Although the proof was not overwhelming, we conclude that there was substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Board’s findings: that the respondent did not bargain in good faith with the Union, in violation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act; that the strike which occurred on April 27, 1966, was caused by unfair labor practices, as defined by the Act; that the respondent instituted a work rule change without notice to the Union for the purpose cf. discouraging Union activity, and in violation of Section 8(a) (5), (3) and (1) of the Act; that the respondent interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act; that the respondent terminated and refused to reinstate unfair labor practice strikers in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act; and that, therefore, the order of the Board will be enforced.