What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the court conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion. 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".

Opinion:
Rafael VEGA et al., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
No. 6289.
United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.
Feb. 23, 1965.
Ginoris Vizcarra, Santurce, P. R., with whom Sarah Torres Peralta, Santurce, P. R., was on the brief, for petitioners.
Norton J. Come, Asst. Gen. Counsel, with whom Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Melvin J. Welles, and Robert A. Armstrong, Washington, D. C., Attys., were on the brief, for respondent.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, MARIS, Circuit Judge, and FORD, District Judge.
By designation.
PER CURIAM.
This petition for review by five discharged employees whose complaint was dismissed by the National Labor Relations Board raises the single question of whether petitioners were supervisors, and hence not within the protection of the Act. The trial examiner, in a careful and detailed report, reached the conclusion that they were not supervisors. On review by a three-member panel two members, although in most respects adopting the subsidiary findings of the trial examiner, reached the opposite conclusion. Crimptex, Inc., 145 N.L.R.B. No. 50, December 16, 1963. One member would have accepted the trial examiner’s report in toto.
No purpose would be served by'our repeating the findings. As counsel for the Board candidly admits, the question is close. However, we have repeatedly stated that a broad discretion must be given to the Board on this issue. In this case we regard it as of considerable importance that if the petitioners were not supervisors the company’s employees were entirely without supervision a large part of the time. Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Supreme Dyeing and Finishing Corp., 1 Cir., 1965, 340 F.2d 493. In such circumstances it was not unreasonable to conclude that even the relatively small amount of supervisory power conferred upon and exercised by petitioners made them representatives of the employer.
Affirmed.

Question: Did the court conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion.

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 1