may be adjusted for the issuance of new shares of common stock or share repurchases).

For 2015,group.

As in past years, each NEO had a 2021 target annual cash incentive award of 150% of base salary, whichsalary. The target award of 150% would be earned if ROBE were 10%.pretax income margin for 2021 was 5.75%, which would place the Company around the 41st percentile of the historical pretax income margin results of our executive compensation peer group. No payment would be made if ROBE werepretax income margin is less than 6%, which historically was in the bottom quartile performance of our executive compensation peer group. The maximum award would be triggered if ROBE

36


equaled or exceeded 25%3.00%, which would be among our executive compensation peer group’s highest results based on their historical performance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent of

 

 

    

ROBE

    

Base Salary

 

Threshold

 

6

%  

38

%

Target

 

10

%  

150

%

Maximum

 

≥ 25

%  

300

%

Ifhave placed the Company achieved a ROBE within the range of 6% and 25%, the percentage would be rounded to the nearest one-half percentage point and the incentive award would be adjusted accordingly. No award is payable if the ROBE is less than 6%.

For the five years prior to 2015, the Committee had used a 13% ROBE target, but the Company achieved 13% ROBE in only one of those years, even though the Company’s overall financial performance was at or near the median25th percentile of pretax income margin performance in its executive compensation peer group and above companies in its industry peer group. In February 2015,at the time that the Compensation Committee determinedset the targets.

The maximum award of 300% would be earned if pretax income margin equaled or exceeded 8.50%, which would have placed the Company in the 61st percentile of pretax income margin performance in its executive compensation peer group at the time that the Compensation Committee set the targets. At the time the 2021 targets were set, the Company had only achieved pretax income margin in excess of 8.50% once since 2008. Awards are calculated on a sliding scale. If the Company achieved annual pretax income margin within the range of 3.00% and 8.50%, then mathematical interpolation would have been used to make adjustmentsdetermine the actual incentive award in the applicable range (threshold to target or target to maximum).
In the performance targets to align withten-year period from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2021, the current prolonged environmentCompany achieved pretax income margin below the threshold level zero times, between the threshold and target 3 times, between the target and maximum level 5 times and at or above the maximum level 2 times. Further, in each of lower metals prices globally, which significantly impacted our profitability but is outside2021 and 2019 the Company generated record financial results. 2021 and 2019 were the only times since 2008 that the Company achieved a pretax income of management’s control.8.50% or above. The adjustment also reflectedCompany’s 2021 pretax income margin (as calculated per the Company’s current size, growth expectationsterms of the plan) was 13.46% and the desire to establish balance among demanding yet reasonable performance goals, appropriate motivation and retention of our executives, and achievement of long-term performance objectives.

For 2015, ROBE calculatedresulted in a payout under the plan equal to 300% of each NEO’s year-end base salary. The Company’s 2019 pretax income margin (as calculated per the terms of the plan) was 8.50% and resulted in a payout under the plan equal to 300% of each NEO’s year-end base salary. In other words, management earned maximum levels of pay by delivering exceptional results. As discussed under “Changes to 2022 Annual Cash Incentive Plan” below, the Compensation Committee added the Tons Sold Growth metric and increased the applicable pretax income margin targets under the annual cash incentive plan was 9.0% compared to 10.0% in 2014, 10.0% for 2013, 13.0% for 2012 and 12.5% for 2011. Under the plan the NEOs received cash payments equal to 122% of their base salaries in 2015, 102% for each of 2014 and 2013, 150% for 2012, and 142% for 2011. From 2011 to 2014, the sliding scale remained the same, including the target ROBE of 13%. As noted above, the Compensation Committee adjusted the ROBE target to 10% in 2015.

2022.

When analyzing the actual and potential payouts under the Company’s annual cash incentive plan, especially its maximum incentive awards and resulting cash compensation levels, the Committee found the plan supported its pay-for-performance principles in 2015. Maximum bonuses would have produced cash compensation levels equal to the executive compensation peer group’s 90th percentiles. However, these pay levels are hypothetical and would only have been supported by ROBE of at least 25%, which would have exceeded or approximated the executive compensation peer group’s 90th percentile results for the past year as well as the prior three, five, seven and ten years. In other words, management could have earned exceptional levels of pay only with exceptional results. Similarly, if minimum bonuses were earned at 6% ROBE, executives would have earned cash compensation levels that were in the bottom quartile of the executive compensation peer group for relative ROBE results also in the bottom quartile.

The following table illustrates the threshold, target and maximum performance levels under our annual cash incentive plan, compared with the actual ROBE achieved by the Company and how that has translated into actual pay-for-performance in each of the last five years. For the metals industry, the last five years represented a slow recovery from the recession which began in late 2008, with both demand and pricing below the five-year period prior to 2009, with lower metals pricing globally having the most significant impact on our

2021.

37


profitability. This is reflected below in actual results for the last five years being below target levels (except for 2012).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ROBE

 

Awards

 

Year

    

Minimum

    

Target

    

Maximum

    

Actual (1)

    

Target Award

    

Actual Payout

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(as a percentage of base salary)

 

2015

 

6

%  

10

%  

25

%  

9.0

%  

150

%  

122

%

2014

 

6

%  

13

%  

25

%  

10.0

%  

150

%  

102

%

2013

 

6

%  

13

%  

25

%  

10.0

%  

150

%  

102

%

2012

 

6

%  

13

%  

25

%  

13.0

%  

150

%  

150

%

2011

 

6

%  

13

%  

25

%  

12.5

%  

150

%  

142

%


(1)

Calculated in accordance with the plan.

This variation in the incentive award amounts demonstrates that the NEOs’ compensation correlates to the Company’s performance and the return on stockholders’ investment. As noted above, the Company achieved target only one time in the last five years. As noted above, in February 2016, the Compensation Committee determined not to retain the ROBE sliding scale for the Company’s 2016 annual cash incentive plan. Instead, the Compensation Committee determined that the metric for measuring the Company’s financial performance under the annual cash incentive plan in 2016 will be pre-tax income margin. See “Changes to 2016 Compensation Program” above.

Long-Term Equity Incentive Compensation

Compensation

The Compensation Committee recommends grants of equity awards for named executive officers,NEOs, but the independent directors of the full Board approve all such grants. The Compensation Committee considers executive compensation peer group data from the independent compensation consultant as well as the recommendations of our CEO with respect to any grants of equity awards to the other NEOs (other than himself) and other executive officers, as well as to corporate officers and other key employees.

In making its recommendations to the independent directors, the Compensation Committee considers the position of the NEO, his or her importance to the Company’s results and operations, his or her individual performance, the equity awards previously granted to that individual, the terms and market value of the equity grant, the total value of the equity grant and the relative number of such recommended grants among the various individuals then under consideration for grants, as well as the potential dilution and the related expense as a percentage of pre-taxpretax income. The Committee also considers market data for executives in comparable positions within our executive compensation peer group. In 2015, the Committee also made adjustments to reflect the executive leadership succession plan.

RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      Since 2012, there have been three categories of awards: (i) awards based on ROA; (ii) awards based on operating income CAGR; and (iii) awards based on continued service to the Company. In the 2012, 2013 and 2014 grants, one hundred54

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Eighty percent (100%(80%) of our CEO’s restricted stock unitCEO and President’s RSU awards and eightysixty percent (80%(60%) of the other NEOs’ restricted stock unitRSU awards wouldgranted in 2021 will vest if, after a three-year period that expires on December 31, 2023, the Company had achievedachieves an ROA and operating income CAGR performance objectives.result at or above a minimum threshold. The remaining twenty percent (20%) of the restricted stock unit awards of the NEOs (excluding the CEO) were dependent only on their continued service for a three-year period. In the 2015 grants, eighty percent (80%) of Mr. Hannah’sCEO and Mr. Mollins’ restricted stock unit awards will vest if, after a performance period, the Company has achieved ROA and operating income CAGR performance objectives and the remaining twenty percent (20%) of their restricted stock unit awards are dependent only on their continued service during the performance period. As noted above, Mr. Mollins’ performance period is three years, but Mr. Hannah’s award was reduced in number and his performance period was shortened to eighteen months to align with his planned retirement in 2016. Sixty percent (60%) of the restricted stock unitPresident’s RSU awards granted in 2015 to the NEOs other than Mr. Hannah2021 and Mr. Mollins will vest if, after the three-year performance period, the Company achieves ROA and operating income CAGR performance objectives and the remaining forty percent (40%) of the restricted stock unitother NEOs’ RSU awards

38


ofwill vest on December 1, 2023 subject to the NEOs other than Mr. Hannah and Mr. Mollins are dependent only on theirindividuals’ continued service during the three-year period.through such date. The Committee determined to use this allocation of performance-based and service-based awards is intended to enhancebalance performance and retention objectives. In striking the appropriate balance, the Compensation Committee sought to design a policy that incentivizes strong performance while also strengthening the retention objectives due toaspects of the long-term equity awards since the Company does not maintain employment agreements with its executive leadership succession plan.officers. The restricted stock unitsRSUs will be forfeited if the objectivesROA results are not met,achieved at or above the threshold (for performance-based awards), or the individual voluntarily leaves the Company or is terminated for cause.

The Company must achieve the following objectivesaward agreements for the stated percent ofRSUs provide for prorated vesting if an individual’s employment terminates (i) due to a qualifying retirement, death or disability or (ii) without cause following a change in control.

The performance-based restricted stock unitsawards granted in 2015 subject to the specified goal to2021 will vest at the end of three-years (or eighteen months in the case of Mr. Hannah):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent of RSUs

 

ROA

 

Operating Income

 

Levels

    

Vesting

    

Objectives

    

CAGR

 

Threshold

 

25

%  

6

%  

3

%

Target

 

100

%  

8

%  

8

%

Maximum

 

200

%  

13

%  

13

%

In 2015, the Compensation Committee adjusted the threshold, target and maximum for ROA to 6%, 8%, and 13% from 8%, 13% and 18%, respectively, and lowered the target and maximum for the operating income CAGR to 8% and 13% from 10% and 17%, respectively. The Compensation Committee initially set the ROA and CAGR targets in 2012 and given the Company’s size and complexity determined that changes were appropriate to reflect the current and prolonged environment of lower metals prices globally, a factor that significantly impacts our earnings but is outside of management’s control. The Compensation Committee’s intention was to establish balance among demanding yet reasonable performance goals, appropriate motivation and retention of our executives, and achievement of annual performance objectives. Since the financial results ofif the Company and its industry and compensation peers had not returned toachieves an ROA result over the levels prior to the recession which began in late 2008, the Committee determined that these changes were necessary and appropriate.

three-year performance period ending December 31, 2023 at or above a minimum threshold. ROA for the performance period is calculated as the average of the three years of annual ROA (operating income for the year (as adjusted for certain non-recurring items) divided by the average total assets for the year) for each of the three years in the performance period, roundedperiod. Mathematical interpolation is applied to determine the nearest half percent. Inactual incentive award if the calculated ROA result is in the applicable range (threshold to target or target to maximum).

ROANumber of RSUs
Vested
Threshold6.00%25.0%
Target8.00%100.0%
Maximum13.00%200.0%
During the 10-year period from January 1, 20062012 through December 31, 2015,2021, the Company has achieved the threshold ROA but less than the target ROA five times, the target ROA but less than the maximum ROA two times and an ROA equal to or exceeding the maximum ROA three times, and it has achieved an ROA less than the threshold ROA zero times.

Operating income CAGR for the performance period is calculated as the compound annual growth rate of the Company’s operating income over the three-year performance period. In the 10-year period from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2015, the Company has achievedbelow the threshold CAGRzero times; equal to the threshold but less thanbelow the target CAGR one time,three times; equal to the target CAGR but less thanbelow the maximum CAGR zero timessix times; and a CAGR equal to or exceedingabove the maximum CAGR five times, and it has achieved an operatingone time. As with the Company’s pretax income CAGR less thanmargin goals, the threshold CAGR four times.

Committee believes these historical results indicate its long-term performance goals are reasonably demanding.

Results for the performance-based equity awards granted in 20132019 were determined in the first quarter of 2016. Performance results for 2013 ROA awards2022 and operating income CAGR awards were as follows: 33%resulted in 200.0% of the target number of 2013 RSUs subject toawards vesting based on an ROA performance vested; and 0% of 14.56%. The three-year measurement period ended December 31, 2021, was the target numberfirst time since 2008 in which the maximum payout of shares subject to operating income CAGR performance vested.

At present, we believe the performance-based equity awards granted in (i) 2014 will generally produce payouts below target, for each of the ROA and operating income CAGR metrics, and (ii) 2015 for ROA will produce near target and for operating income CAGR will produce payouts below target.

was achieved.

SERP and Deferred Compensation PlaPlan
SERPn

SERP. . In 1996, the Company adopted athe SERP to provide post-retirement benefits to certain of our executive officers and to certain other key employees. The SERP was amended in 1999employees at that time and also to provide for a pre-retirement death benefit. Effective January 1, 2009, theThe SERP was amended and restated andeffective as of January 1, 2009 at which time it was frozen to new participants.

39


One of the primary objectives of theThe 2009 amendment was to shiftand restatement shifted the risk of the performance of the individual’s retirement plan investments from the Company to the participants. The 2009 amendment and restatementparticipants, eliminated the offsets to the SERP benefit and reduced the benefit amount to 38% of the average of the participant’s highest five years oftotal cash compensation during the lastfinal ten years of total cash compensationemployment (from 50% less offsets for the value of the Company contributions to the Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. Master 401(k) Plan (the “401(k) Plan”) and ESOP planthe Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”) as well as social security benefits). The 2009 amendment and restatement also frozebrought the plan to new participants and brought itSERP into compliance with Rule 409A under the Internal Revenue Code, among other things. The new benefit formula was intended to provide participants with approximately the same benefits that they would have received under the calculation required by the SERP before the amendment, but shifted certain risks from the Company to the participant. Mr. Hannah, Mr. Mollins, Mrs. Lewis and Mr. Sales are the only NEOs that participate in the SERP. Mr. Hoffman is not a participant inSales retired from the SERP.

Company on January 31, 2022.

55      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Deferred Compensation Plan.We also adopted a deferred compensation plan effective December 1, 2008the Deferred Compensation Plan to provide supplemental retirement benefits to certain key employees as well as to combine and replace certain deferred compensation plans and supplemental executive retirement plans that existed at certain companies at the time thatwhen we acquired them and to provide supplemental retirement benefits to certain key employees.them. The Deferred Compensation Plan does not provide for any minimum or guaranteed rate of return. Mr. Hoffman was previously a participant in a subsidiary plan that was replaced by the Reliance Deferred Compensation Plan. Mr. Hoffman now participates in the Reliance Deferred Compensation Plan. In addition, as a former employee of Earle M. Jorgensen Company (“EMJ”), Mr. Hoffman is entitled to receive 3,404 phantom shares of the Company’s common stock under the Earle M. Jorgensen Company Supplemental Stock Bonus Plan.
The Deferred Compensation Plan was amended and restated in 2015effective January 1, 2013 to allow all corporate officers and subsidiary officers to participate. Mr.Messrs. Hoffman, isKoch, Shanley and Smith are the only NEO receivingNEOs who received Company contributions under the Deferred Compensation Plan at this time.

in 2021. Mr. Ajemyan did not participate in the Deferred Compensation Plan in 2021.

