Opinion ID: 762539
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The May 1995 Offer of Reinstatement

Text: 60 Nor is there merit in Thalbo's contention that its liability for backpay ended in May 1995 on the ground that at that time it made an offer of reinstatement. The ALJ found that Thalbo's May 1995 letter to DiMilta with regard to the availability of a desk-clerk position did not constitute a valid offer of reinstatement because the letter merely notified DiMilta of an open position and did not express an unequivocal offer for employment. See, e.g., Holo-Krome Co. v. NLRB, 947 F.2d 588, 595 (2d Cir.1991) (to be valid, an offer of reinstatement must be specific, unequivocal, and unconditional); NLRB v. Transport Service Co., 973 F.2d 562, 572 (7th Cir.1992); John Cuneo, Inc. v. NLRB, 792 F.2d 1181, 1183 (D.C.Cir.1986) (per curiam). The ALJ also found that the position described in the May 1995 letter was not substantially equivalent to DiMilta's previous position at the Hotel. We see no error in these findings. 61 First, the body of Thalbo's letter to DiMilta, signed by the Hotel's manager and dated May 26, 1995, stated in toto as follows: 62 We have an immediate opening at our front desk for a desk clerk. The position will be Friday, Saturday, Sunday and one additional day during the week. It will be either A shift or B shift.... A shift is 7:00am [sic ] to 3:00pm, B shift is 3:00pm to 11:00pm. As I have this opening now I need an immediate response. The position starts [sic ] Tuesday May 23 [sic ], 1995 for training. 63 Please call me at the hotel 564-4500. 64 The text of the letter itself supports the Board's finding that this was not an unequivocal offer of the position to DiMilta. 65 Second, Thalbo I ordered the Company to, inter alia, offer DiMilta reinstatement to her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed. 314 N.L.R.B. at 370. The position announced by the Company's May 26, 1995 letter did not meet these requirements. The evidence presented at the administrative hearing revealed that the position described by Thalbo in that letter would have paid DiMilta wages of $6.00 per hour, whereas her former wages plus tips averaged $7.38 per hour. Further, DiMilta was informed that she would be required to work weekends, whereas she had originally worked Mondays through Thursdays, and to work evening and night shifts exclusively, whereas her original position generally involved day shifts. See, e.g., Waterbury Hospital v. NLRB, 950 F.2d 849, 856 (2d Cir.1991) (employer's offer for reinstatement was not for substantially equivalent positions where the discharged employees were offered only evening shifts instead of their prestrike day shifts). And despite DiMilta's explicit reminder to the Company that Thalbo I ordered that she be offered a position without prejudice to her seniority, Thalbo insisted that DiMilta would be treated as a new employee with no seniority. 66 Plainly, Thalbo's May 1995 letter notifying DiMilta of the desk clerk opening could not cut off its liability for backpay.