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?

Assuming that the replacement plan violated the NLRA and was therefore an unfair labor practice, was the strike then an unfair labor practice strike?

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?

During the administrative law judge hearings for this case, Gruber testified 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 cost$-$savings rationale was offered to the union on June $27?$