The Compensation Committee considers the SERP benefits and any benefits under the Reliance Deferred Compensation Plan in its analysis of each of the NEO’sNEOs’ total compensation. In comparing the values of the SERP and the Deferred Compensation Plan against the retirement benefits offered at companies in the Company’s executive compensation peer group in July 2021, the Compensation Committee found that on balance the values of these benefits areapproximated competitive norms for the NEOs.

NEOs as a whole.

In addition, as a former employee of Earle M. Jorgensen Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Reliance, Mr. Hoffman is entitled to receive the cash equivalent of 3,891 shares of Reliance common stock with a market value of  $631,237 as of December 31, 2021 under the Earle M. Jorgensen Company Supplemental Bonus Plan.
Other Benefits

Benefits

Limited Perquisites. Perquisites provided by the Company are limited in both type and monetary value. The Company provides no perquisites other thanreimburses certain membershipsof our NEOs for our NEOscertain memberships used primarily for business purposes.

Mrs. Lewis received $2,100 of taxable parking allowance in 2021. Messrs. Ajemyan and Smith each received $3,000 in taxable parking and expense allowance in 2021.

Other BenefitsBenefits.. Other than the SERP and deferred compensation plansthe Deferred Compensation Plan (and, for Mr. Hoffman, the Earle M. Jorgensen Company Supplemental Bonus Plan), described above, the NEOs participate in the Company’s health, welfare, retirement and other plans, such as the 401(k) Plan and the ESOP, on the same basis as these benefits are generally available to all eligible employees.

Additional Information

The ESOP plan is closed to new enrollment and the Company is not currently making annual contribution to the plan.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
No Employment Agreements

NoneAgreements; Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control

We do not have individual employment agreements that provide change in control or severance benefits to any of our executive officers, including the NEOs, has an employment agreement, severance agreement, change in control agreement or other similar agreement.NEOs. We have been successful in attracting and retaining an experienced and effective management team without the use of such agreements. Most of our executives have been with Reliance for many years and have built their careers at Reliance.Reliance and/or its subsidiaries. On average, our NEOs have more than 2215 years’ tenure with Reliance and over 3330 years of industry experience.

Generally, if an employee ceases to be employed at the Company before his or her RSUs vest, these units will expire on the date the employee is terminated. However, the executive (or beneficiary) is eligible to receive a prorated payout of his or her RSUs based on the number of days employed during the vesting period if the termination of employment is without cause following a change in control or results from death, disability, or qualifying retirement.

RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      56

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The following table and discussion set forth the estimated incremental value that would have been transferred to each NEO under various scenarios relating to a termination of employment if such termination had occurred on December 31, 2021. The actual amounts that would be paid to any NEO upon termination of employment can only be determined at the time of an actual termination of employment and would vary from those listed below.
Estimated Benefits Upon Termination or Change in Control
Qualified
Retirement
($)
Termination
for Cause
($)
Termination
Without Cause
($)
Termination
Without Cause
Following
Change-in-
Control
($)
Change-in-
Control
Only
($)
Death
($)
Disability
($)
James D. Hoffman
Cash severance payment0000000
Value of accelerating vesting of incentive compensation(1)
22,497,5230022,497,523022,497,52322,497,523
Continuation of benefits(2)0000000
Pension and nonqualified compensation benefit(3)
1,726,00000001,726,0001,726,000
Total24,223,5230022,497,523024,223,52324,223,523
Karla R. Lewis
Cash severance payment0000000
Value of accelerating vesting of incentive compensation(1)
11,873,6690011,873,669011,873,66911,873,669
Continuation of benefits(2)0000000
Pension and nonqualified compensation benefit(3)
0002,778,009000
Total11,873,6690014,651,678011,873,66911,873,669
William K. Sales, Jr.
Cash severance payment0000000
Value of accelerating vesting of incentive compensation(1)
4,237,436004,237,43604,237,4364,237,436
Continuation of benefits(2)0000000
Pension and nonqualified compensation benefit(3)
0000000
Total4,237,436004,237,43604,237,4364,237,436
Stephen P. Koch
Cash severance payment0000000
Value of accelerating vesting of incentive compensation(1)
3,791,513003,791,51303,791,5133,791,513
Continuation of benefits(2)0000000
Pension and nonqualified compensation benefit(3)
1,045,12900001,045,1291,045,129
Total4,836,642003,791,51304,836,6424,836,642
Michael P. Shanley
Cash severance payment0000000
Value of accelerating vesting of incentive compensation(1)
3,791,513003,791,51303,791,5133,791,513
Continuation of benefits(2)0000000
Pension and nonqualified compensation benefit(3)
589,7810000589,781589,781
Total4,381,294003,791,51304,381,2944,381,294
William A. Smith II
Cash severance payment0000000
Value of accelerating vesting of incentive compensation(1)
3,596,319003,596,31903,596,3193,596,319
Continuation of benefits(2)0000000
Pension and nonqualified compensation benefit(3)
874,3840000874,384874,384
Total4,470,703003,596,31904,470,7034,470,703
57      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Qualified
Retirement
($)
Termination
for Cause
($)
Termination
Without Cause
($)
Termination
Without Cause
Following
Change-in-
Control
($)
Change-in-
Control
Only
($)
Death
($)
Disability
($)
Arthur Ajemyan
Cash severance payment0000000
Value of accelerating vesting of incentive compensation(1)
1,561,350001,561,35001,561,3501,561,350
Continuation of benefits(2)0000000
Pension and nonqualified compensation benefit(3)
0000000
Total1,561,350001,561,35001,561,3501,561,350
(1)
Includes the prorated value of the number of unvested RSUs granted in 2020 and 2021 based on a shortened performance period ended on December 31, 2021 (based on performance through such date). The value of long-term equity incentive compensation included in this amount is based on a price per share of  $162.22, the closing price of the Company’s common stock on December 31, 2021.
(2)
Excludes certain benefits generally available to salaried employees, such as certain disability benefits, accrued vacation and distributions under our 401(k) and ESOP plans.
(3)
Represents the amount of benefit in excess of the present value of accumulated benefits payable on retirement by the SERP or the amount of unvested company contributions under the Deferred Compensation Plan (see page 55).
The annual cash incentive and RSU awards do not provide incremental value upon termination or a change in control without termination occurring on December 31, 2021, as the NEO would be fully vested in the 2021 annual cash incentive and the performance-based restricted stock awards granted in 2019, having been employed the entire performance period.
The SERP provides that if a participant is terminated without cause following a change in control or a participant has attained age 55 and completed 10 years of service, any unvested rights of a participant to receive certain retirement benefits under the SERP shall become fully vested. If a participant incurs a separation of service from the Company (other than a separation due to death or disability) prior to (i) attaining age 55 and completing 10 years of service and (ii) not as a result of a termination without cause following a change in control, then such participant shall not be entitled to any benefits under the SERP.
The Deferred Compensation Plan provides that the participants receive their vested account balance upon termination or a change in control. If a termination occurs without cause following a change in control or results from death, disability, or retirement, the participant (or beneficiary) receives their total account balance.
The RSUs provide that upon a change in control if a recipient’s employment is terminated or substantially diminished (a.k.a., double trigger):

the service-based RSUs will become vested by prorating the number of such RSUs as if the vesting period ended on the date of the termination, and

the performance-based RSUs will become vested only upon the achievement of the relevant performance metric measured during a shortened performance period ending on the most recent quarter-end before the date of the termination, with the number of shares prorated based on such shortened performance period.
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      58

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Stock Ownership Requirements

Requirements

Our stock ownership policy requires our officers to own shares of our common stock (including unvested restricted stock units)RSUs) equal in value to a multiple of their respective annual base salaries within five years from

40


the date of appointment.

The stock ownership guidelines are intended to discourage excessive risk taking and to reinforce the alignment of interests between our officers and stockholders. The stock ownership requirements applicable to our senior executive officers as well as the value of common stock held by them is set forth below:

Role

Value of Common Stock

Value of Common

Multiple of

Role


Required to be Owned

Value of Common Stock
Held at 3/31/1625/22 ($)

(1)

Multiple of
Base Pay(1)

CEO

5 times annual base salary

26,542,668

26.5x

58,971,39346.3x

COO

President and CFO

4 times annual base salary

4,763,939

8.9x

36,627,15224.4x

Executive Vice Presidents

3 times annual base salary

15,447,498

13.7x

Senior Vice Presidents

(excluding the CFO)

2.25 times annual base salary

9,099,177

6.6x

43,617,14713.8x

(1)

(1)

Unvested restricted stock units count towardsThe value of unvested performance-based RSUs is calculated based on the assumed achievement of the target number of shares underlying the ownership requirement. Grants of performance-based restricted stock units are calculated based on target-level awards for the ownership requirement.

All of the NEOs either are in compliance with these stock ownership requirements or are on their way to becoming compliant within five years from the date of appointment.requirements. See the “Securities Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management” table below on page 72 for the current stock ownership of our directors and executive officers, including the NEOs.

Stock Retention Requirements

To reinforce an officer’s commitment to achieving their stock ownership guideline, the Compensation Committee has adopted a policy that all executive officers are required to retain shares of stock received through the vesting of equity awards until the officer has met the minimum stock ownership requirements. However, the officer may sell shares to cover the amount of taxes payable at the time the equity awards vest or are exercised. The effect of this policy is that 100% of the after-tax shares received by our executive officers as equity compensation must be retained until they have met their respective stock ownership requirements.

Clawback Policy

and Recoupment Policy

To further reduce the possibility of excessive risk taking, the Compensation Committee has adopted a clawback and recoupment policy that requires NEOs to re-payrepay to the Company all or a portion of the incentive cash award or restricted stock unitsRSUs awarded to the NEO if the basis for the award adversely changed as a result of a restatement of the Company’s financial statements or any other material change in the factors underlying the performance criteria.

Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control

We do not have individual employment agreements that provide change in control or severance benefits to any of the NEOs. The SERP provides that, upon a change in control, the participants become 100% vested in their benefits, which are calculated based on compensation for the ten years prior to the change in control, and the benefit due is paid out in accordance with the plan. The Deferred Compensation Plan provides that the participants become 100% vested in Company contributions upon a change in control.

The restricted stock units provide that upon a change in control if a recipient’s employment is terminated or substantially diminished (a.k.a. double trigger):

·

the service-based restricted stock units will become vested by prorating the number of such restricted stock units as if the vesting period ended on the date of the termination, and

·

the performance-based restricted stock units will become vested only upon the achievement of the relevant performance metric measured during a shortened performance period ending on the most recent fiscal quarter before the date of the termination, with the number of shares prorated based on such shortened performance period.

Hedging and Pledging Policies

In January 2015, our Board of Directors adopted an insider trading policy which

Our Insider Trading and Securities Compliance Policy contains provisions restricting the hedging and pledging of Company securities by our directors, officers and certain employees.

41Derivatives Trading.


Hedging Policy. Directors, officers and designated insider employees subject to the quarterly trading blackout under our Insider Trading and Securities Compliance Policy may not purchase or sell options on Reliance common stock or engage in short sales of Reliance common stock.

Hedging Policy. Directors, officers and designated insider trading policyemployees subject to our Insider Trading and Securities Compliance Policy are prohibited from engaging in hedging or monetization transactions of Company securities, including through the use ofpurchasing financial instruments such as(including prepaid variable forwards,forward contracts, equity swaps, collars and exchange funds.

Pledging Policy. Directors,funds) or otherwise engaging in transactions that hedge or offset any change in the value of the Company’s securities held directly or indirectly by such individual, including units granted as a component of compensation or otherwise. None of the Company’s directors or executive officers had any such hedging arrangements in place as of December 31, 2021.

Pledging Policy. Directors, officers and designated insider employees subject to the Company’s quarterly trading blackout under our insider trading policyInsider Trading and Securities Compliance Policy are prohibited from holding securities of the Company in a margin account or pledging such securities as collateral for loans, except for securities pledged as of the effective date of the policy or which have already been pledged at the time an individual becomes a director. Such “grandfathered”director, officer or designated insider employee. None of the Company’s directors or executive officers had any such pledging arrangements consist of: (i) sharesin place as of Reliance common stock as security for a business line of credit account on which there is no amount currently outstanding; and (ii) shares of Reliance common stock held in a margin account established by a director prior to joining the Board of Directors.December 31, 2021.
59

      2022 PROXY STATEMENT


COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Tax and Accounting Considerations

From time to time, we review the accounting and tax laws, rules and regulations that may affect our compensation programs. However, tax and accounting considerations have not significantly impacted the compensation programs we offer to our executives.Considerations

Under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, a publicly held company generally limits the deductibility of certain compensation in excess ofis limited to a $1 million per yearannual tax deduction for compensation paid to a company’s chief executive officereach of its “covered employees,” which are the NEOs. Prior to the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, certain other named executives. The“qualified performance-based compensation” was excluded from the $1 million deduction limit generally does not apply to certainlimit. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 repealed the qualified performance-based compensation exception, subject to a transition rule for compensation provided pursuant to a written binding contract which was in effect on November 2, 2017 and which was not modified in any material respect on or after that meetsdate.
The Company, however, has not taken any steps at this time to change its compensation program to reflect the criteria established bychange in the IRS.Code, including the elimination of the “qualified performance-based compensation” exclusion from the $1 million deduction limit. While the Compensation Committee believes that the tax deductibility of compensation is a factor to be considered, the Compensation Committee retains the flexibility to grant awardsbelieves that it determines to beis in the best interests of the Company and itsour stockholders for the Committee to exercise discretion to grant awards even if the award is not deductible for tax purposes. The
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      60

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Changes to 2022 Annual Cash Incentive Plan
In July 2021, the Compensation Committee, believesin consultation with Pay Governance, and with input from management, determined that its ability to exercise such discretion isit would be in the best interests of the Company’s stockholders to update the metrics used for measuring the Company’s financial performance under the annual cash incentive plan beginning with bonuses awarded for fiscal year 2022.
From 2016 to 2021, the Company employed pretax income margin as the sole financial metric used to measure the Company��s financial performance under the annual cash incentive plan. The Compensation Committee continues to believe that pretax income margin is an important and useful metric that aligns annual cash incentive opportunities with the Company’s financial performance. Beginning in 2022, however, the Company will also include the percentage growth in tons of metal sold (“Tons Sold Growth”) as an additional metric under the annual cash incentive plan. Tons Sold Growth was selected as a performance metric by the Compensation Committee because it is a key performance measure used by the Board and management to evaluate the underlying performance of the Company’s business and because it motivates profitable growth and complements and achieves an appropriate balance with the pretax income margin metric. The Compensation Committee believes Tons Sold Growth combined with the pretax income margin metric motivates profitable growth. The calculation of Tons Sold Growth is consistent with our stockholders.

financial reporting and excludes the Company’s toll processing tonnage.

As in 2021, the total annual cash incentive opportunity in 2022 for each named executive officer will be 150% of their base salary if the targets are achieved. However, for 2022, the Compensation Committee set the target annual cash incentive award of 15% of base salary to be earned if Tons Sold Growth is 2.00%. The maximum award of 30% of base salary will be earned if Tons Sold Growth equals or exceeds 4.00%. No payment under this metric will be made if Tons Sold Growth is less than 2.00%. The remaining portion of the total annual cash incentive opportunity at target level, or 135% of base salary for each named executive officer, will be earned based on pretax income margin.
In addition to adding the Tons Sold Growth metric, the Compensation Committee made the pretax income margin targets more demanding in 2022. The target award of 135% of base salary will be earned if pretax income margin is 6.00% (up from 5.75% in 2021), which would place the Company near the 45th percentile of historical pretax income margin performance in its executive compensation peer group. No payment will be made if pretax income margin is less than 3.50% (up from 3.00% in 2021), which would place the Company at the 25th percentile of pretax income margin performance in its executive compensation peer group. The maximum award of 270% of base salary will be earned if pretax income margin equals or exceeds 9.00% (up from 8.50% in 2021), which would place the Company at roughly the 65th percentile of pretax income margin performance in its executive compensation peer group.
61      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The chart below presents the mix of incentive compensation at target levels under the 2021 and 2022 annual cash incentive plans.
[MISSING IMAGE: tm223369d1-bc_incentivebw.jpg]
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      62

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

REPORT

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors is composed entirely of the independent, non-employee directors listed below.

