Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-94-09575/USCOURTS-ca10-94-09575-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Feliverto A. Casias
Intervenor
Benny Coca
Intervenor
Leroy Cordova
Intervenor
William Cordova
Intervenor
Homer Jones
Intervenor
Medite of New Mexico, Inc.
Petitioner
Pete Montano
Intervenor
George Montoya
Intervenor
Karl Mueller
Intervenor
National Labor Relations Board
Respondent
Max Salazar
Intervenor
Perry R. Salazar
Intervenor
Manuel Sanchez
Intervenor
Arturo Tafoya
Intervenor

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

FILED 

United States Court or Appettlt Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DECO 7199S 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk TENTH CIRCUIT 

MEDITE OF NEW MEXICO, INC., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 

Respondent. 

PERRY R. SALAZAR; LEROY CORDOVA; 

ARTURO TAFOYA; MAX SALAZAR; 

BENNY COCA; WILLIAM CORDOVA; 

KARL MUELLER; PETE MONTANO; 

HOMER JONES; FELIVERTO A. CASIAS; 

MANUEL SANCHEZ; GEORGE MONTOYA, 

Intervenors. 

No. 94-9575 

APPEAL FROM THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 

(Nos. 28-CA-11040, 28-CA-11281, 28-CA-11281-2, 

28-CA-11281-4, 28-CA-11281.:6-10, 28-CA-11281-12, 

28-CA-11281-13, 28-CA-11281-19) 

Nicholas J. Noeding (Margaret R. McNett with him on the briefs), Hinkle, Cox, Eaton, 

Coffield & Hensley, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Petitioner. 

Steven F. Rappaport (Linda Dreeben, Supervisory Attorney; Frederick L. Feinstein, 

General Counsel; Linda Sher, Acting Associate General Counsel; and Aileen A. 

Armstrong, Deputy Associate General Counsel, with him on the brief), National Labor 

Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. 

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 1 
Craig B. Fretwell, Northern New Mexico Legal Services, Las Vegas, New Mexico, for 

Intervenors. 

Before ANDERSON, HENRY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. 

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. 

Petitioner Medite ofNew Mexico, Inc., seeks review of an order of the National 

Labor Relations Board ("Board") affirming in part, reversing in part and modifying the 

recommended Order of an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), which found Medite had 

committed certain violations of the National Labor Relations Act ("Act") in connection 

with an economic strike at its plant. The Board has filed a Cross-Petition seeking 

enforcement of its order. We deny review and enforce the order. 

BACKGROUND 

Medite operates a fiberboard manufacturing plant in Las Vegas, New Mexico. 

Following an election, the Western Council ofindustrial Workers ("Union") became the 

exclusive bargaining agent for the production and maintenance employees at the facility. 

When Medite and the Union were unable to reach a collective bargaining agreement, 60 

ofMedite's 103 employees began an economic strike on June 11, 1990. Among the 

strikers were employees Feliverto Casias, Benny Coca, :Leroy Cordova, William Cordova, 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 2 
Homer Jones, Pete Montano, George Montoya, Karl Mueller, Max Salazar, Perry Salazar, 

Manuel Sanchez, and Arturo Tafoya. 1 Medite notified all strikers that they would be 

permanently replaced if they did not return to work. By the end of June, all strikers had 

been permanently replaced. 

During the strike, a picket line was established along the sides of the road leading 

to the main entrance to Medite's plant. A number of incidents occurred in connection 

with the picket line and the strike which are detailed, as necessary, more fully below. 

On October 24, the Union was decertified and the strike ended. When the strike 

and picketing ended, the Medite plant manager issued an order barring former strikers 

from entering the plant except for escorted access to claim personal items. In November 

and December of 1990, Casias, Coca, Leroy Cordova, William Cordova, Jones, Montano, 

Montoya, Max Salazar, Perry Salazar, and Tafoya each sent to Medite letters seeking 

reinstatement. Mueller did not make a formal request for reinstatement until September 

17, 1991. Sanchez applied orally for reinstatement in mid-November by telephoning 

Medite's personnel director, James D. Stone. All but Mueller received the following 

response from Medite: 

As you probably know, after you went on "strike" a replacement was hired 

to fill your position. Therefore, we are unable to return you to work. 

1

For convenience, we sometimes refer to these individuals by name, and 

sometimes refer to them collectively as the "Charging Parties." 

- 3-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 3 
In September, 1991, Medite posted a notice for employees to bid on a cutoff saw 

helper position, and selected Richard Martinez, who had been hired during the strike as a 

laborer, promoted to cutoff saw helper, and then returned to a laborer position after the 

strike ended. Medite did not offer the position to former striker Montano, who had 

worked as a cutoff saw helper when the strike began. 

On four other occasions between March and November 1991, Medite filled vacant 

bander positions in the same way (promoting laborers hired during the strike) rather than 

offering to reinstate former striker Max Salazar, who had worked as a bander when the 

strike began. Former striker Tafoya had been a saw forklift operator when the strike 

began. In June 1991 and in Apri11992 Medite promoted replacement laborers to fill 

vacant sander forklift operator positions. It did not offer either position to Tafoya. 

Former striker Perry Salazar had been a utility employee prior to the strike. Medite 

notified him in July 1991 that there was a vacant utility position. When Salazar told 

personnel director Stone that he wished to return to work, Stone told him to come to the 

plant on August 5. When he arrived on that date, Stone told Salazar that Medite had 

decided not to reinstate him because of his involvement in misconduct during the strike. 

