Opinion ID: 301373
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the application of laidlaw

Text: 35 The remedial rule of the Laidlaw Doctrine, as stated in that case, was: 36 that economic strikers who unconditionally apply for reinstatement at a time when their positions are filled by permanent replacements: (1) remain employees; (2) are entitled to full reinstatement upon the departure of replacements 7 unless they have in the meantime acquired regular and substantially equivalent employment, or the employer can sustain his burden of proof that the failure to offer full reinstatement was for legitimate and substantial business reasons. 37 1968-1 C.C.H. NLRB, at 29,828. 38 The Company contends that in applying that rule in the instant case, the order of reinstatement should be denied enforcement for various reasons as to several employees. 8 Having carefully reviewed the record and all the specific arguments 9 we find substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Board's conclusions as to the five employees the Trial Examiner recommended be reinstated, and therefore limit this discussion to the two employees as to whom the Trial Examiner and Board were in disagreement. 39 Walter Ogden was employed at the Company as a sheet metal worker. He had been on sick leave for surgery until two days preceding the strike, when he returned to light duty. After the strike and before any openings occurred at the Company for sheet metal workers, he became employed in that capacity by the Arkansas Sheet Metal Company at 5 cents more per hour than he had been earning. The Examiner found this to be regular and substantially equivalent employment although Ogden left after little over a week because he was physically unable to discharge his duties. The Board concluded this inability rendered the new employment not substantially equivalent to the old job because the Company had given him light work for two days. We think that conclusion is unsupported in the record as a whole. Both Ogden's new job and his regular job were as a sheet metal worker. If Ogden could not perform those duties for his new employer he was incapable of performing for the Company as well. That fact does not distinguish the jobs. If anything, it stands as a substantial and legitimate business reason for refusing reinstatement. We therefore decline to enforce the order insofar as it requires reinstatement of Ogden. 40 Kenneth Thompson was employed by the Company as a painter and took regular employment installing aluminum awnings. The Trial Examiner concluded this was substantially equivalent employment, but the Board disagreed because it did not involve the same activity; it paid less even though he had to regularly work overtime at the new job, and Thompson continued to seek reinstatement to his former job. We think the record as a whole provides sufficient support for this conclusion to warrant enforcement of the order to reinstate Thompson. 41 In summary, we enforce the order in all respects except the reinstatement of Ogden. Additionally, we observe that although the Company raises a good question in inquiring how long unreinstated strikers remain employees in lieu of openings, it is unnecessary here to express a view thereon because openings occurred for all these employees within a month of the strike. See American Machinery Corp. v. N.L.R.B., supra, 424 F.2d, at 1328.