The Compensation Committee has reviewed the Compensation Discussion and AnalysisCD&A and has discussed it with senior management. Based on the review and discussions, the Compensation Committee unanimously recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and AnalysisCD&A be included in this proxy statement and, to the extent appropriate, the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.

2021.

This report is submitted on behalf of the members of the Compensation Committee.

Date: April 8, 2016

2022

Sarah J. Anderson

Lisa L. Baldwin
Robert A. McEvoy

Karen W. Colonias
David W. Seeger
John G. Figueroa, Chair

Douglas M. Hayes

Mark V. Kaminski


Andrew G. Sharkey, III

Leslie A. Waite

63      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

The following table summarizes certain information concerning the compensation that we paidour NEOs earned for the years 2015, 20142021, 2020 and 20132019.

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE
Name and Principal
Position
YearSalary
($)
Bonus
($)
Stock
Awards
($)(1)
Option
Awards
($)
Non-Equity
Incentive Plan
Compensation
($)(2)
Change in
Pension Value
and
Nonqualified
Deferred
Compensation
Earnings
($)(3)
All Other
Compensation
($)(4)
Total
($)
James D. Hoffman
Chief Executive Officer
20211,230,0007,200,0323,825,0001,989,98414,245,016
20201,185,0007,199,9982,882,7491,832,70613,100,453
20191,130,0007,198,0883,555,0001,886,91413,770,002
Karla R. Lewis
President
2021925,0003,799,9702,850,0001,072,943212,8168,860,729
2020900,0003,799,9852,189,4303,347,782172,70610,409,903
2019900,0003,799,3582,700,0002,214,002184,1889,797,548
William K. Sales, Jr.
Special Advisor and Former Executive Vice President, Operations
2021635,0001,520,0161,905,0001,753,153162,6145,975,783
2020635,0001,519,9781,544,7652,673,801143,6536,517,197
2019630,0001,518,8631,905,0001,983,286160,4286,197,577
Stephen P. Koch
Senior Vice President, Operations
2021600,0001,359,9401,875,000214,2034,049,143
2020575,0001,359,9891,398,802190,7483,524,539
2019565,0001,360,3731,725,000205,6253,855,998
Michael P. Shanley
Senior Vice President, Operations
2021567,5001,359,9401,770,000346,7034,044,143
2020545,0001,359,9891,325,822329,7483,560,559
2019535,0001,360,3731,635,000344,6253,874,998
William A. Smith II(5)
Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
2021570,0001,289,9421,770,000231,0523,860,994
Arthur Ajemyan(5)
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
2021500,0001,200,0051,650,00051,8583,401,863
(1)
The amounts in this column reflect the grant date fair value of the target number of RSUs awarded in 2021, 2020 and 2019. The values are calculated in accordance with the Stock Compensation topic of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (the “Codification”) and pursuant to the Company’s equity compensation plans by multiplying the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the grant date by the number of service-based RSUs and the target number of performance-based RSUs awarded to each NEO. Assumptions used in the calculation of these amounts are included in Note 12 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in our named executive officers:

Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021. Results for the performance-based equity awards granted in 2019 were determined in February 2022. The performance-based equity awards granted in 2019 vested on December 31, 2021, with payouts on the 2019 ROA award at the maximum, resulting in total performance shares earned by our NEOs at 200.0% of the target. The grant date fair values of performance-based RSUs granted to each NEO in 2021 at the maximum possible payout are as follows: $11,520,107 for Mr. Hoffman; $6,080,064 for Mrs. Lewis; $1,823,906 for Mr. Sales; $1,631,871 for Messrs. Koch and Shanley; $1,547,874 for Mr. Smith; and $1,440,119 for Mr. Ajemyan.

Summary(2)
Represents earned amounts under the Company’s annual cash incentive plan. See “Principal Components of Our Executive Compensation Table

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Change in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pension Value

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nonqualified

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-Equity

 

Deferred

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stock

 

Option

 

Incentive Plan

 

Compensation

 

All Other

 

 

 

Name and Principal

 

 

 

Salary

 

Bonus

 

Awards

 

Awards

 

Compensation

 

Earnings

 

Compensation

 

Total

 

Position

    

Year

    

($)

    

($)

    

($)(1)

    

($)

    

($)(2)

    

($)(3)

    

($)(4)

    

($)

 

David H. Hannah

 

2015

 

1,080,000

 

-

 

2,963,500

 

-

 

1,317,600

 

1,015,793

 

98,335

 

6,475,228

 

Executive Chairman and Former

 

2014

 

1,055,000

 

-

 

3,557,500

 

-

 

1,101,600

 

1,682,960

 

49,702

 

7,446,762

 

Chief Executive Officer

 

2013

 

1,015,000

 

-

 

3,286,500

 

-

 

1,050,600

 

76,222

 

61,020

 

5,489,342

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gregg J. Mollins

 

2015

 

865,000

 

-

 

5,571,380

 

-

 

1,220,000

 

640,090

 

61,234

 

8,357,704

 

President and Chief

 

2014

 

712,500

 

-

 

1,423,000

 

-

 

744,600

 

1,244,528

 

28,002

 

4,152,630

 

Executive Officer

 

2013

 

685,000

 

-

 

1,314,600

 

-

 

708,900

 

-

 

32,880

 

2,741,380

��

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Karla R. Lewis

 

2015

 

569,250

 

-

 

1,303,940

 

-

 

717,970

 

167,867

 

49,687

 

2,808,714

 

Senior Executive Vice

 

2014

 

532,500

 

-

 

1,138,400

 

-

 

561,000

 

694,275

 

21,702

 

2,947,877

 

President and Chief

 

2013

 

507,500

 

-

 

1,051,680

 

-

 

525,300

 

-

 

24,750

 

2,109,230

 

Financial Officer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

James D. Hoffman

 

2015

 

517,500

 

-

 

1,126,130

 

-

 

652,700

 

-

 

236,767

 

2,533,097

 

Executive Vice President,

 

2014

 

482,000

 

-

 

711,500

 

-

 

510,000

 

-

 

218,902

 

1,922,402

 

Chief Operating Officer

 

2013

 

457,000

 

-

 

657,300

 

-

 

473,280

 

-

 

221,000

 

1,808,580

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

William K. Sales, Jr.

 

2015

 

517,500

 

-

 

1,126,130

 

-

 

652,700

 

377,015

 

36,767

 

2,710,112

 

Senior Vice President,

 

2014

 

482,000

 

-

 

711,500

 

-

 

510,000

 

762,826

 

18,902

 

2,485,228

 

Operations

 

2013

 

457,000

 

-

 

657,300

 

-

 

473,280

 

26,791

 

21,000

 

1,635,371

 


(1)

The amounts in this column reflect the grant date fair value of the target number of restricted stock units awarded in 2013, 2014 and 2015. The values are calculated in accordance with the Stock Compensation topic of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (the “Codification”) and pursuant to the Company’s equity compensation plans by multiplying the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the grant date by the number of restricted stock units or the target number of restricted stock units awarded to each officer. Results for the performance‑based equity awards granted in 2013 were determined in February 2016. Performance results for the 2013 ROA awards and the 2013 operating income CAGR awards were as follows: 33% of the target number of shares subject to ROA performance vested, and 0% of the target number of shares subject to operating income CAGR performance vested. At present, we believe the performance‑based equity awards granted in (i) 2014 will generally also produce payouts below target and (ii) 2015 for ROA will produce near target and operating income CAGR will produce payouts below target.

(2)

The amounts shown represent payments under the Company’s annual cash incentive plan. See “Annual Cash Incentive Awards” on page 36.

(3)

The amounts represent the change in the present value of the accumulated benefits payable on retirement under our SERP for each of the named executive officers, with the exception of Mr. Hoffman. These amounts are determined using interest rate and mortality assumptions consistent with those included in Note 11 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed by the Company for the year ended December 31, 2015. The following summarizes the total change in pension value in 2015 due to the change in the discount rate, mortality tables, and other factors:

43


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Change in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pension Value

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Due to Change

 

Change in

 

Total Change

 

 

 

in Discount

 

Pension Value -

 

in Pension

 

Name

    

Rate ($)

    

All Other ($)

    

Value ($)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

David H. Hannah

 

(58,887)

 

1,074,680

 

1,015,793

 

Gregg J. Mollins

 

(145,279)

 

785,369

 

640,090

 

Karla R. Lewis

 

(199,983)

 

367,850

 

167,867

 

William K. Sales, Jr.

 

(113,506)

 

490,521

 

377,015

 


(4)

The 2015 all other compensation amounts are composed of the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contribution to

 

Dividend

 

 

 

 

 

401(k) Match

 

ESOP

 

Deferred

 

Equivalents on

 

All Other

 

 

 

Contributions

 

Contributions

 

Compensation Plan

 

Restricted Stock

 

Compensation

 

Name

    

($)

    

($)

    

($)

    

($)(a)

    

($)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

David H. Hannah

 

7,950

 

6,750

 

-

 

83,635

 

98,335

 

Gregg J. Mollins

 

7,950

 

6,750

 

-

 

46,534

 

61,234

 

Karla R. Lewis

 

7,950

 

6,750

 

-

 

34,987

 

49,687

 

James D. Hoffman

 

7,950

 

6,750

 

200,000

 

22,067

 

236,767

 

William K. Sales, Jr.

 

7,950

 

6,750

 

-

 

22,067

 

36,767

 


(a)

Includes dividend equivalents paid on vested restricted stock units and unvested restricted stock awards.

GrantsProgram-Annual Cash Incentive Awards” on page 53 and “Grants of Plan Based AwardAwards” on page 65.

(3)s


The Company currently has no non-equityamounts represent the change in the present value of the accumulated benefits payable on the retirement of the NEOs that participate in the SERP. These amounts are determined using interest rate and mortality assumptions consistent with those included in Note 13 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021. The following summarizes the total change in pension value in 2021 due to the change in the discount rate, mortality tables, and other factors:
NameChange in
Pension Value
Due to Change
in Discount
Rate ($)
Change in
Pension Value-
All Other ($)
Total Change
in Pension
Value ($)
Karla R. Lewis(547,411)1,620,3541,072,943
William K. Sales, Jr.1,753,1531,753,153
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      64

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES
(4)
The 2021 All Other Compensation amounts are composed of the following:
Name401(k) Match
Contributions
($)
Company
Contribution to
Deferred
Compensation Plan
($)
Dividend
Equivalents on
RSUs
($)
Expense
Allowance
($)
All Other
Compensation
($)
James D. Hoffman10,1501,726,000253,8341,989,984
Karla R. Lewis10,150200,5662,100212,816
William K. Sales, Jr.10,150152,464162,614
Stephen P. Koch10,15067,500136,553214,203
Michael P. Shanley10,150200,000136,553346,703
William A. Smith II10,15094,500123,4023,000231,052
Arthur Ajemyan10,15038,7083,00051,858
(5)
Messrs. Ajemyan and Smith were not NEOs in 2019 or equity incentive plans for its executive officers other than2020 and, therefore, in accordance with SEC rules, only fiscal year 2021 compensation information is presented.
GRANTS OF PLAN BASED AWARDS
The following table sets forth plan-based awards granted to the NEOs under our annual cash incentive plan and the Amended and Restated 2015 Incentive Award Plan.Plan during 2021:
Name
Estimated Future Payouts
Under Non-Equity Incentive
Plan Awards(1)
Grant
Date
Estimated Future Payouts
Under Equity
Plan Awards(2)
All Other
Stock
Awards:
Number of
Shares of
Stock or
Units
(#)(3)
All Other
Option
Awards:
Number of
Securities
Underlying
Options
(#)
Exercise
or Base
Price of
Option
Awards
($/sh)
Grant Date
Fair Value
of Stock
and
Option
Awards
($)(4)
Threshold
($)
Target
($)
Maximum
($)
Threshold
(#)
Target
(#)
Maximum
(#)
James D. Hoffman255,0001,912,5003,825,0003/23/202110,18340,73381,4665,760,054
3/23/202110,1831,439,978
Karla R. Lewis190,0001,425,0002,850,0003/23/20215,37521,49842,9963,040,032
3/23/20215,374759,937
William K. Sales, Jr.127,000952,5001,905,0003/23/20211,6126,44912,898911,953
3/23/20214,300608,063
Stephen P. Koch125,000937,5001,875,0003/23/20211,4435,77011,540815,936
3/23/20213,847544,004
Michael P. Shanley118,000885,0001,770,0003/23/20211,4435,77011,540815,936
3/23/20213,847544,004
William A. Smith II118,000885,0001,770,0003/23/20211,3685,47310,946773,937
3/23/20213,649516,005
Arthur Ajemyan110,000825,0001,650,0003/23/20211,2735,09210,184720,060
3/23/20213,394479,946
(1)
Reflects the threshold, target and maximum payout amounts of non-equity incentive plan awards that were in effect for 2021 under the annual cash incentive plan. The following table sets forth plan-basedaward amount is determined as a percentage of the NEO’s year-end base salary, with the percentage based upon the threshold, target and maximum targets. In order to receive any award, the Company’s pretax income margin must be at least 3.00%, which would result in a threshold award of 20% of the NEO’s year-end base salary. The 2021 target amount is based on a pretax income margin of 5.75% and would result in an award of 150% of the NEO’s year-end base salary. The maximum amount is based on a pretax income margin of 8.50% or higher, which would result in an award of 300% of the NEO’s year-end base salary. These columns do not reflect the actual amounts paid, but only provide an example of how the awards would be calculated under the plan if the specified levels of pretax income margin were achieved. Pretax income margin (as calculated per the terms of the plan) for 2021 was 13.46%, which was above target and resulted in a payout under the plan equal to 300% of each NEO’s year-end base salary, which amount is included in the Summary Compensation Table, on page 64.
(2)
Reflects the threshold, target and maximum number of shares of common stock of the Company for the performance-based RSUs granted in March 2021 that will vest if the Company achieves certain ROA results. The performance period for all such awards is a three-year performance period consistent with prior years.
(3)
Represents the number of service-based RSUs awarded to each NEO in March 2021 that will vest on December 1, 2023 if the named executive officers during 2015:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All Other

 

All Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stock

 

Option

 

 

 

Grant Date

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Awards:

 

Awards:

 

Exercise

 

Fair Value

 

 

 

 

 

Estimated Future Payouts

 

Estimated Future Payouts

 

Number of

 

Number of

 

or Base

 

of Stock

 

 

 

 

 

Under Non-Equity Incentive

 

Under Equity

 

Shares of

 

Securities

 

Price of

 

and

 

 

 

 

 

Plan Awards(1)

 

Plan Awards(2)

 

Stock or

 

Underlying

 

Option

 

Option

 

 

 

Grant

 

Threshold

 

Target

 

Maximum

 

Threshold

 

Target

 

Maximum

 

Units

 

Options

 

Awards

 

Awards

 

Name

    

Date

    

($)

    

($)

    

($)

    

(#)

    

(#)

    

(#)

    

(#)(3)

    

(#)

    

($/sh)

    

($)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

David H.