In August 1991, Medite sent the following letter to former striker Mueller, who 

had been a laborer when the strike began: 

A job opening exists at the plant in the Laborer position 

classification. There are several eligible persons who may be eligible to fill 

this job. If you are interested in filling this position, please contact the 

-4-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 4 
undersigned (Personnel Manager Stone) on or before 4:00PM on Tuesday, 

August 27, 1991. 

Ifyou do not contact us.by this date, the Company will assume that 

you are not interested in reinstatement, and the position will be offered to 

another person. 

Mueller signed a receipt acknowledging that he had received the August 21 letter 

on August 23. He did not contact Stone until September 3, at which time he telephoned 

Stone and told him he was interested in reinstatement. Stone told him that Medite had 

considered him uninterested in the job described in the letter since he had not responded 

by the date stated therein. Mueller thereafter wrote to Stone stating that he wished to 

return to work, and asking to be offered any future positions. 

Medite never offered reinstatement to Casias, Coca, Leroy Cordova, William 

Cordova, Jones, Montano, Montoya, Sanchez, Max Salazar, or Tafoya. Except for the 

above contacts with Mueller and Perry Salazar, Medite has never offered reinstatement to 

either of them. 

On August 13, 1991, Perry Salazar filed a charge with the Board, alleging that 

Medite violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 

§ 158(a)(l) and (3), by failing to reinstate him. On January 14, 1992, Leroy Cordova, 

Tafoya, Max Salazar, Coca, William Cordova, Mueller, Montano, Jones, Casias, Sanchez, 

and Montoya all filed similar charges. The cases were consolidated and an ALJ 

conducted a hearing, following which the ALJ concluded that Medite had violated the Act 

- 5 -

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 5 
by failing to reinstate Montano, Mueller, Max Salazar, Perry Salazar, and Tafoya; that 

Medite did not violate the Act by failing to reinstate Casias, Coca, Leroy Cordova, 

William Cordova, Jones, Montoya, and Sanchez because there were no vacancies in the 

positions that they had held prior to the strike, or in substantially equivalent positions; 

that Medite did not violate the Act by failing to allow Leroy Cordova, Jones, Casias, and 

Sanchez the opportunity to bid on vacancies posted by Medite that were open to bidding 

by all Medite employees. 

A three-member panel of the Board reviewed the ALJ's recommended Order, and 

affirmed in part, reversed in part and modified the Order. It agreed with the ALJ's 

finding that Medite violated the Act by failing to reinstate Montano, Mueller, Max 

Salazar, Perry Salazar, and Tafoya, and that Medite did not violate the act by failing to 

reinstate Casias, Coca, Leroy Cordova, William Cordova, Jones, Montoya, and Sanchez. 

It reversed the ALJ, however, and concluded that Medite had violated the Act by failing 

to allow Leroy Cordova, Jones, Casias, and Sanchez the opportunity to bid on vacancies 

which Medite posted in its plant. The Board also remanded to the ALJ to determine 

whether William Cordova had effectively resigned from Medite and to determine whether 

Coca and Montoya had engaged in strike misconduct or, if they did, whether the 

misconduct was serious enough for them to lose the Act's protections. The Board's order 

requires Medite to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor practices; to 

reinstate Montano, Mueller, Max Salazar, Perry Salazar, and Tafoya and make them 

- 6-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 6 
whole; to offer reinstatement and back pay to Leroy Cordova, Jones, Casias, and Sanchez 

if at the compliance stage of the proceedings it is determined that they were denied 

reinstatement because ofMedite's failure to allow them to bid on job vacancies; and to 

post an appropriate notice. This petition followed. 

Medite argues we should deny enforcement of the Board's Order because: (1) it 

was denied a fair hearing when the ALJ failed to sequester the General Counsel's 

witnesses while they testified about common events and when the ALJ failed to admit 

into evidence a videotape of certain picket line misconduct; (2) the General Counsel 

failed to satisfy his burden of proving that vacancies occurred into which Medite was 

obligated to reinstate certain of the strikers; (3) the Board erred in holding that Medite 

discriminated against former strikers in filling certain job vacancies; and ( 4) the Board 

misapplied the law regarding reinstatement of strikers who engaged in misconduct during 

the strike. Medite also argues it committed no violation with regard to Mueller. 

DISCUSSION 

Our standard for reviewing an order of the Board is clear: while we review legal 

determinations de novo, our standard for reviewing factual determinations is governed by 

29 U.S.C. § 160(e), which states that "findings of the Board with respect to questions of 

fact if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole shall be 

conclusive." 29 U.S.C. § 160(e); Facet Enters .. Inc. v. NLRB, 907 F.2d 963, 969 (lOth 

-7-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 7 
Cir. 1990). The Supreme Court has described substantial evidence as "such relevant 

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." 

Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938); see also Facet Enters., 907 

F.2d at 969; Lear Siegler. Inc. v. NLRB, 890 F.2d 1573, 1575 (lOth Cir. 1989) 

("Substantial evidence ... is more than a mere scintilla of proof."). Thus, if substantial 

evidence in the record supports the Board's conclusions, we must affirm them, even 

though we might reach a different result were we reviewing the record de novo. Facet 

Enters., 907 F.2d at 969; see also NLRB v. Walton Mfg. Co., 369 U.S. 404, 405 (1962) 

(reviewing court "may not 'displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting 

views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the 

matter been before it de novo"') (quoting Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 

474,488 (1951)); NLRB v. Augusta Bakery Corp., 957 F.2d 1467, 1471 (7th Cir. 1992); 

Lear Siegler. Inc., 890 F.2d at 1575. "The standard of review is not altered when the 

ALJ and the Board reach cmitrary conclusions." Harberson v. NLRB, 810 F.2d 977, 983 

(lOth Cir. 1987). However, the record includes the ALJ's findings, "whether they 

contradict or support the Board's determination." Id. 

