Opinion ID: 449471
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Findings Supported by Substantial Evidence

Text: 33 We must defer to the FLRA findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7123(c). In determining whether there is substantial evidence a court must set aside a decision if it cannot conscientiously find that the evidence supporting that decision is substantial, when viewed in the light that the record in its entirety furnishes, including the body of evidence opposed to the Board's view. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488, 71 S.Ct. 456, 465, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951) (emphasis added). The need to give particularized findings is especially critical when the decision constitutes an overruling of an established policy. Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U.S. 275, 287 n. 5, 98 S.Ct. 566, 574 n. 5, 54 L.Ed.2d 538 (1978). Again, substantial evidence cannot be found in conclusory rationales. NLRB v. Yeshiva University, 444 U.S. 672, 691, 100 S.Ct. 856, 867, 63 L.Ed.2d 115 (1980). 34 The Union and amici emphasize that the Authority rejected the factual findings made by the Panel. After hearing testimony, that body had concluded: 35 (1) the employer had failed to demonstrate a significant link between discipline at time of war and wearing the uniform while performing civilian technician duties, 36 (2) Army National Guard technicians in New York have a long history of wearing various types of civilian attire without any showing of adverse effect on their work, 37 (3) there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that the technicians' tasks have a significantly greater military purpose than reservists and civilian employees in the Department of Defense, who are not required to wear uniforms, and 38 (4) there is no record evidence that even guardsmen at civilian jobs away from the base have any particular difficulty in responding to emergency call-ups. 39 The Authority disregarded those findings without discussion and found that the uniform requirement fosters military discipline, promotes uniformity, encourages esprit de corps and increases the readiness of military forces for early deployment. If this case involved credibility determinations made by a trial examiner, the Authority's disagreement with the Panel's factual findings would be subject to considerable question. Yet, here the evaluation of the facts is a matter of weighing priorities, not assessing the demeanor of witnesses. Thus, the FLRA's findings cannot be said to be unsupported by substantial evidence. Its failure to consider and weigh the FSIP's contrary view was not fatal to its decision. In effect the Authority held that a functional relationship was not necessary for there to be a direct and integral relationship between wearing a uniform and the Guard's mission.