Opinion ID: 795770
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: 68 We conclude that substantial evidence in the record as a whole does not support the Board's ruling that the General Counsel failed to meet its burden of persuasion under Wright Line. We reach this conclusion because (1) the General Counsel presented unrebutted evidence concerning St. Vincent's knowledge of union activity, (2) the timing of St. Vincent's decision to subcontract raised a compelling inference of anti-union animus, (3) the ALJ mistakenly relied on post-subcontracting evidence to establish the cause of the subcontracting decision, and (4) St. Vincent's business justification was unreliable, therefore raising the inference that its justification was merely a pretext for anti-union animus. 69 We therefore examine St. Vincent's affirmative defense to determine if the Board's ultimate decision in favor of St. Vincent is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.