(concurring.) I agree with the majority that the employer, Princess House, Inc., did not meet its burden of showing that it should be entitled to an exception from unemployment compensation payments. It failed to establish that its dealers were “an independently established trade, business or profession.” Sec. 108.02(3) (b)2, Stats.
The majority holds that the addition of the words “and substantial evidence” to the statute in 1977 (ch. 195, Laws of 1977, sec. 102.23(6), Stats.) did not change the quantum of evidence in a record necessary to sustain the commission’s finding as that rule was established by this court in R.T. Madden, Inc. v. ILHR Dept., 43 Wis. 2d 528, 169 N.W.2d 73 (1969). I disagree.
In Madden, we stated:
“It is our conclusion the test should be whether there is any credible evidence in the record sufficient to support the finding made by the department. . . .
“It should also be noted, contrary to appellant’s contention, that the duty of the applicant is not to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence, but merely to produce such credible evidence that the findings will rest upon facts and not upon conjecture or speculation. . . .
“. . . If there is credible, relevant, and probative evidence and that evidence construed most favorably would justify men of ordinary reason and fairness to make that finding, the evidence is sufficient. A finding should rest upon such evidence and not upon a mere scintilla of evidence or upon conjecture and speculation.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 547-48.
That holding required only any credible evidence or probative evidence justifying people of ordinary reason and fairness to make a finding or some evidence more than a mere scintilla of evidence or conjecture and speculation. None of those analyses approach the notion of credible “and substantial evidence.” The Madden analysis when equated to the present statute ignores the *79words “substantial evidence” and makes the term sur-plusage.
It does not matter whether the court looks at the record of the administrative agency as isolated items of evidence or at the record as a whole to determine whether a finding is sustainable. In either application, the evidence must be credible and substantial to sustain a finding.
The language of the majority opinion which in the main ignores the word “substantial” in the statute is as follows: “Evidence that is relevant, probative, and credible, and which is in a quantum that will permit a reasonable factfinder to base a conclusion upon it, is ‘substantial’ evidence.” Supra at 54. I say that is not correct and is misleading.
The words relevant, probative and credible are not synonymous with substantial, nor is a degree or quantum of such evidence necessarily substantial, if a reasonable factfinder bases a conclusion on it. That only means it was convincing; however, the statute since 1977 required it to be substantial in an amount to be convincing and sustainable.
We must review findings based on whether the evidence was substantial and entitled to be convincing to reasonable minds. Sufficient evidence convincing reasonable minds is not the same as substantial evidence convincing reasonable minds.
“Substantial” by relevant definition of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1967) is:
“2c: considerable in amount, value, or worth ... 3b: having a solid or firm foundation: soundly based: carrying weight (a [substantial] argument) ([substantial] evidence) 4a: being that specified to a large degree or in the main ... b: of or relating to the main part of something syn. see massive.”
*80Thus defined substantial evidence is greater in amount than merely being more than a scintilla or conjecture or speculation. It is convincing because it is substantial.
It is significant the majority opinion on several occasions uses language such as “by credible or substantial evidence,” “credible and substantial evidence.” (Emphasis added.) Therefore, even by the majority’s own application, the evidence to sustain a finding must, in addition to being credible, be substantial and that differs from the Madden rule.
For the reasons stated I concur in the majority’s decision but disagree with some of the reasoning.