I. Evidentiary Errors 

Medite argues it was denied a fair hearing because of claimed evidentiary errors 

committed by the ALJ. By statute, proceedings before the Board and ALJ are to be 

- 8-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 8 
conducted "as far as practicable" in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence. 29 

U.S.C. § 160 (b); see Augusta Bakery Corp., 957 F.2d at 1479. Medite argues the ALJ 

failed to exclude the General Counsel's witnesses while they testified about common 

events and he failed to admit into evidence a videotape of claimed striker misconduct on 

the picket line. 

A. Exclusion of Witnesses 

Fed. R. Evid. 615 provides in part: 

At the request of a party the court shall order witnesses excluded so 

that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and it may make the 

order of its own motion. This rule does not authorize exclusion of ( 1) a 

party who is a natural person .... 

Medite invoked this provision at the beginning of the hearing, in an attempt to 

have the Charging Parties excluded when each testified about common events. The ALJ 

denied the request, finding that the "charging parties, as parties, should have a right to 

hear everything that takes place in the proceeding." Pet'r's App. at 26. The Board held 

that the ALJ "erred in failing to sequester the General Counsel's witnesses, including the 

Charging Parties, during the proceeding pursuant to Unga Painting, 237 NLRB 1306 

(1978)." Medite ofNew Mexico. Inc., 314 NLRB 1145 n.3 (1994). It further concluded, 

however, that Medite "was not prejudiced in the presentation of its case regarding its 

failure to reinstate M. Salazar, P. Salazar and A.Tafoya." Id. at 1148. With respect to its 

- 9 -

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 9 
remand for findings on Coca's and Montoya's alleged strike misconduct, it directed the 

ALJ "not to rely on evidence tainted by the failure to sequester the General Counsel's 

witnesses." Id. 

We agree with the Board that the ALJ' s decision not to exclude any of the General 

Counsel's witnesses violated the Board's sequestration policy as set forth in Unga 

Painting? However, it also clear that, unless Medite demonstrates prejudice from the 

failure to exclude, we need not reverse the Board's decision. See Curlee Clothing Co. v. 

NLRB, 607 F.2d 1213, 1215 (8th Cir. 1979) ("Absent a showing of prejudice, we need 

not set aside the Board's decision."); L.S. Ayres & Co. v. NLRB, 551 F.2d 586, 588 (4th 

Cir. 1977); Chauffeurs. Teamsters and Helpers Local Union No. 776,313 NLRB 1148 

(1994); Unga Painting Corp., 237 NLRB 1306. 

2

ln Unga Painting, the Board balanced the need of Charging Parties, or 

discriminatees, to be present during proceedings with the need for exclusion of witnesses, 

at times, to maximize the reliability of testimony, and adopted a rule of limited exclusion 

of discriminatees: 

[A]lleged discriminatees should be excluded only during that portion of the 

hearing when another of the General Counsel's or charging party's 

witnesses is testifying about events to which the discriminatees have 

testified, or will or may testify, either in the case-in-chief or on rebuttal, 

unless, in the judgment of the Administrative Law Judge, there are special 

circumstances warranting the unrestricted presence of discriminatees or 

total exclusion when not testifying. 

Unga Painting, 237 NLRB at 1307 (footnotes omitted). 

- 10-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 10 
Medite argues the failure to exclude prejudiced its presentation of evidence 

concerning strike misconduct by Coca, Montoya, Max Salazar, Perry Salazar and Tafoya. 

The Board disagreed, finding that Max Salazar only testified to events involving himself; 

its findings regarding alleged misconduct by Perry Salazar and Tafoya were "based in 

part on the testimony of the Respondent's [Medite's] witnesses--not merely on the 

testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses" and partly on a determination as to 

Tafoya's credibility. Medite ofNew Mexico. Inc., 314 NLRB at 1149. Concluding 

further that the ALJ's findings regarding Tafoya's and Perry Salazar's alleged misconduct 

were supported by Medite's own witnesses, the Board determined that Medite suffered no 

prejudice in the presentation of its case against those two strikers. 

After carefully reviewing the record, we agree with the Board's determination that 

Medite suffered no prejudice in connection with Max Salazar, Perry Salazar and Tafoya. 

See Unga Painting, 237 NLRB at 1308. Because the Board remanded the issues of 

Coca's and Montoya's misconduct with directions "not to rely on evidence tainted by the 

failure to sequester," we need not address those issues further. 

B. Exclusion of Videotape 

Medite also argues the ALJ erred in excluding its proffered videotape which it 

argues demonstrates serious misconduct by Tafoya on the picket line. The Board upheld 

the ALJ's exclusion, stating: 

- 11-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 11 
We find that the judge properly excluded the videotape because an 

inadequate foundation was laid for its admission. The Respondent 

proffered the videotape during R. Cordova's testimony. R. Cordova was a 

guard at the plant and he videotaped the ... incident. The proffered 

videotape, however, was edited prior to the trial by someone other than R. 

