Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 147 F.3d 333, 338 (4th Cir.1998) (observing that a thorough examination of the evidence "should be particularly true when the Board is determining supervisory status because of the inconsistency in the Board’s application of the statutory definition and of the factors to be used in determining such application”); Spentonbush/Red Star Cos. v. NLRB, 106 F.3d 484, 492 (2d Cir.1997) (finding the "Board's biased mishandling of cases involving supervisors increasingly has called into question our obeisance to the Board's decisions in this area”); Schnuck Markets, Inc. v. NLRB, 961 F.2d 700, 704 (8th Cir.1992) ("[S]crutiny is particularly appropriate in cases where the Board determines supervisory status.”). But cf. Passavant Retirement & Health Ctr. v. NLRB, 149 F.3d 243, 246 (3d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotations and citations omitted); 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an arbitrators interpretation of the scope of the issue submitted to him is entitled to the same deference accorded his interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement (B) holding that because of the boards special competence in the field of labor relations its interpretation of the act is accorded special deference and noting that whether a bargaining unit is appropriate involves a large measure of informed discretion vested in the board and is rarely to be disturbed (C) holding that an issue is a matter of substantial public importance where it involves the use of property in a large subdivision and involves the rights of a large number of people (D) holding that the courts conclusion that transfer was appropriate is to be accorded great deference (E) holding that where statute is ambiguous deference is appropriately accorded to agencys interpretation
Output (English): holding that an arbitrators interpretation of the scope of the issue submitted to him is entitled to the same deference accorded his interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement