## Facts

- An employee testified in an NLRB proceeding in support of creating a separate bargaining unit at the employer’s facility, contrary to the employer’s position.
- Approximately two months later, the employer discharged the employee.
- The employee and the NLRB alleged the discharge was retaliation for protected testimony under the National Labor Relations Act.
- The employer asserted a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for discharge and relied heavily on supervisor testimony.
- After a hearing, the trial examiner credited the employer’s witness, discredited the employee’s account, and recommended dismissal of the complaint.
- The NLRB rejected the examiner’s credibility assessments, found the employer’s witness not credible, inferred retaliatory motive, and ordered reinstatement with back pay and related cease-and-desist relief.
- The employer sought judicial review; the NLRB sought enforcement of its order.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board’s finding that the employee was discharged because of protected testimony was supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.
2. Whether, and to what extent, a reviewing court should treat a trial examiner’s contrary credibility findings as limiting the Board’s contrary factual and credibility determinations.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit enforced the NLRB’s order.
- The court held that, on the record considered as a whole, substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding of retaliatory discharge.
- The court declined to give independent judicial weight to the examiner’s contrary credibility findings once the Board rejected them, and reviewed the Board’s findings for substantial evidentiary support.

## Legal Principles

- A court enforcing or setting aside an NLRB order reviews factual findings under the “substantial evidence” standard, asking whether relevant evidence exists that a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support the Board’s conclusion on the record as a whole.
- The Board, not the trial examiner, bears ultimate responsibility for agency fact-finding; the Board may reject an examiner’s credibility determinations and make different findings.
- In reviewing for substantial evidence, the court need not treat the examiner’s rejected findings as independently controlling; the focus remains on whether the Board’s findings are sufficiently supported by the full record.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit enforced the NLRB’s reinstatement order, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding of retaliatory discharge and treating the examiner’s contrary credibility findings as noncontrolling once the Board had rejected them.


NLRB v. Universal Camera Corp., 179 F.2d 749 (2d Cir. 1950)