Cordova, and R. Cordova was unable to testify regarding how the tape was 

edited. For this reason, we agree with the judge that the tape was 

inadmissible. 

Medite ofNew Mexico. Inc., 314 NLRB at 1146 n.7. The Board further concluded that 

Medite suffered no prejudice from the exclusion of the videotape, because the ALJ 

indicated that, based on his viewing of the videotape, it did not demonstrate that Tafoya 

had engaged in misconduct, and that finding was supported by Medite's witnesses. 

The Ninth Circuit recently observed that "[i]n deciding whether to enforce the 

Board's decision, we assess whether the Board's evidentiary rulings were correct." 

NLRB v. Bakers ofParis. Inc., 929 F.2d 1427, 1434 (9th Cir. 1991). "Ordinarily, this.is a 

matter of determining whether the Board properly applied the federal rules of evidence." 

Id.; see also Carpenter Sprinkler Corp. v. NLRB, 605 F.2d 60, 66 (2d Cir. 1979) ("[I]t is 

up to the courts of appeals to review evidentiary rulings of the Board, and to determine 

the extent to which rules of Board proceedings must conform to the rules of the federal 

courts."). We have stated that '" [ m ]otion pictures ... must be premised by a foundation 

of accuracy and fairness."' Bannister v. Town of Noble, 812 F.2d 1265, 1269 (lOth Cir. 

1987) (quoting Sanchez v. Denver & Rio Grande W R.R. Co., 538 F.2d 304, 306 n.1 

(lOth Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1042 (1977)). Medite does not dispute the 

- 12-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 12 
Board's finding that someone other than the maker of the tape, R. Cordova, edited the 

tape prior to trial and that Cordova was unable to testify as to how it was edited. We 

agree with the Board that there was an inadequate foundation of accuracy. See United 

States v. Roach, 28 F.3d 729, 733 (8th Cir. 1994) (holding that, as part of foundational 

guidelines for the admission of electronic tape recordings, proponent must show that no 

"changes, additions, or deletions have ... been made in the recording"). 

II. Striker Reinstatement Issues 

Medite raises a number of issues relating to its conduct involving and obligations 

toward the former strikers. Section 7 of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 157, gives employees the 

right to strike. Economic strikers retain their status as "employees" under the Act. 29 

U.S.C. § 152(3). See NLRB v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., 389 U.S. 375, 378 (1967); NLRB 

v. Mackay Radio & Tel. Co., 304 U.S. 333, 345 (1938); Augusta Bakery Corp., 957 F.2d 

at 14 71. Once an economic striker offers unconditionally to return to work, he is entitled 

to immediate reinstatement in his former job or, if that is unavailable, in a substantially 

equivalent job, unless the employer can show a "legitimate and substantial business 

justification[]" for refusing to reinstate him. Fleetwood Trailer Co., 389 U.S. at 378; see 

also Gibson Greetings. Inc. v. NLRB, 53 F.3d 385, 389 (D.C.Cir. 1995); NLRB v. Fire 

Alert Co., 566 F.2d 696, 697 (lOth Cir. 1977); Laidlaw Corp., 171 NLRB 1366 (1968), 

enfd, 414 F.2d 99 (7th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 920 (1970). If an employer has 

- 13-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 13 
replaced a striking employee with a permanent employee during the strike, that 

constitutes a legitimate and substantial business justification. Fleetwood Trailer Co., 389 

U.S. at 379. 

A. Occurrence of Vacancies 

The Board held that Medite violated the Act by failing to offer reinstatement to 

Tafoya and Montano in their pre-strike positions or substantially similar provisions. 

Medite argues that the General Counsel failed to satisfy his burden of proving the 

existence of such positions. 

Prior to the strike, Montano worked as a cutoff saw helper. He tendered his 

unconditional offer to return to work on December 4, 1990. During the strike, Medite 

hired Richard Martinez as a laborer. He was promoted to cutoff saw helper on November 

13, 1990. He was then demoted to the position oflaborer, and again promoted to the 

position of cutoff saw helper on September 20, 1991. Medite did not offer to Montano 

the cutoff saw helper position filled by Martinez on September 20, 1991, although Medite 

had received Montano's unconditional offer to return to work. 

The Board has attempted to balance the rights of employees and employers in 

strike situations "by allowing replacement workers to be kept on permanently (in order to 

give the replacement workers adequate incentive to take replacement jobs), but by 

requiring genuine vacancies in the workforce to be given, in line of seniority, to the 

- 14-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 14 
striking workers after the strike is over." Aqua-Chem. Inc .. Cleaver-Brooks Div. v. 

NLRB, 910 F.2d 1487, 1489 (7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1238 (1991); Laidlaw 

Corp., 171 NLRB 1366 (1968), enfd, 414 F.2d 99 (7th Cir. 1969). A "genuine vacancy" 

(also known as a "Laidlaw vacancy") arises when "the company expands its workforce or 

discharges a particular employee, or when an employee quits or otherwise leaves the 

company." NLRB v. Delta-Macon Brick and Tile Co., 943 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1991). 

A genuine vacancy does not occur, however, where the company temporarily lays off a 

replacement worker, as long as the laid-off worker has a "reasonable expectancy of 

recall." Aqua-Chem Inc., 910 F.2d at 1490.3 The burden is on the General Counsel to 

"first establish a prima facie case that the layoff truly signified [a Laidlaw vacancy]." 

