## Facts

- Universal Camera Corporation employed Imre Chairman as an assistant engineer with supervisory responsibilities over maintenance employees.
- In late 1943, Chairman testified in an NLRB representation proceeding supporting a separate bargaining unit for maintenance employees, contrary to Universal’s position.
- On January 24, 1944, Universal discharged Chairman, stating “insubordination” as the reason.
- The unfair labor practice dispute centered on whether the discharge was actually retaliation for Chairman’s testimony in the prior NLRB proceeding.
- An NLRB trial examiner credited Universal’s witness (Politzer, the plant engineer), found no retaliatory discharge, and recommended dismissal.
- The NLRB majority rejected the examiner’s findings and, on August 31, 1948, ordered Universal to reinstate Chairman with back pay and to cease and desist from retaliating against employees for filing charges or giving testimony under the Act.

## Issues

1. Whether the Taft–Hartley amendments required a materially more searching judicial review of NLRB fact-finding than the prior “substantial evidence” standard.
2. Whether substantial evidence on the record as a whole supported the Board’s finding that Universal discharged Chairman in retaliation for protected testimony.
3. What significance a reviewing court should give to a trial examiner’s contrary credibility findings and recommendation.
4. Whether enactment of Taft–Hartley cut off or limited Universal’s liability for reinstatement and back pay for the earlier discharge.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit granted the NLRB’s petition and enforced the Board’s order.
- The court held the amended statutory phrase “substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole” did not authorize courts to reweigh evidence de novo or substitute their judgment for the Board’s.
- The court concluded the Board could reasonably infer retaliatory motive from the timing of the discharge after Chairman’s testimony and the disputed “insubordination” explanation.
- The court treated the examiner’s contrary credibility determinations as relevant but not controlling where the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.
- The court rejected Universal’s claim that Taft–Hartley extinguished or terminated back-pay and reinstatement liability arising from the earlier alleged violation.

## Legal Principles

- A court of appeals must enforce NLRB findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence when the record is considered as a whole.
- The Board is the ultimate administrative fact-finder and may reject an examiner’s recommended findings; judicial review focuses on whether the Board’s findings meet the substantial-evidence standard.
- Examiner credibility findings do not automatically bar enforcement of a contrary Board determination if the Board’s conclusion has substantial evidentiary support on the entire record.
- Statutory amendments do not, without clear direction, retroactively eliminate remedial liability for alleged unfair labor practices occurring before enactment.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit enforced the NLRB’s reinstatement and back-pay order, holding that the Board’s retaliatory-discharge finding was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and that neither the examiner’s contrary recommendation nor Taft–Hartley’s enactment defeated enforcement.


Nat'l Lab. Rels. Bd. v. Universal Camera Corp., 179 F.2d 749 (2d Cir. 1950)