### F I LE D

. U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T D E C E M B E R 20, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12825 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. 12- C A - 24810 L A K E M A R Y H E A L T H C A R E A S S O C I A T E S , L L C , d .b .a . L a k e M a ry H e a lth a n d R e h ab ilita tio n , P et i t i on er C r o s s - R e s p o n d e n t, v ersu s N A T I O N A L L A B O R R E L A T I O N S B O A R D , R es po nd ent C r o s s - P e titio n e r .

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a D e c i s i on of

the N at i on al L abor R el at i on s B oard

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 20, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

L ake M ary H ea l th C ar e A ss oci at es , L L C (“ L ake M ary” ) pet i t i on s f or re vi ew o f th e A p r il 2 8 , 2 0 0 6 o r d e ro f th e N a tio n a l L ab o rR e la tio n s B o a r d ( “th e B o a r d ” ) . In thatorder, the B oard foun d thatL ake M ary had engaged i n u nfai r l abor pract i ce s by r e f us i ng t o ba r ga i n c ol l e c t i ve l y w i th e m pl oy e e r e pr e s e nt a t i ve s , i n vi ol a t i on of s e c t i on 8( a ) ( 1) a nd ( 5) of the N a t i ona l L aborR e l a t i ons A c t , 29 U . S . C . § 158( a ) ( 1) and (5) (“ N L R A ”) . T he B oard fi l ed a c ross -app l i ca t i on t o enforce i t s order . A ft er r e vi e w , w e de ny L a ke M a ry ’ s pe t i t i on a nd gr a ntthe B oa r d’ s c r os s - appl i c a t i on. I . F AC T UA L B AC KG RO UN D L ake M ary opera t es a nursi ng ho m e a nd re habi l i t at i on ce nt er . T he S ervi ce E m pl oy e e s I nt e rna t i ona l U ni on, L oc a l 1199 ( “ the U ni on” ) r e pr e s e nt e d auni tof L ake M ary’ s s ervi ce em pl oyee s. T hree -quart er s of the 92 -e m pl oyee un i tw as c o m p r is e d o f

c e r tif ie d n u r s in g a s s is ta n ts ( “C N A ” ) . O n A ugus t9, 2004, a n e m pl oy e e i n the uni tr e pr e s e nt e d by the U ni on f i l e d a d e c e r tif ic a tio n p e titio n w ith th e B o a r d s e e k in g to d e c e r tif y th e U n io n . C ons e que nt l y , a n e l e c t i on w a s s c he dul e d f orS e pt e m be r17, 2004 t o de t e rm i ne w he the rthe uni te m pl oy e e s w i s he d t o c ont i nue be i ng r e pr e s e nt e d by the U ni on. F or se vera l ye ar s, L ake M ary had pai d i t s C N A s a$2 5. 00 shi ftbo nu s i f they w orke d a n e xtr as hi f

ti n a ddi t i on t o the i r40- hourw e e k. O n S e pt e m be r15, 2004, tw o da y s be f

or e the s c he dul e d e l e c t i on, L a ke M a ry ’ s s c he dul i ng s e c r e t a ry , M a r tha R od ri gu ez , po st ed a not i ce on the extra -s hi ftsi gn up shee ti nd i ca t i ng thatthere3

w o u ldb e n o b o n u s. R o d rig u ez d idso at th e d irec ti o n o f P at M u lk ey , L ak e M ar y’s di re ct or of nu rs i ng . R od ri gu ez al so t ol d C N A s w ho m she e ncou nt er ed thatday that L ak e M ary w o u l d n o l o n g er p ay ex tra sh i ftb o n u ses. A s w o r d s p r e a d o f

th e c h a n g e , s o m e C N A s o n th e n ig h t s h if t c o m p la in e d to R o d r ig u e z . R o d r ig u e z p a s s e d th o s e c o m p la in ts o n to M u lk e y . O n S ept em ber 16, 20 04 , M ul key s po ke w i th L ake M ary’ s a dm i ni stra t or, M a u r e e n K e h o e , w h o e x p la in e d th a t th e e x tr a - s h if t b o n u s e s s h o u ldb e g iv e n . M ul key r eturned t o R od ri gu ez and st at ed thatthey had “ m ade am i st ake. ” A t 2 :3 0 p .m . o n S e p te m b e r1 6 , R o d r ig u e z to o k d o w n th e s ig n u p s h e e t w ith the “ no bo nu se s” no t i ce . R od ri gu ez al so t ol d C N A s w ho had si gn ed up for e xtra s h i f t s a n d a n y CN A s s h e e n c o u n t e r e d a tth e f a c i l i ty u n t i l s h e l e f