Aqua-Chem, 288 NLRB at 1109. 

Medite argues that, under Aqua-Chem, the General Counsel failed to establish that 

Martinez had no reasonable expectancy of recall. The ALJ and the Board rejected this 

argument, stating: 

This case is distinguishable from Aqua-Chem because Martinez was not 

laid off from a position but was demoted from the cutoff saw helper 

position to the position of laborer. Further, when the September 20, 1991 

vacancy occurred, Martinez was not automatically awarded the job. 

3

The Board has held that "factors relevant to the replacements' reasonable 

expectancy of recall would include, inter alia, evidence concerning the employer's past 

business experience, the employer's future plans, the length of the layoff, the 

circumstances of the layoff, and what the employee was told regarding the likelihood of 

recall." Aqua-Chem. Inc. Cleaver Brooks Div., 288 NLRB 1108, 1110 (1988), enfd, 910 

F.2d 1487 (7th Cir. 1990). 

- 15-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 15 
Instead, [Medite] posted the vacancy for bid by all of the employees. This 

contradicts [Medite's] contention that Martinez could reasonably expect to 

be returned to that position and that therefore no real vacancy existed. 

Medite ofNew Mexico. Inc., 314 NLRB at 1147. Medite claims there is no support in 

the record for this finding. 

This is a factual matter, and we review the Board's conclusion only to see if 

substantial evidence in the record supports it. "It is the primary responsibility of the 

Board and not of the courts 'to strike the proper balance between the asserted business 

justification and the invasion of employee rights in light of the Act and its policy.'" 

Fleetwood Trailer, 389 U.S. at 378 (quotingNLRB v. Great Dane Trailers. Inc., 388 U.S. 

26, 33-34 (1967)). After reviewing the record, we find there is substantial evidence in the 

record supporting the Board's conclusion. 

Tafoya had worked prior to the strike as a saw forklift operator. He tendered his 

unconditional offer to return to work on November 14, 1990. On June 6, 1991, and on 

April 1, 1992, two workers hired as laborers during the strike were promoted to the 

position of sander forklift operator. The ALJ made the following findings concerning the 

comparability of the positions of saw forklift operator and sander forklift operator: 

The forklift used by a saw forklift operator is smaller and its operator 

handles smaller panels that the forklift operated by the sander forklift 

operator. I nevertheless find and conclude the controls and operation of the 

two forklifts is substantially equivalent and note the sander forklift operator 

services the in-line saw as well as the sander. 

- 16-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 16 
Medite ofNew Mexico. Inc., 314 NLRB at 1161. The Board affirmed the ALJ's 

conclusion that the two positions were substantially equivalent, and Medite therefore 

violated the Act by failing to reinstate Tafoya into one of the sander forklift vacancies. 

After reviewing the record, we find that there is substantial evidence to support the 

Board's conclusion. 

B. Discrimination Against Certain Strikers 

The ALJ and the Board found that vacancies did not occur in the pre-strike jobs 

held by Casias, Coca, L. Cordova, W. Cordova, Jones, Montoya or Sanchez, or in 

substantially equivalent jobs. However, while the ALJ held that Medite committed no 

violation of the Act in failing to allow them to bid on job vacancies posted in the plant, 

the Board held that Medite "violated the Act by failing to allow L. Cordova, H. Jones, F. 

Casias, and M. Sanchez an opportunity to bid on vacancies posted by [Medite] that were 

open to bidding by all of its employees regardless of their current job or, as in the case of 

the strikers, their past jobs." I d. at 1145.4 

The Board has held that "an employer's obligation to reinstate former economic 

strikers extends only to vacancies created by the departure of replacements from the 

4

The Board further held that its conclusion would also apply to William Cordova, 

if the ALJ on remand found that he had not effectively resigned from the company, and to 

Coca and Montoya if on remand the ALJ found that they did not engage in serious strike 

misconduct. Those remanded issues are not before us in this appeal. 

- 17-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 17 
striker's former jobs and to vacancies in substantially equivalent jobs, but not to any other 

job which a former striker is or may be qualified to perform." Rose Printing Co., 304 

NLRB 1076 (1991). However, an employer may not discriminate against former 

strikers: "strikers who have unconditionally offered to return to work are to be treated the 

same as they would have been had they not withheld their service. They are therefore 

entitled to return to those jobs or substantial equivalents if such positions become vacant, 

and they are entitled to nondiscriminatory treatment in their applications for other jobs." 

Id. at 1078 (emphasis added). 

The Board made the following findings concerning Medite's hiring practices: 

[Medite] fills job vacancies in two ways. Vacancies in certain job 

groups are filled by automatically promoting employees within a set 

progression. The remaining vacancies are filled through a bid procedure in 

which the vacancy is posted on a bulletin board for 5 days and any full-time 

active employee is permitted to bid for the job. Employees are allowed to 

bid on, and have been awarded, less skilled and lower paying jobs. The 

jobs are usually awarded to the most senior applicant, although the 

applicant's qualifications are also considered. The successful applicant is 

given a 30-day trial period in the new position, and, if he is not performing 

satisfactorily, [Medite] will either agree to extend the trial period or will 

move the employee back to his former position. 

Medite ofNewMexico. Inc., 314 NLRB at 1147. 

