NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

78 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tory reasons, is no different from the ordinary discriminatory discharge
or refusal to reinstate.'"
Since a temporary disruption of work, incident to a nondiscriminatory
lay-off or a strike, and not followed by an unequivocal assumption
of a position such as the one just described, involves no unfair
labor practice within section 8 (3), ordinarily no infraction arises, if
at all, until the employee induces employer action by making application
for reinstatement." Thus, in Matter of Art Crayon Cow
pan y, 5° the strike ended on July 9; practically all the striking employees
returned to work about July 11; the employee in question did
not apply for reinstatement until July 20, at which time there were
no more vacancies ; the delay was caused by his unfounded belief that
he would not get his job back. The failure to make timely application
was held fatal to the employee's claim of a discriminatory refusal
to reinstate.
Of course, discriminatory rejection of an application for reinstatement
is in violation of the section." The Board has on occasion
determined what constitutes an application for reinstatement. In
Matter of Canvas Glove Manufacturing TVorks, 52 the employee, 16
years old, obtained employment during the school vacation period
in summer, then went on strike. During the strike, the school term
started. Under the State law, she could work during the school year
only if she obtained a certificate from the school authorities upon the
signed request of the employer. Upon the settlement of the strike,
she sought the employer's signed request. He stated he did not "want
to have anything to do with" her. The Board found a discriminatory
refusal to reinstate. The same result was reached in a case involving
a collective application for reinstatement." In Matter of Fansteel
Metallurgical Corporatiolz, 54 the Board refused to find a collective
request for reinstatement of the strikers, it appearing that the strikers
themselves were refusing to return to work unless the employer
bargained with them. That the employer would have denied an
unconditional application for reinstatement was only a "reasonable
speculation." Whether an application for reinstatement was conditional
or not, came up for decision in Matter of Black Diamond
See National Labor Relations d3oard v. Mackay Radio d Telegraph Company, 304 U. S.
3:13 (1938), reversing 92 F. (2d) 761 (C. C. A. 9th, 1937), 87 F. (2d) 611 (C. C. A. 9th,
1937), and enforcing Matter of Mackay Radio if TelegraPh. Company, etc., and American
Radio Telegraphists' .4i