Opinion ID: 1545430
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reinstatement and Reimbursement.

Text: Petitioner presents this matter in two contentions: No substantial evidence of discriminatory discharge of Carlson, Fallon or Herbst; and no basis for requirement of reinstatement or reimbursement even if the discharges were discriminatory. As to the discriminatory character of the discharges, there was a sharp conflict in the testimony. Petitioner urges that the sole reason for discharge was the unprofitable operation, for several months, of the customer body and fender work; and that only because thereof, it discontinued that work and put it out on contract. The Board urges the discharges were because of union activities of the three men. We have no power to weigh the evidence except to ascertain whether the conclusion of the Board is supported by substantial evidence. We have examined the evidence and are convinced that there was such supporting substantial evidence. If a purpose in discontinuing this repair service was to get rid of union men, it was to that extent a subterfuge to violate the Act. See National Labor Relations Board v. Skinner & Kennedy Stationery Co., 8 Cir., 113 F.2d 667, 671. In view of our conclusion that the Board is supported in its finding that the discharges were discriminatory under the Act, the second contention is, in essence, whether the Board can make the affirmative requirements it made here where petitioner abandoned that portion of its business in which the men worked for the purpose of ridding itself of these three union men. This is a matter of remedy. The power of the Board as to remedies must be found in the Act. Section 10(c) of the Act grants to the Board power to take such affirmative action, including reinstatement of employees with or without back pay, as will effectuate the policies of this Act [chapter]. The Board not the courts determines under this statutory scheme how the effect of unfair labor practices may be expunged. National Labor Relations Board v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U.S. 584, 600, 61 S.Ct. 358, 366, 85 L.Ed. 368. The central clue to the Board's powers is the effectuation of the policies of the Act. Phelps Dodge Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 313 U.S. 177, 191, 61 S.Ct. 845, 851, 85 L.Ed. 1271, 133 A.L.R. 1217. It is this clue which must be followed in finding whether a provision in an order of the Board is within its powers. In its choice of remedies to effectuate the policies of the Act, a wide range is necessary because the remedy must fit the particular situation of each case. As stated in the Phelps Dodge case, supra, page 194, of 313 U.S., page 852 of 61 S.Ct.: A statute expressive of such large public policy as that on which the National Labor Relations Board is based must be broadly phrased and necessarily carries with it the task of administrative application. There is an area plainly covered by the language of the Act and an area no less plainly without it. But in the nature of things Congress could not catalogue all the devices and stratagems for circumventing the policies of the Act. Nor could it define the whole gamut of remedies to effectuate these policies in an infinite variety of specific situations. Congress met these difficulties by leaving the adaptation of means to end to the empiric process of administration. The exercise of the process was committed to the Board, subject to limited judicial review. Because the relation of remedy to policy is peculiarly a matter for administrative competence, courts must not enter the allowable area of the Board's discretion and must guard against the danger of sliding unconsciously from the narrow confines of law into the more spacious domain of policy. On the other hand, the power with which Congress invested the Board implies responsibility  the responsibility of exercising its judgment in employing the statutory powers. The discretionary power of the Board is to select any remedy which reasonably is adapted to effectuate the policies of the Act and fitted to the particular situation being dealt with by it. See Phelps Dodge case, supra, page 199, of 313 U.S., 61 S.Ct. 845, and National Labor Relations Board v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 303 U.S. 261, 265, 58 S.Ct. 571, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307. This choice of remedies is a matter of fact which must be accepted unless unsupported by evidence. Phelps Dodge case, supra, page 195 of 313 U.S., 61 S.Ct. 845, National Labor Relations Board v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 303 U.S. 272, 273, 58 S.Ct. 577, 82 L.Ed. 838. Unless the chosen remedy is clearly outside the power of the Board as applied to the particular situation, it should be sustained. In determining whether a particular remedy is justified in a particular situation, there may be many considerations. Among these, two are pertinent here, which are somewhat counterbalancing. One is the restoration of the situation, as nearly as possible, to that which would have obtained but for the illegal discrimination (Phelps Dodge case, supra, page 194 of 313 U.S., page 852 of 61 S.Ct.), and the provision of Section 10(c) expressly permitting reinstatement, with or without back pay). The other is the dislocation of the business of the employer. National Labor Relations Board v. Lightner Publishing Corporation of Illinois, 7 Cir., 128 F.2d 237, decided May 6, 