What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile, (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless".

Opinion:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. WAYNE W. WILSON COMPANY, Respondent.
No. 14948.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Dec. 28, 1962.
Warren M. Davison, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Warren M. Davison, Leo N. McGuire, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
Frederick G. Bahr, Birmingham, Mich. (Martin J. Ewald, Detroit, Mich., on the brief; Frederick G. Bahr, Birmingham, Mich., of counsel), for respondent.
Before CECIL, Chief Judge, and MILLER and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
U. S. Circuit Judge, Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of an order directing Respondent Wayne W. Wilson Company to cease and desist from coercion of employees found to be in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1), and to reinstate with back pay two employees found to have been discharged in violation of Sections 8(a) (1) and (3), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1) and (3). Respondent claims that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence on the whole record. We disagree and order enforcement.
Union organization activity began in June 1960, in behalf of Local 247, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Indep. Several employees testified the employer made coercive statements to each of them during the union organization period. For example, there was testimony to the effect that the employer stated that he would sell his trucks and lock out the drivers if the Union were voted in. The employer denied this. The Court cannot weigh the credibility of these witnesses, however, and must accept the Board’s resolution of the conflict in testimony. See, e. g. N. L. R. B. v. Bendix Corp., 299 F.2d 308 (6 Cir., 1962); N. L. R. B. v. Cambria Clay Products, 215 F.2d 48 (6 Cir., 1954). Crediting the employee witnesses, it amply appears that the employer was attempting to hinder the organization of the union through coercion of the employees. See, e. g. N. L. R. B. v. Deena Artware, 198 F.2d 645 (6 Cir., 1952); N. L. R. B. v. Ford, 170 F.2d 735 (6 Cir., 1948); Atlas Underwear Co. v. N. L. R. B., 116 F.2d 1020 (6 Cir., 1941).
Employee Shemansky was laid off on October 24, 1960 and went back to work October 31. Both he and employee Arnold were laid off permanently on March 27, 1961. The Board found that these lay-offs were a result of union activity, and we are unable to say that this was not a permissible determination. The problem here is to infer an employer’s motivation from secondary evidence. See N. L. R. B. v. Bird Machine Co., 161 F.2d 589 (1 Cir., 1947). The employer puts forth various reasons why the employees were laid off. None of these, however, occurred at or immediately pri- or to the lay-offs. The conjunction in time with union activity rather than violation of work rules substantiates the inference that the lay-offs were for union activity rather than the violations. Moreover, the prior finding that the employer opposed the union organization effort by coercing the employees lends support to the conclusion that his motives for discharge of union adherents were impermissible under the law. Finally, we are particularly reluctant to disturb the kind of inference drawn here, based as it must be on the opportunity to observe the witnesses and consider their oral testimony in light of the whole record, an opportunity of the trier of fact alone.
Enforcement granted.

Question: Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?

Choices:
No
Yes
Yes, but error was harmless
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 4