finding that the earlier bargaining alleviated some of the burdens otherwise associated with negotiating an initial contract. See Lee Lumber, 334 NLRB at 402-03 & nn. 34, 40. The Board’s unsupported finding regarding the impact of the parties’ earlier negotiations was critical to its analysis. As the Board recognized, “[h]ad the parties done little or no previous bargaining, the difficulties often encountered in bargaining for an initial contract might loom larger in the overall analysis.” Am. Golf Corp., 350 NLRB at 267. As we may affirm the Board only on its own reasoning, we may not enforce the Board’s order when a critical aspect of that reasoning lacks evidentiary support. Cf. Allentown Mack Sales & Serv., Inc. v. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359, 373-75, 118 S.Ct. 818, 139 L.Ed.2d 797 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Because the Board’s determination that the
holding that due process requires exclusionary rule to be applied in state trials holding that apprendi announced a rule of criminal procedure forecloses  argument that ring announced a substantive rule holding that reasoned decisionmaking in which the rule announced is the rule applied requires that the boards decreed result be supported by the reasons  adduced holding that the rule announced by booker  does not operate retroactively holding that simmons announced a new rule and retrospective application of the rule was barred by teague