 

3/27/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10,000

 

40,000

 

80,000

 

10,000

 

-

 

-

 

2,963,500

 

Hannah

 

 

 

410,400

 

1,620,000

 

3,240,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gregg J.

 

3/27/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18,800

 

75,200

 

150,400

 

18,800

 

-

 

-

 

5,571,380

 

Mollins

 

 

 

380,000

 

1,500,000

 

3,000,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Karla R.

 

3/27/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3,300

 

13,200

 

26,400

 

8,800

 

-

 

-

 

1,303,940

 

Lewis

 

 

 

223,630

 

882,750

 

1,765,500

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

James D.

 

3/27/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2,850

 

11,400

 

22,800

 

7,600

 

-

 

-

 

1,126,130

 

Hoffman

 

 

 

203,300

 

802,500

 

1,605,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

William K.

 

3/27/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2,850

 

11,400

 

22,800

 

7,600

 

-

 

-

 

1,126,130

 

Sales, Jr.

 

 

 

203,300

 

802,500

 

1,605,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEO continues to be employed by the Company on such date.

(1)

Reflects the threshold, target and maximum payout amounts of non-equity incentive plan awards that were in effect for 2015 under the annual cash incentive plan. The threshold, target and maximum payout amounts were determined in accordance with the terms of the annual cash incentive plan. The award amount is a percent of the named executive officer’s year-end salary, with the percent based upon the threshold, target and maximum targets. In order to receive any award, the return on beginning stockholders’ equity must be at least 6%, which results in an award of 38% of the named executive officer’s current year base salary. The 2015 target amount is based on a return on beginning stockholders’ equity of 10% and results in an award of 150% of the named executive officer’s base salary. The maximum amount is based on a return on beginning equity of 25% or higher, which results in an award of

(4)

44

Reflects the grant date fair value of the service-based RSUs and the target number of performance-based RSUs awarded to each NEO. Assumptions used in the calculation of these amounts are included in Note 12 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.

300% of the named executive officer’s current year salary. These columns do not reflect the actual amounts paid, but only provide an example of how the awards would be calculated under the plan if the specified levels of return on beginning stockholders’ equity were achieved. Return on beginning stockholders’ equity, as calculated in accordance with the annual cash incentive plan, for 2015 was 9.0% which was above the threshold but below the target and resulted in a payout under the plan equal to 122% of each participant’s annual base salary.

65      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

(2)

Reflects the threshold, target and maximum number of shares of common stock of the Company for the restricted stock units granted in March 2015 which will be paid if the Company achieves certain ROA and operating income CAGR performance goals. The performance period for all such awards, other than Mr. Hannah’s, is a three-year performance period consistent with prior years. Of the 151,200 performance awards granted to the NEOs, which represents the target number of shares, 80% will vest based on the achievement of a ROA performance goal, while the remaining 20% will vest based on the achievement of an operating income CAGR performance objective. The number of shares of common stock of the Company which will vest in December 2017 for the restricted stock units granted in March 2015 will range from 0% to 200% of the target amount. Mr. Hannah’s performance-based awards have a shorter eighteen-month performance period to align with his planned retirement in 2016.

(3)

Represents the number of shares underlying service-based restricted stock units awarded to each named executive officer in March 2015, which will vest if the named executive officer continues to be employed by the Company until December 31, 2017.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

Option Exercises and Stock Vested

OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTING
The following table sets forth information for the named executive officersNEOs with regard to service-based RSUs vested and settled and performance-based RSUs determined during 2021:
NameNumber of
Shares Acquired
on Vesting (#)
Value Realized
on Vesting ($)(1)
James D. Hoffman39,0955,431,682
Karla R. Lewis31,3754,277,850
William K. Sales, Jr.23,8123,253,003
Stephen P. Koch21,3272,913,524
Michael P. Shanley21,3272,913,524
William A. Smith II19,2422,633,829
Arthur Ajemyan5,987827,576
(1)
The amounts are based on the aggregateclosing price of the Company’s common stock when the awards are settled. Results for the performance-based equity awards exercised during 2015:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Option Awards

 

Stock Awards

 

 

 

Number of

 

 

 

Number of

 

 

 

 

 

Shares Acquired

 

Value Realized

 

Shares Acquired

 

Value Realized

 

Name

    

on Exercise (#)

    

on Exercise ($)(1)

    

on Vesting (#)

    

on Vesting ($)(2)

 

David H. Hannah

 

60,000

 

1,238,669

 

30,500

 

1,794,910

 

Gregg J. Mollins

 

 —

 

 —

 

16,400

 

961,588

 

Karla R. Lewis

 

60,000

 

576,693

 

12,120

 

708,058

 

James D. Hoffman

 

 —

 

 —

 

7,700

 

450,154

 

William K. Sales, Jr.

 

50,000

 

729,276

 

7,700

 

450,154

 

granted in 2018 were determined in February 2021. The performance-based equity awards granted in 2018 vested on December 31, 2020, with payouts on the 2018 ROA award above target, resulting in total performance shares earned by our NEOs at 163.4% of the target.

(1)

The amounts represent the difference between the exercise price and fair market value at date of exercise of non-qualified stock options.

OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR-END

(2)

The amounts are based on the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the date that the restricted shares became vested.

45


Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End

The following table sets forth outstanding equitystock awards held by the named executive officersNEOs at December 31, 2015:

2021:
Number of
Shares or
Units of
Stock That
Have Not
Vested (#)(3)
Market
Value of
Shares or
Units of
Stock That
Have Not
Vested ($)(2)
Equity
Incentive
Plan
Awards:
Number of
Unearned
Shares,
Units or
Other
Rights That
Have Not
Vested (#)(1)(3)
Equity
Incentive
Plan
Awards:
Market or
Payout
Value of
Unearned
Shares,
Units or
Other
Rights That
Have Not
Vested ($)(2)
NameService-based
RSU awards
Performance-based
RSU awards
James D. Hoffman27,5724,472,730351,38057,000,864
Karla R. Lewis14,5522,360,625185,45630,084,672
William K. Sales, Jr.11,6421,888,56555,6249,023,325
Stephen P. Koch10,4161,689,68449,7888,076,609
Michael P. Shanley10,4161,689,68449,7888,076,609
William A. Smith II9,8801,602,73447,2207,660,028
Arthur Ajemyan5,809942,33619,5543,172,050

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Option Awards

 

Stock Awards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Equity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incentive

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Equity

 

Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incentive

 

Awards:

��

 

 

 

 

 

 

Equity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plan

 

Market or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incentive

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Awards:

 

Payout

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of

 

Value of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Awards:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Market

 

Unearned

 

Unearned

 

 

 

Number of

 

Number of

 

Number of

 

 

 

 

 

Number of

 

Value of

 

Shares,

 

Shares,

 

 

 

Securities

 

Securities

 

Securities

 

 

 

 

 

Shares or

 

Shares or

 

Units or

 

Units or

 

 

 

Underlying

 

Underlying

 

Underlying

 

Option

 

 

 

Units of

 

Units of

 

Other

 

Other

 

 

 

Unexercised

 

Unexercised

 

Unexercised

 

Exercise

 

Option

 

Stock That

 

Stock That

 

Rights That

 

Rights That

 

 

 

Options (#)

 

Options (#)

 

Unearned

 

Price

 

Expiration

 

Have Not

 

Have Not

 

Have Not

 

Have Not

 

Name

    

Exercisable

    

Unexercisable

    

Options (#)

    

($)

    

Date

    

Vested (#)(1)

    

Vested ($)

    

Vested (#)

    

Vested ($)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

David H. Hannah

 

40,000

 

-

 

-

 

42.81

 

2/23/2017

 

108,000

 

6,254,280

 

-

 

-

 

 

 

100,000

 

-

 

-

 

55.73

 

2/23/2018

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gregg J. Mollins

 

12,500

 

-

 

-

 

55.73

 

2/23/2018

 

117,000

 

6,775,470

 

-

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Karla R. Lewis

 

40,000

 

-

 

-

 

42.81

 

2/23/2017

 

39,500

 

2,287,445

 

-

 

-

 

 

 

40,000

 

-

 

-

 

55.73

 

2/23/2018

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

James D. Hoffman

 

12,500

 

-

 

-

 

55.73

 

2/23/2018

 

30,000

 

1,737,300

 

-

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

William K. Sales, Jr.

 

25,000

 

-

 

-

 

42.81

 

2/23/2017

 

30,000

 

1,737,300

 

-

 

-

 

 

 

25,000

 

-

 

-

 

55.73

 

2/23/2018

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

(1)
The annual ROA calculated for the year ended December 31, 2021 was above target. As the previous year’s performance exceeded target levels, performance-based awards are reported at maximum levels in accordance with SEC rules.
(2)
The value is based on a price per RSU of  $162.22, the closing price of the Company’s common stock on December 31, 2021.
(3)
The table below presents the vesting schedule for the unvested RSU awards (performance-based RSUs are presented at maximum levels):
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      66

(1)

The table below shows the vesting schedule for all unvested restricted stock awards and unvested restricted stock units.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vesting Schedule for Unvested

 

 

Restricted Stock Awards and Restricted Stock Units

Name

    

Grant Date

    

2016

 

2017

David H. Hannah

 

8/8/2011

 

8,000

 

-

 

 

3/25/2014

 

50,000

 

-

 

 

3/27/2015

 

50,000

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gregg J. Mollins

 

8/8/2011

 

3,000

 

-

 

 

3/25/2014

 

20,000

 

-

 

 

3/27/2015

 

-

 

94,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Karla R. Lewis

 

8/8/2011

 

1,500

 

-

 

 

3/25/2014

 

16,000

 

-

 

 

3/27/2015

 

-

 

22,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

James D. Hoffman

 

8/8/2011

 

1,000

 

-

 

 

3/25/2014

 

10,000

 

-

 

 

3/27/2015

 

-

 

19,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

William K. Sales, Jr.

 

8/8/2011

 

1,000

 

-

 

 

3/25/2014

 

10,000

 

-

 

 

3/27/2015

 

-

 

19,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

46

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

NameGrant DateVesting Schedule for Unvested RSUs
Service-based
vesting on
December 1,
Performance-based
vesting on
December 31,
20222023202120222023
James D. Hoffman3/25/2019130,800
3/24/202017,389139,114
3/23/202110,18381,466
Karla R. Lewis3/25/201969,040
3/24/20209,17873,420
3/23/20215,37442,996
William K. Sales, Jr.3/25/201920,700
3/24/20207,34222,026
3/23/20214,30012,898
Stephen P. Koch3/25/201918,540
3/24/20206,56919,708
3/23/20213,84711,540
Michael P. Shanley3/25/201918,540
3/24/20206,56919,708
3/23/20213,84711,540
William A. Smith II3/25/201917,580
3/24/20206,23118,694
3/23/20213,64910,946
Arthur Ajemyan3/25/20194,540
3/24/20202,4154,830
3/23/20213,39410,184
PENSION BENEFITS

Pension Benefits

The estimated present value of accumulated benefits payable by the SERP at the normal retirement age of 65 for each of the executive officers named below, determined using interest rate and mortality assumptions consistent with those included in Note 1113 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015,2021, is as follows:

Name(1)
Plan NameNumber
of Years
Credited
Service
Present
Value of
Accumulated
Benefit ($)
Payments
During
2021 ($)
Karla R. LewisSupplemental Executive Retirement Plan3010,058,529
William K. Sales, Jr.Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan2411,773,326

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number

 

Present

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of Years

 

Value of

 

Payments

 

 

 

 

 

Credited

 

Accumulated

 

During

 

Name(1)

    

Plan Name

    

Service

    

Benefit ($)

    

2015 ($)

 

David H. Hannah

 

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan

 

35

 

12,118,700

 

 -

 

Gregg J. Mollins

 

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan

 

29

 

7,420,339

 

 -

 

Karla R. Lewis

 

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan

 

24

 

2,651,652

 

 -

 

William K. Sales, Jr.

 

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan

 

18

 

3,846,201

 

 -

 


(1)

James D. Hoffman is not a participant in the SERP.

(1)

Messrs. Ajemyan, Hoffman, Koch, Shanley and Smith are not participants in the SERP.
Reliance adopted a deferred compensation planthe Deferred Compensation Plan effective December 1, 2008, which2008; it was subsequently amended and restated effective January 1, 2013. The Deferred Compensation Plan is administered by the Compensation Committee. Named executive officersNEOs who participate in the SERP do not receive contributions from the Company under the Deferred Compensation Plan.

Nonqualified Deferred Compensatio67n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive

 

Company

 

Aggregate

 

Aggregate

 

Aggregate

 

 

 

Contributions

 

Contributions

 

Loss in

 

Withdrawals/

 

Balance at

 

Name

    

in 2015 ($)

    

in 2015 ($)

    

in 2015 ($)

    

Distributions ($)

    

at 12/31/15 ($)(2)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

James D. Hoffman

 

 

 -

 

200,000(1)

 

8,271

 

-

 

1,223,565

 

      2022 PROXY STATEMENT


(1)

In 2015, $200,000 was reported as Other Compensation to James D. Hoffman in the Summary Compensation Table and will vest in 2019.

(2)

Of the amounts in this column, $803,731 for Mr. Hoffman was included

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES
NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION
NameExecutive
Contributions
in 2021 ($)
Company
Contributions
in 2021 ($)(1)
Aggregate
Gain/Loss in
2021 ($)
Aggregate
Withdrawals/​
Distributions ($)
Aggregate
Balance at
12/31/21 ($)(2)
James D. Hoffman1,726,000698,3759,892,603
William K. Sales, Jr.1,711,427774,5624,376,692
Stephen P. Koch67,5002,572(48,324)1,982,905
Michael P. Shanley200,000(6,869)2,887,487
William A. Smith II94,50052,202874,384
Arthur Ajemyan
(1)
2021 Company contributions of  $1,726,000 (vested on March 4, 2022) to Mr. Hoffman, $67,500 (vesting on March 4, 2022) to Mr. Koch, $200,000 (vesting on January 6, 2023) to Mr. Shanley and $94,500 (vested on March 4, 2022) to Mr. Smith were reported as “All Other Compensation” in the Summary Compensation Table for previous years.

Equity Compensation Plan InformatioTable on page 64.