Former strikers were not allowed into the plant, except for escorted access to pick 

up personal belongings. Medite did not notify them of posted job vacancies. The Board 

held that, under Rose Printing, Medite's "failure to allow the former strikers to bid on the 

vacancies posted for bid--a right extended to all other of its employees--constituted a 

- 18-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 18 
form of discrimination against the former strikers." Id. at 1148. To avoid such 

discrimination, Medite must give former strikers who have unconditionally offered to 

return to work "notice of job postings and ... an opportunity to bid on, and be fairly 

considered for, those posted jobs." Id. The Board thus appears to have required Medite 

to either notify the strikers of posted job vacancies, or permit them access to the plant 

where such vacancies are posted. 

Medite argues this is contrary to Board precedents, because it imposes a new "duty 

to seek out and inform strikers ofnonequivalent openings." Pet'r's Br. at 27. Medite 

overstates the scope of the Board's order. The Board does not require Medite to 

affirmatively seek out all former strikers and notify them of each job vacancy. The Board 

has simply acknowledged that, as former strikers, all of whom tendered unconditional 

offers to return to work, they were entitled to be treated the same as other employees.5 

Other employees had access to posted job vacancies; these particular employees (the 

5

Medite argues that the scope of the letters seeking reinstatement limits the former 

strikers to only obtaining reinstatement in their pre-strike positions or substantially 

equivalent positions. That argument confuses the obligation to reinstate former strikers 

with the obligation under Rose Printing to treat them nondiscriminatorily in their 

applications for other jobs. Moreover, we do not read the letters themselves as narrowly 

as Medite. They each sought "reinstate[ment] in my job." We do not view that language 

as expressly limiting the former strikers' interest to only their former positions. 

- 19-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 19 
former strikers) did not.6 That different treatment constitutes discrimination, prohibited 

under Rose Printing. 

C. Striker Misconduct 

As indicated, striking employees who engage in serious misconduct while on strike 

lose the protections of the Act and are not entitled to reinstatement after the strike ends. 

"Of course, an employer's determination not to reinstate a striker must be based on 

evidence that the striker personally engaged in strike misconduct." Midwest Solvents, 

Inc. v. NLRB, 696 F.2d 763, 765 (lOth Cir. 1982); see Augusta Bakery Corp., 957 F.2d at 

1477 ("To lawfully deny an employee reinstatement at the conclusion of the strike on this 

ground, an employer must produce evidence connecting the discharged employees to 

specific strike misconduct."). The misconduct "must have had a tendency to coerce other 

employees in the exercise of their protected rights." Richmond Recording Corp. v. 

NLRB, 836 F.2d 289, 295 (7th Cir. 1987); see also Clear Pine Mouldings, Inc., 268 

NLRB 1044, 1046 (1984) (stating that standard is "whether the misconduct is such that, 

under the circumstances existing, it may reasonably tend to coerce or intimidate 

6

Medite argues that because it "experienced violence and sabotage during the 

strike," its decision to prohibit former strikers from the plant was prudent. There is no 

suggestion that violence and sabotage continued after the strike ended. There is also no 

evidence in the record connecting the charging parties to particular acts of violence, 

except as discussed infra. Furthermore, nothing in the Board's order limits Medite in 

reasonably selecting multiple posting sites, one or some of which do not require any 

significant plant access. 

-20-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 20 
employees in the exercise of rights protected under the Act.") (quoting NLRB v. 

W.C.McQuaide. Inc., 552 F.2d 519, 528 (3d Cir. 1977)), enfd without opinion, 765 F.2d 

148 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1105 (1986). In addition, '"[t]he honest belief 

of an employer that striking employees have engaged in misconduct provides an adequate 

defense to a charge of discrimination in refusing to reinstate such employees, unless it 

affirmatively appears that such misconduct did not in fact occur."' Augusta Bakery 

Cor.p., 957 F.2d at 1477 (quoting Rubin Bros. Footwear. Inc., 99 NLRB 610, 611 (1952)). 

The Board has rejected a "per se rule that words alone can never warrant a denial of 

reinstatement in the absence of physical acts." Clear Pine Mouldings. Inc. 268 NLRB at 

1046 (1984). 

The General Counsel bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case that the 

strikers were denied reinstatement for strike-related misconduct. Clougherty Packing 

Co., 292 NLRB 1139 (1989). The employer may then defend its decision not to reinstate 

by showing it had an "honest belief' that the strikers had engaged in misconduct. 

Augusta Bakery Cor.p., 957 F.2d at 1477. The burden then shifts back to the General 

Counsel to prove that no misconduct occurred. Schreiber Mfg .. Inc. v. NLRB, 725 F.2d 

413, 415 (6th Cir. 1984); Clougherty Packing Co., 292 NLRB 1139. 

Medite argues that Perry Salazar and Tafoya both engaged in serious misconduct 

during the strike, and that the Board erred in finding that Medite "violated that Act when 

it failed to reinstate these former strikers because ... the conduct engaged in by them is 

-21-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 21 
insufficient to constitute misconduct which may reasonably tend to coerce or intimidate 

employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights." Medite ofNew Mexico. Inc., 314 

NLRB at 1146.7 

The ALJ made the following findings concerning one incident involving Perry 

Salazar and Tafoya: 

At approximately 3:30p.m. on June 13, 1990, Foreman Tommy 

Ortiz left the parking area outside the plant, drove his jeep across the 

railroad tracks , and came to a stop short of the highway because several 

children were playing in the driveway. 

