On November 16, the Union and the Company agreed to settle the outstanding unfair labor practice actions then pending before the Board. Months later, the Company's attorney informed Representative Cristiano that the strikers had been replaced. Indeed, the record reveals that the Company hired the replacements after the strikers had sought reinstatement. Representative Cristiano filed new charges with the Board alleging that the Company violated the Act by refusing to reinstate the striking workers. The Company, in response, asserted that it did not consider the striking employees' conduct to be protected by the Act.
Evidence is considered substantial if it is adequate to a reasonable mind to uphold the decision.
We review questions of law de novo. Petitioner's Brief at 17. Ample evidence supports the Board's finding that the employees' conduct was protected. Indeed, the record evidence demonstrates that the employees struck to protest the Company's alleged unfair labor practices and in support of their demand for a collective-bargaining agreement. Under well settled law, such strikes are protected activity.