A union planned to strike at Laidlaw Corp. (defendant) beginning on January 12. The day beforehand, the plant manager had announced that any strikers replaced would forever lose their right to Laidlaw employment. Worker William Massey initially joined the strike but requested reinstatement on January 14. Laidlaw had filled Massey’s position and said it would only rehire him on new-hire terms. On January 18, the company offered Massey an opening, but Massey refused new-hire terms. Most strikers applied to return on February 11. The company reinstated some to fill open vacancies but had already hired replacements for the rest and began terminating them. But the company continued advertising for open permanent positions and hired several new employees. Strikers protested the terminations and renewed the strike. Meanwhile, the union filed unfair-labor-practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (plaintiff). The trial examiner found that the strikers remained employees entitled to reinstatement when positions became open, meaning Laidlaw discriminated against them by hiring new employees instead. Therefore, the examiner recommended that the NLRB order reinstatement.