The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) established
the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) and
conferred power upon it to adjudicate unfair labor practice
complaints, with judicial review conducted in the United
States Courts of Appeals. In the Labor Management
Relations Act of 1947, better known as the Taft-Hartley
Act, Congress amended the NLRA to provide greater
scrutiny of Board determinations and to limit the Board's
remedial power to order reinstatement of employees who
have been suspended or discharged for cause.

This Court, in Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB ,
340 U.S. 474 (1951), confirmed that the Taft-Hartley
amendment to the standard of review required more
rigorous review than the original "substantial evidence"
test and demanded that courts examine and consider the
whole record for evidence supporting or detracting from
the Board's findings and determination when deciding
whether to enforce or vacate Board orders. A circuit split
has developed on application of this standard.
Similarly, the "for cause" limitation that the TaftHartley Act imposed on reinstatement of employees
discharged for cause has fallen essentially into disuse
because the Board has interpreted the proviso to be
inapplicable when it concludes an anti-union motive also is
present in a case. A circuit split has developed regarding
deference to this interpretation.
This Petition presents two questions:

1. Whether the application of the "substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole" standard
of review for Board determinations, 29 U.S.C. §160(e), (f) ,
should be reinvigorated with the rigor that Congress
intended in the Taft-Hartley Act when it instituted the
more demanding standard of review, thereby resolving a
significant split among the Circuits on the issue.

2. Whether the Court should restore the meaning of
the proviso inserted in Section 10(c) of the NLRA by the
Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C. §160(c), that "[n]o order of the
Board shall require the reinstatement of any individual
as an employee who has been suspended or discharged, or
the payment to him of any back pay, if such individual was
suspended or discharged for cause," and give the proviso
its plain meaning rather than deferring to a construction
of the statute adopted by the Board, and thereby resolve
a split among the Circuits on the issue.

Whether the application of the 'substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole' standard of review for Board determinations, 29 U.S.C. §160(e), (f), should be reinvigorated with the rigor that Congress intended in the Taft-Hartley Act when it instituted the more demanding standard of review, thereby resolving a significant split among the Circuits on the issue