PER CURIAM:
The National Labor Relations Board petitions for enforcement of its order requiring respondents Raymond Buick, Inc. and Amalgamated Local Union 355 to cease and desist from unfair labor practices and to take certain affirmative action.
The Board, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, found that the company violated Section 8(a) (2) and (1) of the Act (29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (2) and (1) (1964)) by the organizational activities of Assistant Service Manager Winter on behalf of Local 355, by its recognition of Local 355 and the execution of a contract with it when it did not represent an uncoerced majority of the employees, and by recognizing Local 355 at a time when a real question concerning representation raised by another union existed. The Board further found that the company violated Section 8(a) (2), (3) and (1) of the Act (29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (2), (3) and (1) (1964)) by including and maintaining a union security clause in the Local 355 contract and found Local 355 in violation of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) (29 U.S.C. § 158(b) (1) (A) and (2) (1964)) for using company assistance to obtain both recognition and a contract and for agreeing to and enforcing the union security clause.
The issues in the case are purely factual. An issue as to the supervisory status of Winter presents only the question of the extent to which the other employees considered Winter a part of management. The findings of the Board in this respect are supported by substantial evidence.
In reviewing the testimony of employee Anzalone, the Board found that “a decision by the Board in this proceeding should not be based on the testimony of Michael Anzalone where it is not corroborated by other credited testimony.” 173 N.L.R.B. No. 199 (1968). Anzalone testified that the employees considered Winter a supervisor. From this, respondents argue that the holding with respect to the supervisory status of Winter cannot stand. We disagree. There was clearly sufficient credited corroborative testimony to support this finding. Several other employees testified to the same effect, and there is other evidence in the record regarding Winter’s various functions which establishes his supervisory status.
The remedies imposed by the Board were all fully within its power. The Board ordered reimbursement of those employees who signed cards authorizing deduction of dues and initiation fees under supervisory influence or coercion. All employees who signed subsequent to the execution of the contract are included among those to be reimbursed. Such an order is based on the premise that employees who sign cards after a contract containing a compulsory union membership clause has been executed have been coerced into doing so. Requiring reimbursement in this situation is entirely proper. See NLRB v. Revere Metal Art Co., 280 F.2d 96, 100-101 (2d Cir. 1960).
We therefore1 enforce the Board’s order in its entirety.
. For example, employee Shea testified as follows:
“Q.- Did you observe what Mr. Winter does in the shop? A. He is more or less the shop foreman, you know, write-up man.
Q. When you say he is more or less the shop foreman, what does he do?
A. Well, he more or less runs the shop in John’s absence.
* * * *
Q. Now when you say that during Mr. Cifelli’s absence, Mr. Winter runs the shop, what do you mean by that?
A. Well, he is more or less in charge. He is the man to see if you have any problems.”
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".