Opinion ID: 3046514
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: Because the Board’s summary judgment order is predicated on the findings in the underlying representation case, we review the merits of those decisions together on appeal. See Boire, 376 U.S. at 477-79. When reviewing an order of the Board, we are “bound by the Board’s factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.” Int’l Bhd. of Boilermakers v. as a decision of the “Board.” 4 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 5 of 52 NLRB, 127 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting NLRB v. Malta Constr. Co, 806 F.2d 1009, 1010 (11th Cir. 1984); see also 29 U.S.C. § 160(e). The Board’s inferences from the record evidence, if plausible, should not be overturned, even if we would have made different findings upon a de novo review of the evidence. Int’l Bhd. of Boilermakers, 127 F.3d at 1306. “[C]redibility resolutions are peculiarly within the province of the [administrative law judge] and the Board and are entitled to deference unless inherently unreasonable or self-contradictory.” NLRB v. United Sanitation Serv., 737 F.2d 936, 938 (11th Cir. 1984). While we have described this standard of review as “exceedingly narrow,” NLRB v. Contemporary Cars, Inc., 667 F.3d 1364, 1370 (11th Cir. 2012), and have noted that a “robust application” of the standard has typified review of NLRB decisions, Cooper/T. Smith, Inc. v. NLRB, 177 F.3d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir. 1999), we are not “obliged to stand aside and rubber-stamp [our] affirmance of administrative decisions that [we] deem inconsistent with a statutory mandate or that frustrate the congressional policy underlying a statute.” Id. at 1261 (alterations in original) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. ‘It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Contemporary Cars, Inc., 667 F.3d at 1370 (quoting Bickerstaff Clay Prods. Co. v. 5 Case: 11-12000 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 6 of 52 NLRB, 871 F.2d 980, 984 (11th Cir. 1989)). “[T]he Board cannot ignore the relevant evidence that detracts from its findings.” Northport Health Svcs., Inc. v. NLRB, 961 F.2d 1547, 1550 (11th Cir. 1992). “When [it] misconstrues or fails to consider important evidence, its conclusions are less likely to rest upon substantial evidence.” Id. The burden of establishing the supervisory status of an employee is on the party asserting such status. NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706 (2001); Cooper/T. Smith, 177 F.3d at 1263. Here, that party is Lakeland.