## Facts

- An employee (a foreman) testified in a prior proceeding under the National Labor Relations Act.
- Universal Camera Corporation later discharged the employee.
- The NLRB’s trial examiner conducted a hearing on a complaint alleging the discharge was retaliatory for protected testimony.
- The trial examiner found the discharge was not retaliatory and recommended dismissal.
- The NLRB rejected the examiner’s factual findings and ordered reinstatement with back pay and a cease-and-desist order against discrimination for filing charges or giving testimony.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit enforced the order, treating the Board’s rejection of the examiner’s findings as irrelevant to the “substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole” inquiry.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve disagreement among circuits concerning the APA and the 1947 Taft–Hartley amendments’ effect on judicial review of NLRB factfinding.

## Issues

1. Under the APA and Taft–Hartley amendments, what does it require for NLRB findings to be supported by “substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole”?
2. When the NLRB rejects a trial examiner’s contrary findings, must a reviewing court consider the examiner’s findings as part of the “whole record” in assessing substantial evidence?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the judgment enforcing the Board’s order and remanded to the court of appeals.
- The Court held that judicial review of NLRB fact findings applies the APA’s substantial-evidence standard, requiring consideration of the whole record, including evidence that detracts from the Board’s position.
- The Court held that the trial examiner’s report is part of the record and must be given the weight its relevance reasonably commands, including on credibility based on witness observation.
- The Court did not decide whether the discharge was unlawful; it directed the court of appeals to re-evaluate the record under the clarified standard.

## Legal Principles

- “Substantial evidence” is “more than a mere scintilla” and means relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
- “Substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole” requires reviewing courts to account for evidence opposing the agency’s view and evidence that fairly detracts from supporting evidence.
- Reviewing courts may set aside agency findings when they cannot conscientiously conclude that the supporting evidence is substantial in light of the entire record.
- A trial examiner’s findings, including credibility determinations informed by observing witnesses, are not binding on the agency but are an important component of the whole-record review.
- Congress assigned primary responsibility for substantial-evidence review of agency factfinding to the courts of appeals; Supreme Court intervention is generally limited to correcting misapprehension or gross misapplication of the standard.

## Conclusion

The Court required courts reviewing NLRB orders to apply a whole-record substantial-evidence test under the APA and Taft–Hartley, giving meaningful consideration to trial examiner findings—especially credibility assessments—rather than treating the Board’s contrary view as effectively conclusive.


Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951)