BACKGROUND Child Care Services Inc. (CCSI) operates 12 child care centers. A local of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AF SCME) has M represented the employees at CCSI for over 15 years with the most recent collective bargaining agreement covering 80 nonprofessional employees (four teachers were covered by a separate contract). In anticipation of the June 30 expiration date, CCSI (represented by attorney Donald Barrister and executive director Susan Gruber) and AF SCME (represented by AF SCME staff rep Elaine Mendez and ve bargaining unit members) bargained between April and J une. However, the parties were unable to reach agreement. In a nal attempt to craft a settlement, the two parties met on June 27. At this bargaining session, the union presented a proposal consisting of a $1,500 annual wage increase, employerpaid health insuranCe, shift assignments, and a few other items. CCSI countered with a nal offer of no wage increase and sharing of health care costs. Barrister also said that if there was a strike, the child care centers would be operated by permanent replacements and strikers would be replaced by inverse seniority. In other words, employees with the most seniority would be replaced rst. Later that evening, the union held a membership meeting and the negotiating committee briefed the membership on the day's events. Many employees were upset at CCSI's plans to replace employees by inverse seniority, especially because the negotiating committee would be the rst to be replaced: The employees on the committee were lst, 2nd, 5th, 9th, and 19th on the seniority list. By a large margin, those present voted to reject the company's nal offer and to go on strike. On July 1, 54 employees went on strike while 26 did not. Over the next few months, 34 replacements were hired. During the strike, there was no mention of unfair labor practice allegations or the inverse seniority replacement plan. The picket signs read, \"On Strike for Fair Wages and Health Insurance.\" On July 25 Mendez met with Barrister and told him that the strike was over and made an unconditional offer to return to work. In January, CCSI began offering reinstatement to the strikers by seniority. QUESTIONS 1. Recall that the Mackay doctrine grants employers the right to hire replacement workers during an economic strike. CCSI indicated that it would replace striking employees by inverse seniority. Does this plan violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA or is it allowable under the Mackay doctrine? 2. Assuming that the replacement plan violated the NLRA and was therefore an unfair labor practice, was the strike then an unfair labor practice strike? 3. Were the strikers entitled to be reinstated as of July 25? Does it matter Whether or not the strike was an unfair labor praCtice strike? 4. During the administrative law judge hearings for this case, Gruber testied that the reason for replacing employees by inverse seniority was that it would save $40 ,000 because more senior employees are more expensive. However, it was unclear whether this explanation was offered to the union at the June 27 bargaining session or whether it was an afterthought used in defense during the hearings. Therefore, the NLRB remanded the case back to the administrative law judge for further factual investigation. Why is it important whether the costsavings rationale was offered to the union on June 27