Opinion ID: 710103
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Striker Reinstatement Issues

Text: 27 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. Sec. 157, gives employees the right to strike. Economic strikers retain their status as employees under the Act. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 152(3). See NLRB v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., 389 U.S. 375, 378, 88 S.Ct. 543, 545, 19 L.Ed.2d 614 (1967); NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Tel. Co., 304 U.S. 333, 345, 58 S.Ct. 904, 910, 82 L.Ed. 1381 (1938); Augusta Bakery Corp., 957 F.2d at 1471. 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, 88 S.Ct. at 545; 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 (10th Cir.1977); Laidlaw Corp., 171 NLRB 1366 (1968), enf'd, 414 F.2d 99 (7th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 920, 90 S.Ct. 928, 25 L.Ed.2d 100 (1970). If an employer has 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, 88 S.Ct. at 546.
28 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. 29 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 of laborer, 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. 30 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 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, 111 S.Ct. 2871, 115 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1991); Laidlaw Corp., 171 NLRB 1366 (1968), enf'd, 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. 31 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: 32 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. 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. 33 Medite of New Mexico, Inc., 314 NLRB at 1147. Medite claims there is no support in the record for this finding. 34 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, 88 S.Ct. at 546 (quoting NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 U.S. 26, 33-34, 87 S.Ct. 1792, 1797, 18 L.Ed.2d 1027 (1967)). After reviewing the record, we find there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the Board's conclusion. 35 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: 36 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. 37 Medite of New 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.
38 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. Id. at 1145. 4 39 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 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 WL 197152 (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). 40 The Board made the following findings concerning Medite's hiring practices: 41 [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. 42 Medite of New Mexico, Inc., 314 NLRB at 1147. 43 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 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. 44 Medite argues this is contrary to Board precedents, because it imposes a new duty to seek out and inform strikers of nonequivalent 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 former strikers) did not. 6 That different treatment constitutes discrimination, prohibited under Rose Printing.
45 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 (10th 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 WL 36067 (1984) (stating that standard is whether the misconduct is such that, under the circumstances existing, it may reasonably tend to coerce or intimidate 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)), enf'd without opinion, 765 F.2d 148 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1105, 106 S.Ct. 893, 88 L.Ed.2d 926 (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 Corp., 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). 46 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 WL 223866 (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 Corp., 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. 47 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 insufficient to constitute misconduct which may reasonably tend to coerce or intimidate employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. Medite of New Mexico, Inc., 314 NLRB at 1146. 7 48 The ALJ made the following findings concerning one incident involving Perry Salazar and Tafoya: 49 At approximately 3:30 p.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. 50 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. 51 Ortiz claimed he later discovered 8 to 10 deep scratches on the vehicle, reported the incident to Plant Manager Miller (by telephone) and drove to a police station to report the incident. 52 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. 53 Medite of New 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. Id. at 1155 n. 8. Substantial evidence in the record supports the Board's factual findings. 54 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); cf. 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....). 55 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 findings concerning Tafoya's involvement in this incident: 56 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. 57 Medite of New Mexico, Inc., 314 NLRB at 1156. The ALJ also held that Tafoya testified he did not strike Mascarenas and Mascarenas confirmed his testimony. Id. 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 of the 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 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. 58 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. Medite of New 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 59 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 of New 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, 1374 (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, 103 S.Ct. 1876, 76 L.Ed.2d 807 (1983)).D. Mueller 60 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 of New Mexico, Inc., 314 NLRB at 1153. 61 Medite argues that its letter to Mueller was an offer of reinstatement to his pre-strike 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 1991 letter 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 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. 62 Medite relies heavily on NLRB v. Betts Baking Co., 428 F.2d 156 (10th 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. 63 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.