## Facts

- Allen Chase, a longtime Detroit Symphony Orchestra trombonist, was represented by the Detroit Federation of Musicians under a master contract that contemplated execution of annual employment contracts by March 1, though the deadline was not always strictly followed.
- In February 1968, the Symphony offered Chase a one-year contract for the upcoming season, including a $10/week raise.
- On February 27, 1968, Chase told Symphony representatives he rejected the offer, stating, in substance, that the Symphony should “get another boy” and that he did not accept; shortly thereafter he reaffirmed he had not changed his mind.
- On March 1, the Symphony advised the union that Chase’s position was vacant.
- On March 2, Chase attempted to accept the prior offer but was told the Symphony was auditioning another trombonist and regarded the offer as withdrawn.
- The Symphony ultimately hired another trombonist; Chase alleged the Symphony’s refusal to employ him was motivated by hostility to his union activities and constituted an unfair labor practice.

## Issues

1. Whether MERC’s finding that the Symphony discriminated against Chase because of union activity was supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.
2. Whether the record showed an unfair-labor-practice “discharge” (antiunion motive) or instead a voluntary quit/declination based on Chase’s unequivocal rejection of the contract offer.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ refusal to enforce MERC’s unfair labor practice order.
- The Court held the Court of Appeals correctly applied the “substantial evidence on the whole record” standard in concluding MERC’s discrimination finding lacked adequate evidentiary support.
- The Court accepted that Chase’s rejection was clear and that the Symphony could treat the position as open when he attempted to accept after the deadline events.
- The Court concluded the record did not sufficiently support an inference that the Symphony’s action was a pretext for antiunion discrimination.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of MERC fact-finding applies the “substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole” standard.
- “Substantial evidence” is more than a scintilla and is evidence a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the agency’s conclusion, even if it may be less than a preponderance.
- An agency’s inference of unlawful motive must be grounded in record evidence; speculation or inferential leaps cannot substitute for proof when a non-discriminatory explanation is supported by the record.
- Reviewing courts do not reweigh evidence de novo but must determine whether the agency’s findings are reasonably supported when the entire record is considered.

## Conclusion

The court declined to enforce MERC’s order because, on the whole record, there was not substantial evidence that the Symphony’s refusal to employ Chase after his unequivocal rejection was motivated by antiunion animus rather than by his own declination of the contract offer.


Michigan Emp. Rels. Comm’n v. Detroit Symphony Orchestra, Inc., 393 Mich. 116, 223 N.W.2d 283 (1974)