1942; Mooresville Cotton Mills v. National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 97 F.2d 959, 963, and see Phelps Dodge case, supra, page 195 of 313 U.S., 61 S.Ct. 845. This order of the Board was as follows: (c) Offer to Clifford Fallon, William Carlson, and John Herbst immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, or to any other available positions for which they are qualified, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed; and if no such positions are presently available, place them upon a preferential list and thereafter offer them employment as it becomes available, in the manner provided in the section entitled `The Remedy'; (d) Make whole Clifford Fallon, William Carlson, and John Herbst for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination against them, by payment to each of them of a sum equal to the amount which he normally would have earned as wages during the period from July 29, 1939, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, or placement upon the preferential list as provided in the section entitled `The Remedy,' less his net earnings during said period; but without diminution on account of the closing of the body and fender shop. The portion of The Remedy referred to in the foregoing quotation is as follows: We have found that the respondent discontinued the operation of its body and fender shop and discharged Fallon, Carlson, and Herbst in order to discourage membership in the I. A. M., thereby discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment. We shall, therefore, in accordance with our usual practice, order the respondent to offer them immediate reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, or to any other available positions for which they are qualified, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges. We shall further order that, in the event there are no positions available for which they are qualified, their names be placed on a preferential list and that they shall thereafter be offered employment in any positions for which they are qualified as such employment becomes available and before other persons are hired for such work; and that if the body and fender shop is reopened, Fallon, Carlson, and Herbst shall be offered immediate employment therein. We shall also order the respondent to make whole Fallon, Carlson, and Herbst for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of their discharge by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to the amount which he would normally have earned as wages from July 29, 1939, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, or placement upon the preferential list as above provided, less his net earnings during said period. There was no positive requirement to re-employ these men immediately. The requirements as to employment were alternative and conditioned upon the actual situation. If there were substantially equivalent positions or any other available positions for which they are qualified, an offer of immediate reinstatement therein was required. If there were no such positions available, they were to be placed on a preferential list and to be first offered employment in any position for which they are qualified as such employment becomes available and, if the body and fender shop be reopened, they were to be offered immediate employment therein. There was no requirement to discharge employed men to make places for these three; no requirement to employ them unless such services were needed; and no requirement to ropen the body and fender shop in order to furnish them employment. No compulsory change in petitioner's business was contemplated. Petitioner was permitted to conduct its business as it wished with the one requirement that these men should be offered such employment as they were qualified to undertake whenever there was need  immediate or in the future  of such service by petitioner. In short, the effect of the order is to restore these men to their previous status as nearly as this could be done without in any way dislocating petitioner's business or its method of conducting such business. We see nothing remotely unreasonable about these employment requirements of the order. The other phase of the order has to do with reimbursement. This reimbursement was to begin with the date of discharges. Since the discharges were discriminatory under the Act, it is obvious that this date was proper for the beginning of reimbursement. The termination of reimbursement was in the alternative following: Upon offer of reinstatement, or [upon] placement upon the preferential list. Petitioner could terminate the reimbursement at will. If it had suitable employment available, it could offer it. If it had no such employment, it had only to place the men on a preferential list. Such requirements were reasonable. As to the requirements  both of employment and of reimbursement  there can be no doubt of their tendency to effectuate the policies of the Act. Reinstatement and reimbursement are expressly recognized in Section 10(c) as appropriate means of enforcing the Act, if the fact situation makes them reasonably suitable to that end. That they are here reasonably suitable is certain. Besides their intrinsic suitableness, the influence of the use of them may well here have gone beyond the three men immediately affected. See the illustration in the Phelps Dodge case, supra, page 193 of 313 U.S., 61 S.Ct. 845, 85 L.Ed. 1271, 133 A.L.R. 1217.