Several pickets gathered around his vehicle, including P. Salazar and 

Tafoya (on the driver side of the vehicle). The pickets called him a scab, 

struck his vehicle with the picket signs they were carrying, and Tafoya 

asked Ortiz to leave his vehicle. Ortiz made no response and slowly 

proceeded to and turned onto the highway. 

Ortiz claimed he later discovered 8 to 1 0 deep scratches on the 

vehicle, reported the incident to Plant Manager Miller (by telephone) and 

drove to a police station to report the incident. 

After leaving the police station, Ortiz saw P. Salazar drive by in his 

vehicle (the pickets were picketing in 4-hour shifts and Salazar's shift 

ended at 4 p.m.). Ortiz began to follow Salazar. When Salazar noticed the 

jeep following him through several turns, he pulled to the side of the road to 

see if the jeep would pass. Ortiz did not pass, but pulled up behind 

Salazar's vehicle. Salazar left his vehicle and asked Ortiz why he was 

following him. Ortiz accused Salazar of being responsible for damage to 

his jeep. Salazar denied the charge. Ortiz insisted Salazar was responsible 

and said he and his brothers would get him later. Salazar replied why wait, 

I'm here now. Ortiz drove away without responding. 

7

The Board agreed with Medite that Medite had a good faith belief that Perry 

Salazar and Tafoya had engaged in strike misconduct. 

-22-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 22 
Medite ofNew Mexico. Inc., 314 NLRB at 1155 (footnotes omitted). The ALJ further 

found that "I do not find that testimony establishes either that Salazar or Tafoya inflicted 

the alleged scratches in view of the composition of the signs" and that "Ortiz did not 

testify he saw Salazar and Tafoya inflict the scratches nor knew where the scratches were 

located." :W... at 1155 n.8. Substantial evidence in the record supports the Board's factual 

findings. 

We also agree with its conclusion that, absent proof that Salazar and Tafoya 

actually struck the car, "this brief incident does not amount to the type of serious conduct 

that would intimidate nonstriking employees from crossing the picket line and exercising 

their Section 7 rights." Id. at 1146-47. Cf. Clougherty Packing Co., 292 NLRB at 1142 

("There can be little doubt that throwing rocks or other projectiles at moving vehicles ... 

are acts upon which an employer may rely to terminate."); Clear Pine Mouldings. Inc., 

268 NLRB at 1047 (finding misconduct where striker beat car with a two foot long club, 

breaking its windows). We similarly agree that the later interchange between Ortiz and 

Salazar, which included no threats by Salazar, does not amount to serious strike 

misconduct warranting a denial of reinstatement. See Midwest Solvents. Inc., 696 F .2d at 

766-67 (finding no strike misconduct when striker told nonstriker he should "watch out" 

because "some of the boys might get rowdy"); d Precision Window Mfg .. Inc. v. 

NLRB, 963 F.2d 1105, 1108 (8th Cir. 1992) ("Courts universally reject reinstatement 

when employees threaten to kill or harm supervisors after a firing .... "). 

-23-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 23 
Medite argues that Tafoya was involved in another incident of strike misconduct, 

serious enough to justify not reinstating him. In this incident, a nonstriker, Joseph 

Mascarenas, was injured in a fight with strikers on the picket line. The ALJ made the 

following fmdings concerning Tafoya's involvement in this incident: 

At the time Mascarenas left his vehicle and the strikers gathered around 

him, Tafoya was on the opposite side of the street grilling hamburgers and 

hotdogs in front of a parked vehicle. He reached a point behind Coca [who 

was involved in the fight with Mascarenas] as blows were exchanged and 

told the strikers to cut it out, they didn't need this. 

Medite ofNew Mexico. Inc., 314 NLRB at 1156. The ALJ also held that Tafoya 

"testified he did not strike Mascarenas and Mascarenas confirmed his testimony." !d.. at 

1156 n.10. 8 We find that substantial evidence also supports the ALJ's and the Board's 

factual findings regarding these other incidents. Medite simply argues "[t]he Board's 

credibility resolutions concerning Tafoya's involvement in the Mascarenas incident 

should be given little, if any, weight due to the erroneous rulings with respect to 

sequestration and admissibility ofthe videotape." Pet'r's Br. at 41-42. We have held, 

however, that the Board ruled correctly on the videotape's admissibility and on the 

existence or not of prejudice from the ALJ's erroneous sequestration ruling. 

Furthermore, we cannot understand how a determination as to an individual's credibility 

8

The ALJ observed that Tafoya "was a convincing witness" and credited his denial 

of his involvement in a third incident of alleged strike misconduct. Medite of New 

Mexico. Inc., 314 NLRB at 1156 n.12. Mascarenas himself testified that Tafoya did not 

hit him. 

-24-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 24 
would be impacted by the failure to sequester that witness or other witnesses. We affirm 

the Board's conclusion that Tafoya's conduct was not serious enough to warrant not 

reinstating him. 

