Opinion ID: 532762
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Offer of Employment

Text: 18 Bailey contends that Browne's April 27, 1987 offer to employ Nevins as a helper tolled the Company's back pay liability. However, based on Nevins' uncontested testimony, the ALJ found that the validity of the offer was undermined by a May 7, 1987 telephone conversation in which Browne told Nevins that: [Y]ou don't want to come back to work here. Some things have surfaced about you.... A lot of accidents happen around here. You don't want to come back to work here. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the Board's finding of invalidity is amply supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, Bailey's argument that the NLRB is estopped from contesting the validity of the reinstatement offer because Nevins unconditionally accepted it on May 11, 1987--four days after the improper statements were made--is without merit, as the Company never complied with the Board's First Supplemental Order. 19 It is well settled that a remedial offer of reinstatement must be firm, clear and unconditional. Canova v. NLRB, 708 F.2d 1498, 1505 (9th Cir.1983); Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Int'l Union v. NLRB, 547 F.2d 598, 601 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1078, 97 S.Ct. 823, 50 L.Ed.2d 798 (1977). The offer must also be made in good faith. NLRB v. Rice Lake Creamery Co., 365 F.2d 888, 894 (D.C.Cir.1966); NLRB v. Interurban Gas Co., 354 F.2d 76, 78 (6th Cir.1965); Lakeland Bus Lines, Inc. v. NLRB, 278 F.2d 888, 892 (3d Cir.1960). Moreover, under recent decisions of the NLRB, the acceptance of an invalid reinstatement offer does not toll the back pay period. See IMCO/Int'l Measurement & Control Co., 277 N.L.R.B. 962, 962 (1985); Sumco Mfg. Co., 267 N.L.R.B. 253, 258 (1983), enforced, 746 F.2d 1189 (6th Cir.1984) (per curiam), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1100, 105 S.Ct. 2323, 85 L.Ed.2d 842 (1985). 20 Based on the record, we are unable to conclude that Browne's offer of reinstatement, as was mandated by the Board's First Supplemental Order, was made in good faith. Whatever validity the April 27 letter to Nevins may initially have had as a remedial offer of employment, the offer was arguably undermined to the point of indirect revocation by Browne's threatening statements of May 7, 1987, which are undenied on the record. See 1 S. Williston, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts Sec. 55, at 178 (3d ed. 1957) (Any statement that clearly implies unwillingness to contract according to the terms of the offer may act as a revocation.). At a minimum, Browne's statements made it clear that Nevins' return was unwanted and were undoubtedly designed to deter his acceptance. As such, the threats so tainted the offer that it appears questionable at best, whether Nevins' reinstatement was ever intended. We therefore reject Bailey's contention that Nevins' acceptance of the tainted reinstatement offer tolled the Company's back pay liability.