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

Heading: Thalbo's Arguments for Limitation of the Backpay Period

Text: 57 Thalbo contends that, even if it is liable to pay some backpay, that obligation should have been found to end in August 1994 when G.B. Motel, the entity that had operated the Hotel's bar during DiMilta's employ, was dissolved and Thalbo contracted out the Hotel's bar/restaurant operations to Carol Davino Enterprises, Inc. (Davino), a company unrelated to Thalbo. Thereafter, none of the employees at the bar were on Thalbo's payroll, and Davino had complete discretion to hire employees of its choosing. 58 The ALJ rejected the contention that these events ended the backpay period, noting that Thalbo itself remained obligated to offer [DiMilta] a substantially equivalent position of employment at other jobs at the hotel. Thalbo III, 323 N.L.R.B. at 637. In addition, noting testimony by a Thalbo official that Davino had in fact hired some of G.B. Motel's restaurant and banquet employees and both of G.B. Motel's bartenders, the ALJ found it probable that had DiMilta not been discriminatorily terminated by [the Company], ... she would have been hired by Davino after Davino began operating ... the bar, where DiMilta had been employed. Id. The record supports these findings, and we see no error in the refusal to cut off the backpay period in 1994. 59 Thalbo's reliance on Williams Motor Transfer, Inc. v. Larose, 284 N.L.R.B. 1496 (1987), is misplaced. That case involved an original employer that had violated the NLRA, and the issue for that opinion was whether a successor employer was liable for the original employer's violation, see id. at 1504; the decision did not deal with the extent of the original employer's backpay obligation, see id. at 1497 (question of appropriate scope of the backpay period reserved for future compliance proceedings). The present matter is entirely different. There is no question as to any alleged liability of Davino, which took over G.B. Motel's operations. Further, Thalbo and G.B. Motel were, for NLRA purposes, a single entity, see Thalbo I, 314 N.L.R.B. at 367 & n. 3, and only G.B. Motel was dissolved. Thalbo remains in business and remains responsible to answer for its violations of the Act.
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.