Medite also argues the Board erred in finding that Medite did not have a good faith 

belief that Max Salazar had engaged in serious misconduct rendering him ineligible for 

reinstatement. The ALJ found that Max Salazar had, on five occasions, shouted "bad 

words" to Margaret Espinosa, a longtime Medite employee who cleaned offices from 

4 p.m. to midnight. There was also an incident involving Salazar and nonstriker Mike 

Griego. The Board affirmed the ALJ's conclusion that Medite lacked a good faith belief 

that Salazar had engaged in the Espinosa misconduct because "M. Salazar's personnel file 

is devoid of any mention of the Espinosa complaints" and "[n]o one from Medite's 

personnel department supported [Medite personnel director] Stone's claim he or she 

considered and decided not to reinstate M. Salazar in March 1991 because of the 

Espinosa complaints." Medhe ofNew Mexico. Inc., 314 NLRB at 1157. The Board's 

finding that Medite lacked a good faith belief that Max Salazar had engaged in serious 

misconduct is supported by substantial evidence in the record. 9 

9

The ALJ alternatively concluded that Salazar's conduct toward Espinosa was not 

serious misconduct warranting a denial of reinstatement. "Crude and obscene remarks to 

a female employee by a striker while the employee crossed the picket line, 

unaccompanied by any physical threats, is insufficient basis for denying a striker 

reinstatement to his former job." Medite ofNew Mexico. Inc., 314 NLRB at 1162. We 

agree that, while certainly not laudable, crude and obscene remarks have generally not 

(continued ... ) 

-25-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 25 
With respect to the Griego incident, the ALJ held that "Salazar impressed me as a 

much more forthright and reliable witness than Griego, whose testimony was hesitant and 

halting. I credit Salazar's testimony and find the encounter occurred in the manner and 

for the reason stated by Salazar." Medite ofNew Mexico. Inc., 314 NLRB at 1157. 

"'[C]redibility determinations are to be made by the ALJ and the Board and will not be 

overturned by a reviewing court absent extraordinary circumstances."' Augusta Bakery 

Corp., 957 F.2d at 1477 (quoting NLRB v. Illinois-American Water Co .. S. Div., 933 

F.2d 1368, 13174 (7th Cir. 1991)). No such "extraordinary circumstances" exist here. 

See Pergament United Sales. Inc. v. NLRB, 920 F.2d 130, 138 (2d Cir. 1990) (stating that 

the Board's "acceptance of a ALJ's finding regarding witness credibility will not be 

reversed unless those findings are 'hopelessly incredible"') (quoting NLRB v. American 

Geri-Care. Inc., 697 F.2d 56, 60 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 906 (1983)). 

9

( ••• continued) 

been deemed serious misconduct under the Board's precedents. The Eighth Circuit 

recently observed: 

We have no quarrel with the cases that on less extreme facts have awarded 

reinstatement when the fired employe_e challenged his supervisor to a fight 

or used intemperate language. But even when employees' outbursts were 

more extreme, the Board awarded reinstatement only after finding that there 

was no actual threat to kill or to commit a violent act. 

Precision Window Mfg. Inc. v. NLRB, 963 F.2d 1105, 1109 (8th Cir. 1992) (citations 

omitted). 

-26-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 26 
D. Mueller 

Medite's remaining argument concerns its treatment of striker Mueller. As 

indicated previously, Medite sent Mueller a letter in August 1991 indicating that a "job 

opening exists" and that there "are several eligible persons who may be eligible to fill this 

position." It directed Mueller to contact the personnel manager by a certain date if he was 

interested in "filling this position" and stated that his failure to contact the company by 

that date would make Medite "assume that [he was] not interested in reinstatement, and 

the position will be offered to another person." When Mueller did not contact the 

personnel director by the specified date, Medite gave the position to another person. 

Mueller thereafter wrote to the company stating that he wished to return to work and 

"requested that he be offered any future openings." Medite ofNew Mexico. Inc., 314 

NLRB at 1153. 

Medite argues that its letter to Mueller was an offer of reinstatement to his prestrike position. The ALJ and Board held that it was not, and that Medite violated the Act 

by not reinstating Mueller to any laborer positions available after Mueller tendered his 

unconditional offer to return to work. We agree with the Board and the ALJ that the 

August 1991letter was not an offer of reinstatement. It was, at best, ambiguous. It 

merely notifies Mueller of a "job opening" for which there were "several eligible 

persons." Although the second paragraph does discuss "reinstatement" and indicates that 

Mueller's failure to respond by the specified date will cause the "position" to be "offered 

-27-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 27 
to another person," which suggest that Mueller was a strong contender for the position, 

the letter as a whole does not clearly offer reinstatement to Mueller. 

Medite relies heavily on NLRB v. Betts Baking Co., 428 F.2d 156 (lOth Cir. 

1970), in which we held a letter to an employee was an offer of reinstatement. The letter 

in Betts Baking Co. was, however, quite different from the letter to Mueller. The Betts 

Baking Co. letter stated "[t]his is a letter offering you reinstatement in our Company as a 

transport driver. Please report to work Sunday August 1, 1965. You will have the same 

pay scale as you did before .... " Id. at 157. The fact that both letters referred to a date, 

and indicated that failure to respond by that date would be taken as a lack of interest in 

reinstatement, does not mean that the two letters are identical in other respects. 

In sum, we agree that the letter to Mueller was not an unconditional offer of 

reinstatement. 10 The Board therefore correctly determined that Medite violated the Act 

by failing to reinstate Mueller following receipt of his unconditional offer to return to 

work. 

10W e base our determination on the text of the letter itself, and its ordinary 

meaning. Thus, Medite's claim that Mueller's hearing testimony "was a tissue of 

inconsistencies and contradictions" is irrelevant. Pet'r's Reply Br. at 9. 

-28-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 28 
CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, we deny review and grant enforcement of the Board's 

order. 

-29-

Appellate Case: 94-9575 Document: 01019280396 Date Filed: 12/07/1995 Page: 29