Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding striking employees had been discharged in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding striking employees had been discharged in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), even though none of the striking employees ever claimed they had been discharged, by finding a hypothetical prudent employee reasonably could have concluded the employer’s allegedly ambiguous statements meant striking employees had been discharged? 2. Whether the “mutual understanding” of “permanent employment” required by NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333 (1938), and its progeny is established under the NLRA when an employer issues offer letters of permanent employment to replacement employees, and those employees thereafter commence (or continue) employment, all prior to the time striking employees deliver to the employer an unconditional offer of return to work? u PARTIES TO THIS PROCEEDING The caption of this case contains the names of all the parties to this proceeding.