(2)n


Of the amounts in this column, $5,223,731 for Mr. Hoffman, $872,000 for Mr. Koch and $1,200,000 for Mr. Shanley were included in the Summary Compensation Table for previous years.
EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION
The following table provides information as of December 31, 20152021 regarding shares outstanding and available for issuance under our Amended and Restated 2015 Incentive Award Plan and our Directors Equity Plan:

Plan CategoryNumber of Securities
to be Issued upon
Exercise of
Outstanding
Options,
Warrants and Rights (#)
Weighted
Average Exercise
Price of
Outstanding
Options, Warrants
and Rights ($)
Number of
Securities
Remaining
Available for
Future Issuance (#)
Equity compensation plans
approved by our stockholders(1)
1,958,281
Equity compensation plans not approved by our stockholders
Total1,958,281

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Securities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to be Issued upon

 

Weighted Average

 

Number of

 

 

 

Exercise of

 

Exercise Price

 

Securities

 

 

 

Outstanding

 

of Outstanding

 

Remaining

 

 

 

Options,

 

Options, Warrants

 

Available for

 

Plan Category

    

Warrants and Rights (#)

    

and Rights ($)

    

Future Issuance (#)

 

Equity compensation plans approved by our stockholders

 

934,325

 

50.26

 

2,251,507

 

Equity compensation plans not approved by our stockholders

 

 -    

 

    -    

 

    -    

 

Total

 

934,325

 

50.26

 

2,251,507

 

(1)

47

Includes 1,852,715 shares available for issuance under our Amended and Restated 2015 Incentive Award Plan and 105,566 shares available for issuance under our Directors Equity Plan.
PAY RATIO DISCLOSURE
Presented below is the ratio of annual total compensation of our CEO to the annual total compensation of our median employee (excluding our CEO). The ratio presented below is a reasonable estimate calculated in a manner consistent with Item 402(u) of Regulation S-K under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The pay ratio rules provide companies with flexibility to select the methodology and assumptions used to identify the median employee, calculate the median employee’s compensation and estimate the pay ratio. As a result, our methodology may differ from those used by other companies, which likely will make it very difficult to compare pay ratios with other companies, including those within our industry.
We identified the median employee from the Company’s employee population as of December 31, 2021. After excluding employees under the “de minimis exemption” ​(as described below), the Company’s employee population consisted of 13,110 employees located in the U.S., Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom. For purposes of identifying the median employee, the Company was permitted to exclude up to 5% of its total employees who are non-U.S. employees. The Company
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      68

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

relied on this exemption to exclude the employee populations of the following jurisdictions, which collectively accounted for less than 5% of the Company’s total employee population of 13,704 as of December 31, 2021: Australia (5); Belgium (43); France (18); India (12); Malaysia (62); People’s Republic of China (293); Singapore (44); South Korea (74); Turkey (21); and the United Arab Emirates (22).
In identifying our median employee, we calculated the annual total compensation of each employee for the 12-month period that ended on December 31, 2021. Annual total compensation for these purposes included base salary, overtime wages, bonus, commissions, incentives and comparable cash elements of compensation in non-U.S. jurisdictions and was calculated using internal payroll records. Specifically excluded from the annual compensation measure in identifying the median employee were retirement benefits and stock-based compensation. The compensation for full-time employees who were not employed by us for the entire 12-month period was annualized to reflect compensation for the entire 12-month period.
The 2021 annual total compensation for our CEO as determined under Item 402(u) of Regulation S-K was $14,245,016. As reflected in the Summary Compensation Table, $7,200,032 of our CEO’s total 2021 compensation was equity-based of which 80% is tied to performance targets. The 2021 annual total compensation for our median employee was $66,069. The ratio of our CEO’s annual total compensation to our median employee’s total cash compensation for fiscal year 2021 is approximately 216 to 1.
69      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

COMPENSATION

The Company’s philosophy is to provide competitive compensation necessary to attract and retain high-quality non-employee directors. We paycompensate each non-employee director with an annual retainer as well as an annual grant of stock awards. We do not pay additional fees for attendance at Board meetings, committee meetings, and meetings of the non-management or independent directors. We pay additional amounts to the chairs of the standing committees of the Board and to the Lead Director, as well as provide for grantsnon-executive Chairman of restricted stock (rather than stock options) to each non-employee director. For 2015, each non-employee director was paid an annual retainerthe Board. Directors who are employees of $120,000, paid in quarterly installments of $30,000 each, withthe Company (currently, Mr. Hoffman and Mrs. Lewis) receive no additional fees payablecompensation for attendance at Board and committee meetings or any meeting of the non-employee directors. In addition, the Company pays the Audit Committee Chair an annual retainer of $20,000, the Compensation Committee Chair an annual retainer of $15,000, the Nominating and Governance Committee Chair an annual retainer of $10,000, and a $25,000 annual retainer (increased from $20,000 effective January 2015) to the Lead Director who chairs the non-management Board meetings, all of which fees are paid in quarterly installments. Neither Mr. Hannah nor Mr. Mollins receive any fees for their service as directors. If re-elected, Mr. Hannah will be compensated as a non-employee director after his retirement from employment with the Company in 2016.director. All directors are reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with Board meetings, committee meetings, and meetings of the non-management or independent directors.
In 2021, each non-employee director was paid an annual retainer of  $130,000 and received an award of 781 shares of stock awards (approximately $130,000 grant date fair value) which are not subject to vesting criteria. In addition, the Company paid the Audit Committee meetings.

Director SummaryChair an annual retainer of $25,000; the Compensation TablCommittee Chair an annual retainer of  $20,000; and the Nominating and Governance Committee Chair an annual retainer of  $20,000. The Company’s non-executive Chairman of the Board received an annual retainer of  $150,000. All cash payments to directors in 2021 were paid in equal quarterly installments.

The Nominating and Governance Committee reviews the competitiveness of director compensation every other year, including the appropriateness of the form, mix and amount of director compensation, and makes recommendations to the Board concerning such compensation with a view toward attracting and retaining qualified directors. The Nominating and Governance Committee also seeks advice from the Company’s independent compensation consultant.
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      70


DIRECTOR SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE
The following table sets forth certain information regarding fees paid and expense for equity awards under the Directors Equity Plan during 2015:

2021:
NameFees
Earned or
Paid in
Cash ($)
Stock
Awards ($)(1)
Total ($)
Sarah J. Anderson(2)155,000129,951284,951
Lisa L. Baldwin130,000129,951259,951
Karen W. Colonias130,000129,951259,951
Frank J. Dellaquila(4)32,50032,500
John G. Figueroa150,000129,951279,951
David H. Hannah(3)65,00065,000
Mark V. Kaminski280,000129,951409,951
Robert A. McEvoy130,000129,951259,951
David W. Seeger(4)65,00065,000
Andrew G. Sharkey, III(2)130,000129,951259,951
Douglas W. Stotlar150,000129,951279,951

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Change in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pension Value

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fees

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nonqualified

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Earned or

 

 

 

 

 

Non-Equity

 

Deferred

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paid in

 

Stock

 

Option

 

Incentive Plan

 

Compensation

 

All Other

 

 

 

Name

    

Cash ($)

    

Awards ($)(1)

    

Awards ($)(2) 

    

Compensation ($)

    

Earnings ($)

    

Compensation ($)

    

Total ($)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sarah J. Anderson

 

140,000

 

119,977

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

259,977

 

John G. Figueroa

 

135,000

 

119,977

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

254,977

 

Thomas W. Gimbel

 

120,000

 

119,977

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

239,977

 

Douglas M. Hayes

 

125,000

 

119,977

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

244,977

 

Mark V. Kaminski

 

145,000

 

119,977

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

264,977

 

Robert A. McEvoy

 

30,000

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

30,000

 

Andrew G. Sharkey, III

 

130,000

 

119,977

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

249,977

 

Leslie A. Waite

 

120,000

 

119,977

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

239,977

 


(1)

The amounts in this column reflect the grant date fair value of the shares of stock awarded in 2015. The values are calculated in accordance with the Stock Compensation topic of the FASB Codification, and are based on the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the date of the grant.

(1)

48

The amounts in this column reflect the grant date fair value of the shares of stock awarded in 2021. The values are calculated in accordance with the Stock Compensation topic of the FASB Codification, and are based on the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the date of the grant. Assumptions used in the calculation of these amounts are included in Note 12 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021. The stock awards were granted to non-employee directors on May 19, 2021 and fully vested on the grant date.

(2)

TableEach of Contents

Ms. Anderson and Mr. Sharkey is retiring from the Board and not standing for re-election at the 2022 Annual Meeting.
(3)
Mr. Hannah retired from the Board of Directors effective at the 2021 Annual Meeting.
(4)
Messrs. Dellaquila and Seeger joined the Board during the second half of 2021 and did not receive a stock award.

(2)

The table below shows the aggregate number of options outstanding (both exercisable and unexercisable) and their respective grant date fair values for each non-employee director, as applicable, at December 31, 2015:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grant Date

 

 

 

 

 

Per Share

 

Number of Options

 

Director

    

Fair Value ($)

    

Outstanding (#)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thomas W. Gimbel

 

15.79

 

6,000

 

 

 

25.24

 

6,000

 

 

 

25.54

 

6,000

 

 

 

18.74

 

6,000

 

 

 

22.09

 

6,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Douglas M. Hayes

 

15.79

 

6,000

 

 

 

25.24

 

6,000

 

 

 

25.54

 

6,000

 

 

 

18.74

 

6,000

 

 

 

22.09

 

6,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark V. Kaminski

 

15.79

 

6,000

 

 

 

25.24

 

6,000

 

 

 

25.54

 

6,000

 

 

 

18.74

 

6,000

 

 

 

22.09

 

6,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Andrew G. Sharkey, III

 

25.54

 

6,000

 

 

 

22.09

 

6,000

 

4971

      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

SECURITIES OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN

CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT

The following table sets forth certain information as of March 31, 2016,25, 2022, with respect to the beneficial ownership of our common stock by (i) persons or groups known to Reliance to be beneficial owners of more than five percent (5%) of Reliance’s common stock, (ii) each director and each executive officer named in the Summary Compensation Table and (iii) all directors and executive officers as a group:

Names and Address of Beneficial Owner(1)
Amount and
Nature of
Beneficial
Ownership(2)
Percentage of
Outstanding
Shares Owned
The Vanguard Group
100 Vanguard Blvd.
Malvern, PA 19355
7,456,057(3)12.04%
BlackRock, Inc.
55 East 52nd Street
New York, NY 10055
5,980,812(4)9.65%
Arthur Ajemyan6,627(5)*
Sarah J. Anderson13,833*
Lisa L. Baldwin2,204*
Karen W. Colonias6,859(6)*
Frank J. Dellaquila*
John G. Figueroa18,536*
James D. Hoffman127,792(7)*
Mark V. Kaminski28,524(8)*
Stephen P. Koch(9)*
Karla R. Lewis68,566(10)*
Robert A. McEvoy21,569(11)*
David W. Seeger*
Michael P. Shanley14,710(12)*
Andrew G. Sharkey, III22,104(13)*
William A. Smith II7,954(14)*
Douglas W. Stotlar6,859(15)*
All directors and executive officers as a group (19 persons)383,348(16)*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amount and

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nature of

 

 

Percentage of

 

 

 

Beneficial

 

 

Outstanding

 

Names and Address of Beneficial Owner(1)

    

Ownership(2)

    

  

Shares Owned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BlackRock Inc.

 

5,531,838

(3)

 

7.66

%

55 East 52nd Street

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York, NY 10022

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Vanguard Group

 

4,846,689

(4)

 

6.71

%

100 Vanguard Blvd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Malvern, PA 19355

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sarah J. Anderson

 

5,281

 

 

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John G. Figueroa

 

9,984

 

 

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thomas W. Gimbel

 

1,785,620

(5)

 

2.47

%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

David H. Hannah

 

245,917

(6)

 

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Douglas M. Hayes

 

47,914

(7)

 

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark V. Kaminski

 

53,984

(8)

 

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robert A. McEvoy

 

25,210

(9)

 

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gregg J. Mollins

 

187,013

(10)

 

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Andrew G. Sharkey, III

 

28,552

(11)

 

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leslie A. Waite

 

86,106

 

 

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Karla R. Lewis

 

91,119

(12)

 

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

James D. Hoffman

 

16,853

(13)

 

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

William K. Sales, Jr.

 

86,643

(14)

 

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All directors and executive officers as a group (16 persons)

 

2,703,556

(15)

 

3.73

%


*

*

Less than 1%.

(1)

Unless otherwise indicated, the address of each beneficial owner is 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 5100, Los Angeles, California 90071.

(2)

Reliance has been advised that the named stockholders have the sole power to vote and to dispose of the shares set forth after their names, except as noted.

(3)

BlackRock, Inc. filed an amended Schedule 13-G on January 27, 2016 in which it identifies itself as a parent holding company, with sole voting power over 5,149,647 shares and sole dispositive power over 5,531,838 shares.

(1)

(4)

The Vanguard Group filed an amended Schedule 13-G on February 10, 2016 in which it identifies itself as an investment advisor having sole voting power over 52,111 shares, shared voting power over 4,000 shares, shared dispositive power over 51,711 shares and sole dispositive power over 4,794,978 shares.

Unless otherwise indicated, the address of each beneficial owner is 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 5100, Los Angeles, California 90071.

50


(2)
(3)
The Vanguard Group filed an amended Schedule 13G on February 10, 2022 in which it identifies itself as an investment advisor having shared voting power over 33,776 shares, shared dispositive power over 88,003 shares and sole dispositive power over 7,368,054 shares.
(4)
BlackRock, Inc. filed an amended Schedule 13G on February 1, 2022 in which it identifies itself as a parent holding company, with sole voting power over 5,555,402 shares and sole dispositive power over 5,980,812 shares.

(5)

Of the 1,761,620 shares reported based on the most recent Form 4 filed by Mr. Gimbel, (a) 1,740,420 shares are owned by Thomas W. Gimbel, and (b) 21,200 shares are held by Thomas W. Gimbel as Trustee of trusts for the benefit of Mr. Gimbel’s children. Mr. Gimbel disclaims beneficial ownership of the 21,200 shares held as Trustee of trusts for the benefit of Mr. Gimbel’s children. Includes 24,000 shares issuable upon the exercise of options held by Mr. Gimbel with exercise prices of $38.00 to $66.28 per share. Mr. Gimbel has pledged 400,000 shares as security for a business line of credit account on which there is no amount currently outstanding.

RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      72

(6)

Includes 60,000 shares issuable upon the exercise of options held by Mr. Hannah, with an exercise price of $55.73 per share. 185,917 shares are held by Mr. Hannah and his wife as co-trustees of the David H. and Joan B. Hannah Family Trust. Excludes 28,000 shares with respect to which Mr. Hannah has a vested right and shared voting power pursuant to our Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”). Excludes 108,000 unvested restricted stock awards and restricted stock units.

(7)

Includes 24,000 shares issuable upon the exercise of options held by Mr. Hayes, with exercise prices of $38.00 to $66.28 per share. 16,898 shares are held by Mr. Hayes as Trustee of the Douglas and Connie Hayes Living Trust.

(8)

Includes 24,000 shares issuable upon the exercise of options held by Mr. Kaminski, with exercise prices of $38.00 to $66.28 per share. 14,179 shares are held by the Elizabeth S. Kaminski Gift Trust.

(9)

Of the 25,210 shares reported based on the most recent Form 4 filed by Mr. McEvoy, (a) 22,000 are owned by Robert A. McEvoy, (b) 2,000 shares are held by McEvoy LLC and (c) 1,210 are held as custodian for his minor children under the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act. Mr. McEvoy disclaims ownership of the 1,210 shares held as custodian for his minor children. Mr. McEvoy has held his shares of Reliance common stock in a margin account since prior to being appointed to the Board of Directors. Mr. McEvoy has agreed to transfer his Reliance shares of common stock out of the margin account.

(10)

Includes 12,500 shares issuable upon the exercise of options held by Mr. Mollins, with an exercise price of $55.73 per share. 174,513 shares are held by Mr. Mollins as trustee of the Mollins Family Trust. Excludes 12,629 shares with respect to which Mr. Mollins has a vested right and shared voting power pursuant to our ESOP. Excludes 117,000 unvested restricted stock awards and restricted stock units.

(11)

Includes 12,000 shares issuable upon the exercise of options held by Mr. Sharkey, with exercise prices of $44.99 to $66.28 per share. 16,552 shares are held by Mr. Sharkey as trustee of the Sharkey Family Trust.

