JOHN R. BROWN, Circuit Judge.
On June 8 the Employees commenced an economic strike. On June 30, from conduct occurring then and prior to that time, it became an unfair labor practice strike. The Examiner held hearings on the unfair labor charges during November. Prior to the filing of the Examiner's Intermediate Report, the strike terminated in December. It was not until the following January that the Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, which was affirmed by the Board in April. The Employer no longer attacks the Board's finding that the strike became an unfair labor practice strike on June 30. Nor does it challenge the requirement that Employees on strike on June 30 be afforded reinstatement. The attack is narrowed to the provision in the Order that back pay shall be awarded for the period commencing five days after application for reinstatement and continuing until the date on which the Employer offers reinstatement.
The order in the traditional form provided that the Employer should:
"2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:
More specifically the Employer claims the Order and this provision are punitive because the five-day period is unreasonably short and does not take into account the practical problems and difficulties inherent in the re-employment, medical examination and preliminary job-training of such a large body of men. Neither the Order nor the five-day provision are, in our view, punitive as claimed by the Employer. The duty of reinstatement, the practical problems growing out of replacement of employees hired during the strike, and any confusion or plant inefficiencies related to the assimilation of a large number of former employees after a somewhat extended absence due to the strike are all a foreseeable "direct by-product" of the employer's violation of the Act ( 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.). N.L.R.B. v. J.H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Co., 5 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 594, 598.
Of course, as we have many times held, the enforcement of the Board's Order by us at this time does not foreclose the opportunity of establishing facts which have occurred subsequent to the hearing on the unfair labor practice charges or subsequent to the Board's Order bearing upon compliance with the Order of reinstatement. Appropriate supplemental proceedings are available. N.L.R.B. v. J.H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Co., supra, at page 598; N.L.R.B. v. American Steel Building Co., 5 Cir., 1960, 278 F.2d 480, 482; cf. N.L.R.B. v. Biscayne Television Corporation, 5 Cir., 1961, 289 F.2d 338.
Order enforced.