Opinion ID: 534517
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: This Court's First Decision

Text: 8 Consolidated petitioned this court for review, arguing that its reinstatement offer was unconditional and thus terminated the accrual of backpay liability. Furthermore, Consolidated claimed that as Hennessey had refused the offer for an admittedly invalid reason (the denial of backpay), he was not entitled to either a second reinstatement offer or accrued backpay. The Board countered that as the offer was conditioned on the issuance of the warning letter, it was invalid; and as it was a nullity, Hennessey's invalid reason for refusing the offer did not toll the accrual of backpay liability. 9 On December 11, 1981, we remanded the case for reconsideration. Consolidated Freightways, 669 F.2d at 798. In our decision, we found that the Board had failed to take account of Board precedent that emphasizes the actual reasons why an employee refuses an offer of reinstatement even when the validity of the offer itself is challenged. Id. at 795-96. We also cited Research Designing Service, Inc., 141 N.L.R.B. 211 (1963), L. Ronney & Sons Furniture Mfg. Co., 97 N.L.R.B. 891 (1951), enforced as modified, 206 F.2d 730 (9th Cir.1953), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 937, 74 S.Ct. 377, 98 L.Ed. 425 (1954), and other cases in which the Board had held that an employer's backpay liability is tolled when an employee rejects an offer of reinstatement without knowledge of the conditionality of the offer. 669 F.2d at 796. 10 We acknowledged, however, that the Board might have been relying on a more recent case, Leroy W. Craw, 244 N.L.R.B. 241 (1979), enforced, 622 F.2d 579 (3d Cir.1980), which held that an invalid conditional offer of reinstatement did not toll the employer's backpay liability even though the employees had rejected the offer for reasons other than the invalid conditions. 669 F.2d at 796 & n. 12. Faced with potentially conflicting precedent, we observed that Leroy W. Craw could either signal a change of Board policy abandoning any inquiry into the reasons why a conditional offer is refused or be reconcilable with earlier Board precedent. Id. at 797. We therefore remanded the case to allow the Board to explicate the circumstances, if any, under which an inquiry into whether an employee would have rejected a valid offer of reinstatement is proper. Id. at 798. We did not reach two other questions that had been presented; namely, whether the offer to Hennessey was in fact conditional and whether Consolidated's good faith reliance on the arbitration award would be sufficient in itself to toll backpay liability. Id. at 792 n. 4, 798 n. 15. 11