(12)

Includes 40,000 shares issuable upon the exercise of options held by Mrs. Lewis, with an exercise price of $55.73 per share. Excludes 5,890 shares and 184 shares with respect to which Mrs. Lewis has a vested right and shared voting power pursuant to our ESOP and 401(k) Plan, respectively. Excludes 39,500 unvested restricted stock awards and restricted stock units.

(13)

Excludes 835 shares and 3,298 shares with respect to which Mr. Hoffman has a vested right and shared voting power pursuant to our ESOP and 401(k) Plan, respectively. Excludes 30,000 unvested restricted stock awards and restricted stock units.

(14)

Includes 25,000 shares issuable upon the exercise of options held by Mr. Sales, with an exercise price of $55.73 per share. Excludes 2,714 shares with respect to which Mr. Sales has a vested right and shared voting power pursuant to our ESOP. Excludes 30,000 unvested restricted stock awards and restricted stock units.

(15)

See notes 5 through 14, plus 33,360 shares held by other executive officers which include 11,750 shares issuable upon the exercise of options, with an exercise price of $55.73 per share. Excludes 60,900 unvested restricted stock awards and restricted stock units.

51

SECURITIES OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT

(5)
Excludes 1,265 shares and 1,078 shares with respect to which Mr. Ajemyan has a vested right and shared voting power pursuant to our ESOP and 401(k) Plan, respectively. Excludes 20,486 unvested RSUs.
(6)
Includes 781 shares owned by Ms. Colonias and 6,078 shares held by Ms. Colonias as trustee of the Colonias Family Trust.
(7)
Excludes 1,158 shares and 3,630 shares with respect to which Mr. Hoffman has a vested right and shared voting power pursuant to our ESOP and 401(k) Plan, respectively. Excludes 174,734 unvested RSUs.
(8)
Includes 15,047 shares owned by Mr. Kaminski and 13,477 shares held by Mr. Kaminski as trustee of the Elizabeth S. Kaminski Gift Trust.
(9)
Excludes 747 shares and 1,081 shares with respect to which Mr. Koch has a vested right and shared voting power pursuant to our ESOP and 401(k) Plan, respectively. Excludes 34,234 unvested RSUs.
(10)
Excludes 6,965 shares and 202 shares with respect to which Mrs. Lewis has a vested right and shared voting power pursuant to our ESOP and 401(k) Plan, respectively. Excludes 92,220 unvested RSUs.
(11)
Includes 20,359 shares owned by Mr. McEvoy and 1,210 shares held as custodian for his children under the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act. Mr. McEvoy disclaims beneficial ownership of the 1,210 shares held as custodian for his children.
(12)
Excludes 251 shares with respect to which Mr. Shanley has a vested right and shared voting power pursuant to our ESOP. Excludes 33,210 unvested RSUs.
(13)
All shares held by Mr. Sharkey as trustee of the Sharkey Family Trust.
(14)
Excludes 416 shares with respect to which Mr. Smith has a vested right and shared voting power pursuant to our ESOP. Excludes 31,870 unvested RSUs.
(15)
All shares are held by Kivi Talo Holdings LLC of which Mr. Stotlar is the sole member. Mr. Stotlar disclaims beneficial ownership of the shares held by Kivi Talo Holdings LLC.
(16)
See notes 5 through 15, plus 37,211 shares held by other executive officers; excludes 754 shares and 4,023 shares with respect to which the other executive officers have a vested right and shared voting power pursuant to our ESOP and 401(k) Plan, respectively. Excludes 64,569 unvested RSUs.

73      2022 PROXY STATEMENT


BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Board of Directors and Corporate Governance

Principles of Corporate Governance

PRINCIPLES OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

The Board of Directors has adopted Principles of Corporate Governance outlining the responsibilities of the Board. These Principles of Corporate Governance are posted on the Company’s website at https://investor.rsac.com/corporate-governance-documentswww.investor.rsac.com and are available in print to any stockholder who requests a copy from our Corporate Secretary at the address shown on the first page above.  Information on our website is not part of this proxy statement. The Board’s primary role is to represent the interests of the Company’s stockholders in strategic and material decisions of the Company. Among the most important responsibilities are the determination of corporate policies, the identification and nomination of qualified independent directors, the selection and evaluation of the Chief Executive Officer, the ongoing review of the senior management team, planning for management succession and the determination of executive compensation. The Board also provides advice and guidance to management on a broad range of strategic decisions, including the review and approval of each acquisition and the annual capital expenditure budget, and annually reviews and approves management’s succession plan. In addition, the Board reviews management’s safety program and record.

Size and Composition of Board

SIZE AND COMPOSITION OF BOARD
The Board of Directors presently consists of tentwelve directors, eightten of whom are independent. All directors are elected to serve a one-year term. The Board has determined that directors should retire at the age of 75. Since Ms. Anderson and Mr. Waite isSharkey are each retiring and will not stand for re-election at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders in May 2016,2022, the Board expects to revertreduce the size of the Board to nineten members, of whom seveneight will be independent.

Attendance at Meetings

The Board has adopted a policy that directors should not stand for re-election after reaching age 75.

ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS
Board members are expected to attend each Board meeting and each meeting of any committee on which such Board member serves and are encouraged to attend the Company’s Annual Meeting (including participating in the meeting virtually, in the case of Stockholders.this year’s meeting). In addition, annually, the Board annually will tour one or more of the Company’s facilities and meet with local management of those facilities, as well as hold a strategic planning session. During 2015,2021, the Board of Directors met nineten times, including meetings held by conference telephone call. All directors attended more than 75%at least 90% of the aggregate of the total number of Board meetings and the total number of committee meetings held by the committees on which each of them served during the period for which each has served as a director.in 2021. All nine of the directors then serving on the Board attended the virtual Annual Meeting of Stockholders held in May 2015.

Communicating with the Board

2021.

COMMUNICATING WITH THE BOARD
Stockholders or other interested parties may communicate with members of the Board of Directors individually or with the Board of Directors as a whole by sending a letter to the appropriate director or the Board in care of the Corporate Secretary of Reliance at the Company’s corporate headquarters address appearing at the top of the first page of this proxy statement. All mail, other than trivial, obscene, unduly hostile, threatening, illegal or similarly unsuitable items, will be forwarded. Non-urgent items will be delivered to the directors at the next scheduled Board meeting. Mail addressed to a particular director will be forwarded or delivered to that director. Mail addressed to the “Board of Directors”, “Outside Directors” or “Non-Employee Directors” will be forwarded or delivered to the Lead Director. Mail addressed to the “Board of Directors” will be forwarded or delivered to the Executive Chairman of the Board.

Proxy Access

In February 2016, the Board adopted a “proxy access” Bylawnon-executive Chairman.

RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      74

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
PROXY ACCESS
The Company’s proxy access bylaw provision which, beginning with the 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, permits a stockholder, or a group of up to 20 stockholders, owning at least three percent (3%) of the Company’s outstanding common stock continuously for at least three years, to nominate and include in the Company’s proxy statement director nominees for up to the greater of two directors or 25% of the number of directors then serving on the Board, subject to the terms and conditions specified in the Company’s Bylaws.

We did not receive any director nominations under our proxy access bylaw for the Annual Meeting.

52

CODE OF CONDUCT

Code of Conduct

Reliance has adopted a Code of Conduct, which includes a code of ethics, that applies to all directors, executive officers and senior management, including the Executive Chairman, the President and Chief Executive Officer the Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and the Chief Operating Officer. Reliance has also adopted a DirectorPresident. Code of Conduct that appliestraining is assigned to all directors, whether management or non-management, independent or not. These Codesnew colleagues upon hire and to existing colleagues regularly. The Code of Conduct training includes a certification to confirm that colleagues are postedfamiliar with and agree to abide by the Code of Conduct and that they have reported, pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Conduct, any suspected or potential violations of law or Company policy.

Employees are required to report any conduct that they believe to be an actual or apparent violation of the Company’s policies on business conduct. Retaliation against any employee who seeks advice, raises a concern, reports misconduct, or provides information in an investigation is strictly prohibited. Our Audit Committee has procedures to receive, retain and treat complaints received regarding accounting, internal accounting controls, or auditing matters and to address confidential and anonymous submissions by employees with concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing matters.
In addition, the following documents are available on our website at https://investor.rsac.com/www.investor.rsac.comcorporate-governance-documents and a copy will be providedin print to you at no charge if you request one in writing toany stockholder who requests them:

Company’s Code of Conduct;

Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Policy; and

U.S. Political Activity and Spending Practices Policy.
To facilitate the attentionreporting of the Corporate Secretary ofquestionable accounting, internal accounting controls, or auditing matters, the Company at the address appearing at the top of the first page of this proxy statement. We have alsohas established a confidentialan anonymous reporting hotline and website through which employees can submit complaints on a confidential and anonymous basis. The hotline and website are provided by an independent third-party and are available worldwide. These reports are confidential and anonymous. Procedures are in place to allow persons to report, without fear of retaliation, any inappropriate acts or omissionsinvestigate all reports received by the hotline relating to our financial statementsquestionable accounting, internal accounting controls, or auditing matters and accounting policies and practices. to take corrective action, if necessary. The Audit Committee is notified of these reports at every quarterly committee meeting, or sooner, if necessary.
In the event Reliance amends or waives any of the provisions of the Code of Conduct applicable to our principal executive officer, principal financial officer or controller that relates to any element of the definition of  “code of ethics” enumerated in Item 406(b) of Regulation S-K under the ExchangeSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, Reliance intends to disclose these actions on its website.
75

Committees

      2022 PROXY STATEMENT


BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
BOARD COMMITTEES
The Board of Directors has authorized three standing committees:


the Audit Committee;


the Compensation Committee; and


the Nominating and Governance Committee.

The charters for each of these committees, as well as our Principles of Corporate Governance are available on our website at https://investor.rsac.com/corporate-governance-documentswww.investor.rsac.com and are available in print to any stockholder who requests a copy from our Corporate Secretary at the address appearing at the top of the first page of this proxy statement. Each of these committees is composed of only independent directors and regularly reports to the Board as a whole.

Audit Committee.The Audit Committee assists the Board in fulfilling the Board’s oversight responsibilities over Reliance’s financial reporting process and systems of internal controls, monitoring the independence, qualifications and performance of Reliance’s independent registered public accounting firm and maintaining open communication between the Board and the independent registered public accounting firm, the internal auditors and financial management. The Audit Committee appoints and oversees the qualifications of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee confers formally with our independent registered public accounting firm, as well as with members of our management, our internal auditors and those employees performing internal accounting functions, to inquire as to the manner in which the respective responsibilities of these groups and individuals are being discharged. The Audit Committee annually reviews its Charter.

The members

Each member of the Audit Committee areis an independent directorsdirector as defined in the listing standards for the New York Stock Exchange and as defined in the standards established by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Board of Directors has determined that Ms. Anderson,Mr. Dellaquila, the Chair of the Audit Committee, is an audit committee financial expert. Each of the other members of the Audit Committee, Ms. Anderson, Ms. Baldwin and Ms. Colonias and Messrs. Hayes, Kaminski Sharkey and Waite,Stotlar, is financially literate. The Audit Committee regularly reports to the Board of Directors. The Audit Committee engages our independent registered public accounting firm and the Board of Directors as a whole ratifies such action. The Audit Committee reviews and approves the scope of the audit conducted by the independent registered public accounting firm of Reliance and pre-approves all audit and non-audit services provided by the independent registered public accounting firm, reviews the accounting principles being applied by Reliance in financial reporting and the adequacy of internal controls and financial accounting procedures. The Audit Committee oversees the Company’s internal audit function and approves the compensation of the Vice President,Director, Internal Audit and makes a recommendation to the Compensation Committee and the Board that they ratify such compensation. In 2015,2021, the Audit Committee met tennine times, and conferred by phone and email as needed.

53


Compensation Committee.The Compensation Committee assists the Board in determining the compensation of the Company’s corporate officers, including the named executive officers,NEOs, recommends to the Board annual and long-term compensation for the Company’s corporate officers, including the named executive officers,NEOs, and prepares an annual report on its activities and determinations for inclusion in the Company’s proxy statement in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. See “How We Make Decisions Regarding Executive Compensation” on page 33.

50.

In addition to its role in determining the compensation of corporate officers of Reliance, the Compensation Committee administers our long-term incentive plans, including our Amended and Restated 2015 Incentive Award Plan, the Reliance Supplemental Executive Retirement PlanSERP, and the Reliance Deferred Compensation Plan. The Compensation Committee has the authority to designate officers, directors or key employees eligible to participate in the plans, to prescribe the terms of any equity award, to interpret the plans, to propose
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      76

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
changes in the compensation policy and to make all other determinations for administering the plans and policies; provided that such determinations relating to corporate officers are subject to the approval of the independent non-management directors of the Board. The Compensation Committee annually reviews its Charter.

The members

Each member of the Compensation Committee areis an independent directorsdirector as defined in the listing standards for the New York Stock Exchange, including the additional independence criteria applicable to compensation committee members. Mr. KaminskiFigueroa has served as Chair of the Compensation Committee in 2014. Mr. Figueroa was elected Chair of the Compensation Committee in Januarysince 2015. In 2015,2021, the Compensation Committee met fivefour times, and conferred by phone and email as needed.

Nominating and Governance Committee.The primary role of the Nominating and Governance Committee is to represent the interests of our stockholders with respect to the evaluation and composition of our Board of Directors and each of its standing committees. The Nominating and Governance Committee develops and implements policies and processes regarding Board and corporate governance matters, assesses Board membership needs, makes recommendations regarding potential director candidates to the Board, administers the evaluation of Board and Committee performance, encourages director training and makes any recommendations to the full Board as needed to carry out its purpose. The Nominating and Governance Committee annually reviews the Company’s Principles of Corporate Governance and its Charter. The Nominating and Governance Committee also regularly considers issues relating to the retirement, succession and compensation of directors.

The membersNominating and Governance Committee is also responsible for the oversight and review of the Company’s activities relating to corporate social responsibility and sustainability matters and the external reporting thereof.

Each member of the Nominating and Governance Committee areis an independent directorsdirector as defined in the listing standards for the New York Stock Exchange. Mr. SharkeyStotlar has beenserved as the Chair of the Nominating and Governance Committee since January 2011.2018. The Nominating and Governance Committee recommends, and the Board has adopted, the Principles of Corporate Governance posted on our website.website at https://investor.rsac.com /corporate-governance-documents. In 2015,2021, the Nominating and Governance Committee met fourfive times and conferred by phone and email as needed.

Nomination of Directors

NOMINATION OF DIRECTORS
Nominations for the Board of Directors are made by the Nominating and Governance Committee and considered by the Board of Directors acting as a whole. The Nominating and Governance Committee has not adopted a specific policy regarding the consideration of director candidates recommended by stockholders, but seeks candidates by any method the Committee determines to be appropriate, including consideration of director candidates proposed by stockholders. Stockholders may propose director candidates for consideration by the Nominating and Governance Committee by sending a letter addressed to the Chair of the Nominating and Governance Committee in care of the Corporate Secretary of Reliance at the Company’s corporate headquarters address appearing at the top of the first page of this proxy statement.

Candidates recommended by stockholders are evaluated in the same manner by the Nominating and Governance Committee as candidates recommended by other parties.

54

THE ROLE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN RISK ASSESSMENT

The Role of the Board of Directors in Risk Assessment

The Board of Directors as a whole has the responsibility to oversee risk assessment and regularly receives reports from members of senior management and Chairs of the Committees as to any material risk to the Company, including operational, financial, legal, or regulatory risks, succession issues or risks that could adversely impact the Company’s reputation. The Audit Committee has taken the lead role in connection with the oversight of risks associated with or disclosable in the Company’s financial statements and certain regulatory risks. The Audit Committee meets with the Company’s independent

77      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
registered public accounting firm in executive session (i.e., without management) on a quarterly basis and receives quarterly updates directly from the Company’s Vice President, Internal AuditEnterprise Risk and also has a quarterly executive session with the Vice President,Director, Internal Audit. The Audit Committee also conducts an annual discussion regarding potential risks to the Company from a financial reporting and regulatory standpoint, with input from the Company’s financial management, the Vice President, Internal Audit,Enterprise Risk, the internal audit team, in-house counsel and the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm.

In addition, the Audit Committee regularly reviews the Company’s assessment of cybersecurity threats and risk, data security programs and information technology risks and potential breach incidents with management, including the Company’s Chief Information Officer.
To the extent that a risk arises within the purview of our Nominating and Governance Committee or the Compensation Committee, management reports to the applicable Committee. The Chair of the appropriate Committee then reports to the Board as a whole as to any material risks and the evaluation or mitigation of those risks after any appropriate investigation and discussions with management and any outside counsel or consultant who may be invited to discuss the issue.

In the Board’s non-managementexecutive sessions, the Lead Directornon-executive Chairman regularly holds a general discussion of potential and actual risks. The Lead Director organizes strategy sessions in whichChairman of the directorsBoard conducts the meetings, administers the activities of the Board, and seniorfacilitates communication between management and in some cases, certain other Company or subsidiary officers, review the Company’s strategic plan and outlook. The Board expects to continue to hold regular strategy sessions going forward.Board. In addition, the Chairman makes the final determination of the Board’s agenda. The Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, President, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, certain of its Executive and Senior Vice Presidents, and the General Counsel all regularly attend the meetings of the Board of Directors and its Committees and are available to discuss any material risk with the Board or any Committee. In addition, these officers regularly report to the Board of Directors on any risks of which they become aware. To the extent that the Board desires it or the risk warrants it, other Company personnel may be asked to prepare and present a report to the Board and outside counsel or an appropriate consultant may be invited to discuss the issue at a Board meeting. The Company believes that these procedures enable the Board to promptly and adequately assess risks that may have a material impact on the Company and to oversee any mitigation to the extent the Board deems it to be appropriate.

Risks Related to Compensation Plans

RISKS RELATED TO COMPENSATION PLANS
Our Compensation Committee has concluded that the Company’s various compensation plans do not encourage excessive or inappropriate risk taking or create any risk that is reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. Each year our Compensation Committee reviews the Company’s existing compensation plans and policies for the NEOs and corporate officers to ensure that they continue to support the Company’s objectives and enhance stockholder value, including to the extent there have been any changes to the Company’s risk profile.

Throughout our Company, compensation of our management and key employees is structured with the same elements as for our named executive officers:NEOs:


base salary,


performance-based cash incentive awards,


equity compensation, and


a retirement benefit.

55


Sales personnel generally are also paid commissions on the gross profit from sales from their particular geographic territory or location as well as a base salary. Our cash incentive plans for local management teams provide variable compensation and are performance-based programs triggered by various financial and operational measures, including most commonly pre-taxpretax income return on manageable assets, gross profit, inventory turn, credit performance safety metrics and other similar performance standards tailored to the job responsibilities of the individual employee and the results of the business unit or

RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      78

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
subsidiary for which the individual works. These plans generally place a maximum or cap on the amounts payable under the plans, which we believe mitigates excessive risk taking. From time to time, discretionary bonuses may be awarded to individual employees based upon that individual’s performance and contribution to the results of the business unit, subsidiary or the Company as a whole. Our senior management reviews compensation paid to division managers, subsidiary officers and key employees, and our Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors approves all grants of stock options or restricted stock.

RSUs.

The named executive officersNEOs are entitled to performance-based incentive cash awards only if the Company’s performance meets certain thresholds. Performance-based restricted stockRSU awards granted to named executive officersNEOs and other key employees are subject to forfeiture if performance criteria are not met at the end of the three-year performance period. The Compensation Committee believes that having multiple performance awards over multiple periods will reduce the likelihood of excessive risk taking. See “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” above for a discussion of our executive compensation program, including our performance-based awards. Moreover, the Compensation Committee, to further reduce the possibility of excessive risk taking, adopted a clawback and recoupment policy that requires all or a portion of the named executive officer’sNEOs’ incentive cash awardawards or restricted stockRSU awards to be returned to the Company if the financial statements are restated or there is a material adverse change in the factors underlying the performance criteria. To ensureencourage retention of key employees, a portion of restricted stock unitsRSU awards will vest only if the individual continues to be employed by the Company or an affiliate until the end of the performance period.

The nature of our business limits potential risk of the actions of individual employees and individual transactions. Our primary business is to serve customers by providing quick delivery, metals processing and inventory management services, principally for small orders. During 2015, we handled approximately 5,647,000 transactions in totalOur metals service centers wrote and delivered over 4,621,000 orders during 2021 or an average of 22,350 transactions18,510 per business day, with an average price of approximately $1,660$3,050 per transaction. In 2015, we invested $172.2 million in capital expenditures the significant majority of which is designed to expand and improve efficiencies in our value-added processing capabilities.order. We believe that our focus on small orders with quick turnaround differentiates us from many of the other large metals service center companies and allows us to provide better service to our customers, and that it also mitigates excessive risk taking. It is uncommon for our operating units to enter into a material contract or agreement, and, on those occasions when a material contract is being considered, senior management is involved. Further, given the internal processes and controls that we have in place, it would be very difficult for any individual or group of individuals to manipulate the results of their operating unit in a manner that would have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated results.

Executive Session and Lead Director

EXECUTIVE SESSIONS AND THE INDEPENDENT, NON-EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN
Non-management directors meet regularly in executive sessions without management. “Non-management” directors are all those who are not Company officers or employees and include directors, if any, who are not “independent” by virtue of the existence of a material relationship with the Company, former status or family relationship or for any other reason. Executive sessions are led by the “Lead Director.”non-executive Chairman. An executive session is held immediately prior to each regularly scheduled quarterly Board meeting and other sessions may be called by the Lead Directornon-executive Chairman in his own discretion or at the request of the Board. In January 2015,
Mr. Kaminski was elected Lead Director by the independent directors to act asin January 2015. In July 2016, Mr. Kaminski was elected the Lead Director. Prior to that, Mr. Hayes served as Lead Director since May 2004. Sinceindependent, non-executive Chairman by the independent directors. Consistent with our Principles of Corporate Governance, the Board has determinedcurrently does not have a lead independent director because the Chairman is an independent director. The Board believes that all of the non-management directors are independent, these executive sessions are also meetings of the independent directors.

56


Whenever the Board hashaving an independent director servingserve as the non-executive Chairman there will not be a Lead Director position.

Chairman and CEO

Theof the Board elected Mr. Hannah its Executive Chairman so that he might, among other things, provide additional support to Reliance’s management team with his unique combination ofis the appropriate leadership and experience of having served asstructure for our Company at this time because it allows our Chief Executive Officer for over 15 years. As previously announced, Mr. Hannah will retire fromto focus on executing our Company’s strategic plan and managing our operations and performance, while allowing the positionChairman of Executive Chairman in July 2016, at which time he will remain a director and the Board will appoint a non-executive Chairman fromto focus on the effectiveness of the Board and provide independent directors elected at the Annual Meeting.

Director Independence

oversight of our senior management team.

79      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE
Other than Messrs. HannahMr. Hoffman who is our Chief Executive Officer and Mollins,Mrs. Lewis who are officers and employees of the Company,is our President, the Board has determined that no director has any material relationship with the Company nor is any such director affiliated with any entity or person who has a material relationship with the Company. Accordingly, theThe Board has determined that alleach of the directors other thanMs. Baldwin, Ms. Colonias, and Messrs. HannahDellaquila, Figueroa,  Kaminski, McEvoy,  Seeger and Mollins qualifyStotlar qualifies as an independent directorsdirector under New York Stock Exchange rules. In making this determination, the Board reviewed and considered information provided by the directors and the Company with regard to each director’s business and personal activities as they may relate to the Company and to the Company’s management.

Director Qualifications

DIRECTOR QUALIFICATIONS
The Nominating and Governance Committee is responsible for assessing membership needs for the Board of Directors, identifying individuals qualified to become Board members, making recommendations regarding potential director candidates to the Board of Directors and administering the evaluation of the Board and Committee performance, among other things. The Nominating and Governance Committee regularly reviews the composition of the Board and of each of the Board’s Committees. The Nominating and Governance Committee strives to maintain an independent, balanced and diversifieddiverse Board with directors who have appropriate backgrounds, skills and characteristics to complement one another. The Committee reviews management experience, general business knowledge, and specific skills or expertise, such as finance, value-added wholesaling, technology, business law, and marketing. The Committee encourages all directors to take director training courses in order to keep current on issues facing boards of directors. Certain characteristics or attributes are sought in all Board members, including integrity, strong professional reputation, a record of achievement, constructive and collegial personal attributes, and the ability and willingness to devote sufficient time and energy to serve on our Board. The Nominating and Governance Committee and the Board of Directors believe that the current Board members meet these criteria and understand what factors result in the Company outperforming its industry peers. The Company desires to have directors who will commit a substantial amount of time to serving on the Board to ensure a greater understanding of the Company’s business and culture and to provide continuity and stability to the Board.

Director Stock Ownership Requirements

Reliance recognizes the value of diversity. Although the Board does not have a formal diversity policy, it believes that diversity is an important factor in determining the composition of the Board and considers it in making nominee recommendations.

In 2021, the Board of Directors added two new independent directors. The addition of each of Messrs. Dellaquila and Seeger is reflective of the principles underlying the Board’s succession planning and their appointments followed a robust and extensive director search process aligned with the Board of Directors’ self-evaluation process and adherence to the commitments made in the Principles of Corporate Governance. These commitments included prioritizing experience relevant to the Company’s strategy and business, ensuring that candidates with a diversity of race, age, ethnicity and gender are included in each pool of candidates from which Board of Directors nominees are chosen, and including potential candidates from varied backgrounds, including going beyond the traditional former CEO corporate background as a required criteria for new candidates. The Company will continue to evaluate board composition and opportunities to strengthen the Board of Directors.
DIRECTOR STOCK OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENTS
Directors are required to own shares of the Company’s common stock having a market value at least equal to $400,000;$520,000; provided, that directors shall have a period of five years to acquire and begin maintaining that amount of the Company’s common stock. All of the directors are in compliance with their stock ownership requirements or are on their way to becoming compliant within five years of the date of appointment.
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      80

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
STOCKHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
To maintain our strong corporate governance practices and ensure that we regularly receive stockholder feedback, we must engage with investors. Throughout the year, we seek opportunities to connect with our investors to gain and share valuable insights into current and emerging global governance trends and the Company’s corporate governance policies and practices.
Management conducts extensive engagements with key stockholders. Officers participating in these engagements include our Chief Executive Officer, our President and our Chief Financial Officer. In 2021, we had discussions with stockholders holding in excess of 38% of our outstanding shares of common stock in the aggregate. These engagements include discussions about governance, compensation, sustainability and safety, as well as financial and operational matters, to ensure that management and the Board understand and address the issues that are important to our stockholders. The Board oversees the discharge by management of stockholder communication and engagement and receives regular reports on stockholder comments and feedback. The Board encourages dialogue on issues of interest to stockholders.
81      2022 PROXY STATEMENT

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE INTERLOCKS AND INSIDER PARTICIPATION
As of the date of this requirement.

proxy statement, the Compensation Committee Interlocksconsisted of Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Colonias and Insider Participation

No memberMessrs. Figueroa (Chair), McEvoy, Seeger and Sharkey. During 2021 and as of the date of this proxy statement, none of the members of the Compensation Committee who served during 2015 was or is an officer or employee of Reliance, was formerly anand no executive officer of Reliancethe Company served or hadserves on the compensation committee or board of any other relationship requiring disclosure.

57

company that employed or employs any member of Reliance’s Compensation Committee or Board of Directors.
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      82

AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT

REPORT

The Audit Committee assists the Board of Directors in fulfilling the Board’s oversight responsibilities over our financial reporting process and systems of internal controls, monitoring the independence, qualifications and performance of our independent registered public accounting firm and the performance of our internal auditors, and maintaining open communication between the Board and the independent registered public accounting firm, the internal auditors, and financial management and has taken a lead role in financial risk assessment. During 20152021, the Audit Committee, which is composed entirely of independent, non-employee directors, met tennine times.

The Audit Committee operates under a written Charter adopted by the Board that outlines its responsibilities and the practices it follows. The Audit Committee reviews and assesses the adequacy of the Charter at least annually and, when appropriate, recommends changes to the Board.

In fulfilling its responsibilities under the Charter, the Audit Committee reviewed and discussed our audited financial statements for 20152021 with management and the independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee has discussed with the independent registered public accounting firm the matters required to be discussed by the applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) Auditing Standard No. 16, Communications with Audit Committees.and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Audit Committee also reviewed the written disclosures and the letter from the independent registered public accounting firm required by professional standards regarding the independent registered public accounting firm’s communications with the audit committeeAudit Committee concerning independence, and discussed with the independent registered public accounting firm its independence from management and Reliance. The Audit Committee has also considered the compatibility of non-audit services rendered by our independent registered public accounting firm with its independence. The Audit Committee approved all fees paid to the independent registered public accounting firm for audit and non-audit services.

In reliance on the reviews and discussions outlined above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors (and the Board subsequently approved the recommendation) that the audited financial statements be included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 20152021 for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Audit Committee also evaluated and selected KPMG LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for 2016.2022. This selection was ratified by the Board of Directors.

April 8, 2016

2022

Sarah J. Anderson
Frank J. Dellaquila, Chair

Douglas M. Hayes

Lisa L. Baldwin
Mark V. Kaminski

Andrew G. Sharkey, III

Leslie A. Waite

Karen W. Colonias
Douglas W. Stotlar

83      2022 PROXY STATEMENT



RELATED PERSON TRANSACTIONS AND INDEMNIFICATION

RELATED Person TRANSACTIONS

We currently employ four individuals – Sean Mollins,individuals—Matthew Hannah, Grant Hoffman, Ryan Mollins, Matthew Hannah, and Donald Grant Hoffman – Katie Sales—​who are immediate family members of current or former executive officers and/or directors and whose individual aggregate compensation and benefits paid by the Company in 20152021 exceeded $120,000. Each of these employees is compensated in a manner consistent with our employment and compensation policies applicable to all employees.

Director Karen W. Colonias serves as the President and Chief Executive Officer of SSD. Subsidiaries of the Company conducted approximately $1,545,000 in transactions with SSD in 2021. Reliance believes that these were all ordinary commercial transactions made at arm’s-length.
Director Frank J. Dellaquila is the Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Emerson. Subsidiaries of the Company conducted approximately $9,140,000 in transactions with Emerson in 2021. Reliance believes that these were all ordinary commercial transactions made at arm’s-length.
President and Director Karla R. Lewis is a director of Goodyear. Subsidiaries of the Company conducted approximately $1,487,000 in transactions with Goodyear in 2021. Reliance believes that these were all ordinary commercial transactions made at arm’s-length.
The Board of Directors has reviewed and approved these transactions under the standards described below.
Except as set forth above, since January 1, 2015,2021, there have been no related person transactions with any director or executive officer of the Company or any other related person, as defined in Rule 404 under Regulation S-K promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and none is proposed. Our policies and procedures with respect to the review of any proposed transactions are evidenced in the Company’s Code of Conduct, and the Director Code of Conduct, which requirerequires that all material facts be disclosed to the full Board of Directors (or in the case of non-director employees, to corporate officers) and then all disinterested persons will review and consider what, if any, actions need to be taken. The Company’s Principles of Corporate Governance require directors to report any matter that conflicts with the interests of the Company or gives the appearance of a conflict immediately to the Executive Chairman of the Board and the Chair of the Nominating and Governance Committee for the matter to be evaluated with respect to the continued appropriateness of such director’s Board membership, and any personal interest a director has in a matter before the Board must be disclosed to the Board and such director must excuse himself or herself from participation in the discussion and shall not vote on the matter. Furthermore, pursuant to its Charter, the Audit Committee conducts an annual review of any related person transactions for potential conflicts of interest.

SECTION 16(a) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE

Section 16(a)

We indemnify our directors and our officers to the fullest extent permitted by law so that they will be free from undue concern about personal liability in connection with their service to Reliance. Our Bylaws require indemnification, and we have also entered into agreements with those individuals contractually obligating us to provide this indemnification to them.
PARTICIPATION IN THE ANNUAL MEETING
Stockholders as of the Exchange Act requiresclose of business on the Record Date are entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. A list of these stockholders is available at the principal executive offices of the Company in Los Angeles, California. Each share of common stock is entitled to one vote on each matter to be voted on. Voting may be done over the internet, by telephone, by completing and mailing the proxy card, or electronically at the Annual Meeting. Additional information including information about voting by
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      84


beneficial holders who hold shares through a bank, broker or financial institution is provided under “Voting Information” on page 14 and “Information Concerning Our Common Stock” on page 16.
We hope you will participate in the meeting by accessing our live webcast. If you do, you will need the 16-digit control number included on your proxy card, on your Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials or on the instructions that our officers and directors and any person who directlyaccompanied your proxy materials. If you are a beneficial holder, you may also vote electronically at the meeting by using the 16-digit control number included on the voting instruction form provided by your broker. If you are a beneficial holder but do not have a control number, you may gain access to the meeting by contacting your broker or indirectly isby following the beneficial ownerinstructions included with your proxy materials. Even if you plan to participate in the meeting by live webcast, we encourage you to vote your shares in advance of more than 10%the Annual Meeting date.
Submitting questions at the Annual Meeting
You can submit questions electronically at the Annual Meeting during the webcast. During the live Q&A session of the meeting, members of our common stock must file reports of beneficial ownershipsenior leadership will answer questions as they come in, as time permits. We have designed our virtual meeting such that stockholders have equivalent rights to participate and any changesask and hear management’s responses to appropriate questions as they had at our prior in-person meetings. As was the case at our prior in-person meetings, to ensure the meeting is conducted in a manner that is fair to all stockholders, the Chairman (or such ownership. The three forms used for reports are:other person designated by our Board) may exercise broad discretion in recognizing stockholders who wish to participate, the Form 3,order in which is an initial statement of beneficial ownership of such securities, the Form 4, which reports changes in beneficial ownership,questions are asked and the Form 5, which is an annual statementamount of time devoted to report changes that have not previously been reported. Each of these forms must be filed at specified times.

Based solely on our review of such forms andany one question. We also reserve the right to edit or reject questions we deem personal, profane or otherwise inappropriate. Detailed guidelines for submitting written representations made by certain of such reporting persons, Reliance believes thatquestions during the year ended December 31, 2015, except formeeting are available at www.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/RS2022. An audio recording of the three late reportsAnnual Meeting will be available on one Form 4 for eachthe Investors section of Messrs. Hannah, Mollins, Hoffman, Sales, and Koch, Mrs. Lewis and Sheldon Tenenbaum, all dueour website after the meeting.

If you have technical difficulties or trouble accessing the virtual meeting
We will have technicians ready to administrative error, all personsassist you with any technical difficulties you may have complied withaccessing the requirements of Section 16(a).

virtual meeting. If you encounter any difficulties accessing the virtual meeting during the check-in or meeting time, please call the technical support number that will be posted on the Virtual Shareholder Meeting login page.

STOCKHOLDER PROPOSALS AND NOMINATIONS FOR THE 20172023 ANNUAL MEETING

We must receive any stockholder proposals intended to be presented at the 20172023 Annual Meeting and included in our proxy materials relating to such meeting no later than December 12, 2016.9, 2022. If a stockholder proposal intended to be presented at the 20172023 Annual Meeting and included in our proxy materials is not received by the Company on or before December 12, 2016,9, 2022, it will be deemed to be untimely.

Any stockholder proposals intended to be presented at the 20172023 Annual Meeting but not submitted for inclusion in our proxy materials relating to such meeting must be received no earlier than January 21, 201718, 2023 and no later than February 20, 2017.17, 2023. Any such stockholder proposals submitted without a properly completed timely notice in accordance with the Bylaws will be deemed untimely and not properly submitted under the Bylaws.

The Company’s Bylaws permit a stockholder (or a group of up to 20 stockholders) who has owned a significant amount of Reliance common stock (at least 3%) for a significant amount of time (at least three years) to submit director nominees (the greater of two or up to 25% of the Board) for inclusion in the Company’s proxy statement if the stockholder(s) and the nominee(s) satisfy the requirements specified in the Company’s Bylaws. Director nominations under the Company’s proxy access Bylawbylaw for
85      2022 PROXY STATEMENT


the Company’s 20172023 Annual Meeting must be received no earlier than November 12, 20169, 2022 and no later than December 12, 2016.9, 2022. Any such proxy access director nominations submitted without the required notice and required information will be deemed untimely and not properly submitted under the Company’s Bylaws.

59


Stockholder proposals and director nominations must be addressed to the Corporate Secretary at the Company’s corporate headquarters address appearing at the top of the first page of this proxy statement.

Notices and submissions must include the information required by the Company’s Bylaws, which are available without charge upon written request to the Corporate Secretary. Failure to comply with our procedures and deadlines may preclude presentation of your proposal at our 2023 Annual Meeting.

In addition to satisfying the foregoing requirements under our Bylaws, to comply with the universal proxy rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, stockholders who intend to solicit proxies in support of director nominees other than the Company’s nominees must provide notice that sets forth the information required by Rule 14a-19 under the Exchange Act no later than March 19, 2023.
STOCKHOLDERS SHARING THE SAME ADDRESS

ADDRESS

In accordance with notices that we sent to certain stockholders, we are sending only one copy of our annual report and proxy statement to stockholders who share the same last name and address, unless they have notified us that they want to continue receiving multiple copies. This practice, known as “householding,” is designed to reduce duplicate mailings and printing and postage costs. However, if any stockholder residing at such address wishes to receive a separate annual report or proxy statement, in the future, he or she may so notify the Corporate Secretary at the Company’s corporate headquarters address or phone number appearing at the top of the first page of this proxy statement.statement and we will promptly send such stockholder the requested materials, and we will send such stockholder separate materials for future meetings. If you are receiving multiple copies of the annual report and proxy statement, you can request householding by contacting the Corporate Secretary at the Company’s corporate headquarters address appearing at the top of the first page of this proxy statement.

ANNUAL REPORT

REPORT

Reliance will furnish without charge to any stockholder, upon written request directed to the Corporate Secretary of Reliance at its address appearing at the top of the first page of this proxy statement, a copy of its most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

By Order of the Board of Directors,

Picture 5

William A. Smith II

Corporate Secretary

[MISSING IMAGE: sg_williamasmith-k.jpg]
William A. Smith II
Corporate Secretary
Los Angeles, California


April 8, 2016

60

2022
RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO.      86

Picture 10

VOTE BY INTERNET - www.proxyvote.com Use the Internet to transmit your voting instructions and for electronic delivery of information up until 11:59 P.M. Eastern Time on May 17, 2016. Have your proxy card in hand when you access the web site and follow the instructions RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO. 350 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE 51ST FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 to obtain your records and to create an electronic voting instruction form. ELECTRONIC DELIVERY OF FUTURE PROXY MATERIALS If you would like to reduce the costs incurred by our company in mailing proxy materials, you can consent to receiving all future proxy statements, proxy cards and annual reports electronically via e-mail or the Internet. To sign up for electronic delivery, please follow the instructions above to vote using the Internet and, when prompted, indicate that you agree to receive or access proxy materials electronically in future years. VOTE BY PHONE - 1-800-690-6903 Use any touch-tone telephone to transmit your voting instructions up until 11:59 P.M. Eastern Time on May 17, 2016. Have your proxy card in hand when you call and then follow the instructions. VOTE BY MAIL Mark, sign and date your proxy card and return it in the postage-paid envelope we have provided or return it to Vote Processing, c/o Broadridge, 51 Mercedes Way, Edgewood, NY 11717. Your mailed proxy must be received by the close of business on May 17, 2016. TO VOTE, MARK BLOCKS BELOW IN BLUE OR BLACK INK AS FOLLOWS: E06929-P77013 KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS THIS PROXY CARD IS VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED AND DATED. DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION ONLY RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE "FOR" ALL THE NOMINEES LISTED IN PROPOSAL 1. 1. Election of Directors Nominees: For Against Abstain 1a. Sarah J. Anderson 1b. John G. Figueroa 1c. Thomas W. Gimbel 1d. David H. Hannah 1f. Mark V. Kaminski 1g. Robert A. McEvoy 1h. Gregg J. Mollins 1i. Andrew G. Sharkey, III ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! For address changes and/or comments, please check this box and write them on the back where indicated. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE "FOR" PROPOSALS 2 AND 3. For Against Abstain 2. To approve, on a non-binding, advisory basis, the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers. ! ! ! 1e. Douglas M. Hayes 3. To ratify the appointment of KPMG LLP as the Company's independent registered public accounting firm for 2016. ! ! ! Please sign exactly as your name(s) appear(s) hereon. When signing as attorney, executor, administrator, or other fiduciary, please give full title as such. Joint owners should each sign personally. All holders must sign. If a corporation or partnership, please sign in full corporate or partnership name by authorized officer. Signature [PLEASE SIGN WITHIN BOX] Date Signature (Joint Owners) Date

[MISSING IMAGE: lg_soyink-bw.jpg]
[MISSING IMAGE: lg_fscmix-bw.jpg]


Picture 11

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual Meeting: The Notice and Proxy Statement, Annual Report and Form 10-K are available at www.proxyvote.com. E06930-P77013 RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO. Proxy Solicited on Behalf of the Board of Directors of the Company for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders on May 18, 2016 The undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Karla R. Lewis and William A. Smith II, and each of them, his/her true and lawful agents and proxies with full power of substitution in each to represent the undersigned at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO. to be held at 10:00 a.m., California time, Wednesday, May 18, 2016, at the Omni Los Angeles Hotel at California Plaza, 251 South Olive Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, and at any adjournments thereof, on all matters coming before said meeting. You are encouraged to specify your choices by marking the appropriate boxes (SEE REVERSE SIDE) but you need not mark any boxes if you wish to vote in accordance with the Board of Directors' recommendations. The Board of Directors recommends voting FOR all Nominees in Proposal 1 and FOR Proposals 2 and 3. The proxyholders cannot vote the shares unless you sign and return this card. Address Changes/Comments: (If you noted any Address Changes/Comments above, please mark corresponding box on the reverse side.) (Continued and to be signed on reverse side)

[MISSING IMAGE: tm223369d1-pc_proxy1bwlr.jpg]


Picture 12

VOTE BY INTERNET - www.proxyvote.com Use the Internet to transmit your voting instructions and for electronic delivery of information up until 11:59 P.M. Eastern Time on May 17, 2016. Have your proxy card in hand when you access the web site and follow the instructions RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO. 350 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE 51ST FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 to obtain your records and to create an electronic voting instruction form. ELECTRONIC DELIVERY OF FUTURE PROXY MATERIALS If you would like to reduce the costs incurred by our company in mailing proxy materials, you can consent to receiving all future proxy statements, proxy cards and annual reports electronically via e-mail or the Internet. To sign up for electronic delivery, please follow the instructions above to vote using the Internet and, when prompted, indicate that you agree to receive or access proxy materials electronically in future years. VOTE BY PHONE - 1-800-690-6903 Use any touch-tone telephone to transmit your voting instructions up until 11:59 P.M. Eastern Time on May 17, 2016. Have your proxy card in hand when you call and then follow the instructions. VOTE BY MAIL Mark, sign and date your proxy card and return it in the postage-paid envelope we have provided or return it to Vote Processing, c/o Broadridge, 51 Mercedes Way, Edgewood, NY 11717. Your mailed proxy must be received by the close of business on May 17, 2016. TO VOTE, MARK BLOCKS BELOW IN BLUE OR BLACK INK AS FOLLOWS: E06931-P77013 KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE "FOR" ALL THE NOMINEES LISTED IN PROPOSAL 1. 1. Election of Directors Nominees: For Against Abstain 1a. Sarah J. Anderson 1b. John G. Figueroa 1c. Thomas W. Gimbel ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE "FOR" PROPOSALS 2 AND 3. For Against Abstain 1d. David H. Hannah 1e. Douglas M. Hayes 1f. Mark V. Kaminski 1g. Robert A. McEvoy 1h. Gregg J. Mollins 1i. Andrew G. Sharkey, III ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! For address changes and/or comments, please check this box and write them on the back where indicated. ! ! ! ! ! 3. To ratify the appointment of KPMG LLP as the Company's independent registered public accounting firm for 2016. ! ! ! Please sign exactly as your name(s) appear(s) hereon. When signing as attorney, executor, administrator, or other fiduciary, please give full title as such. Joint owners should each sign personally. All holders must sign. If a corporation or partnership, please sign in full corporate or partnership name by authorized officer. Signature [PLEASE SIGN WITHIN BOX] Date Signature (Joint Owners) Date THIS PROXY CARD IS VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED AND DATED. DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION ONLY ! ! ! 2. To approve, on a non-binding, advisory basis, the ! compensation of the Company’s named executive ! ! ! ! officers. !

[MISSING IMAGE: tm223369d1-pc_proxy2bwlr.jpg]


Picture 13

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual Meeting: The Notice and Proxy Statement, Annual Report and Form 10-K are available at www.proxyvote.com. E06932-P77013 RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO. Proxy Solicited on Behalf of the Board of Directors of the Company for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders on May 18, 2016 The undersigned hereby (i) constitutes and appoints, and/or (ii) instructs Fidelity Management Trust Company, as trustee of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co., Master 401(k) Plan and the Precision Strip Retirement and Savings Plan, to appoint, Karla R. Lewis and William A. Smith II, and each of them, his/her true and lawful agents and proxies with full power of substitution in each, to represent the undersigned at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of RELIANCE STEEL & ALUMINUM CO. to be held at 10:00 a.m., California time, on Wednesday, May 18, 2016, at the Omni Los Angeles Hotel at California Plaza, 251 South Olive Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, and at any adjournments thereof, on all matters coming before said meeting. You are encouraged to specify your choices by marking the appropriate boxes (SEE REVERSE SIDE) but you need not mark any boxes if you wish to vote in accordance with the Board of Directors' recommendations. The Board of Directors recommends voting FOR all Nominees in Proposal 1 and FOR Proposals 2 and 3. The proxyholders cannot vote the shares unless you sign and return this card. Address Changes/Comments: (If you noted any Address Changes/Comments above, please mark corresponding box on the reverse side.) (Continued and to be signed on reverse side)

[MISSING IMAGE: tm223369d1-pc_proxy3bwlr.jpg]