tw o rk a t5 : 0 0 p . m. tha te xtr a - s hi f

tbonus e s w oul d be gi ve n. W he n R odr i gue z r e turne d t o w ork a t6: 15 a .m . o n S e p te m b e r1 7 , 2 0 0 4 –th e m o rn in g o f th e e le c tio n – , C N A s c o n tin u e d to qu es t i on her abo utthe el i m i nat i on of the extra -s hi ftbo nu s. R od ri gu ez t ol d them tha te xtr a - s hi f

tbonus w oul d be gi ve n. O n S e pt e m be r17, vot i ng oc c urr e d be tw e e n 6: 30 a . m . a nd 8: 30 a . m . a nd ag ai n b etw een 2 : 0 0 p . m . an d 4 : 0 0 p . m . O u to f 9 2 el i g i b l e v o t ers, 4 0 v o t ed ag ai n st u n io n r e p r e s e n ta tio n a n d 3 7 v o te d in f a v o r , w ith o n e c h a lle n g e d b a llo t. T h e U n io n filed elec ti o n o b jectio n s, alleg in g , i n ter a li a, th at L ak e M ar y’s change i n the extra -s hi ftbo nu s on the eve of the el ec t i on w as cond uctthatt ended4

t o i nt er fe re w i th the fr ee expres si on of em pl oyee choi ce i n the el ec t i on . A B oard he a r i ng of

f i c e rc onduc t e d ahe a r i ng a tw hi c h the pa r t i e s w e r e abl e t o pr e s e nt e vi de nc e . T he r e a f

t e r , the he a r i ng of

f i c e rr e c om m e nde d tha tthe B oa r d s us t a i n the U ni on ’ s obj ec t i on re l at i ng t o the change i n extra -s hi ftbo nu se s a nd thata new e l e c t i on be he l d. A f

t e rc ons i de r i ng L a ke M a ry ’ s e xc e pt i ons , the B oa r d a dopt e d the he a r i ng of

f i c e r ’ s r e por ta nd r e c om m e nda t i on a nd di r e c t e d as e c ond de c e r t i f i c a t i on e l e c t i on. S e e L a ke M a ry H e a l th C a r e A s s oc s . , L . L . C . , 345 N . L . R . B . N o. 37, 2005 W L 21 15 87 1 (20 05 ). O n O ct o b er 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , a seco n d el ect i o n w as h el d , an d th e U n i o n w o n b y a v o te o f 4 0 to 3 6 , w ith tw o ch allen g ed b allo ts. O n N o v em b er1 0 , 2 0 0 5 , th e B o ar d ’s r e gi ona l di r e c t orc e r t i f

i e d the U ni on a s the c ol l e c t i ve ba r ga i ni ng a ge ntf orL a ke M ary’ s C N A s. D esp i t e cert i fi cat i o n , L ak e M ary refu sed t o co m p l y w i th th e U n i o n ’ s req u est t o ba r ga i n. T he U ni on f i l e d ac ha r ge of

unf a i rl aborpr a c t i c e w i th the B oa r d. T he B o ar d ’s g en er al co u n se l fil ed a c o m p lain t ag ain st L ak e M ar y b as ed o n th e U n io n ’s c ha r ge . L a ke M a ry f

i l e d a n a ns w e ra dm i tt i ng i t s r e f us a l t o ba r ga i n, butc ont e ndi ng th a t it w a s n o t o b lig a te d to b a r g a in w ith th e U n io n b e c a u s e th e B o a r d h a d e rr e d in se tt i ng as i de the fi rs tel ec t i on and d i re ct i ng a s ec on d el ec t i on . T he B oard’ s gener al c o u n s e l m o v e d f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, w h ic h th e B o a r d g r a n te d .5

S p e c if ic a lly , th e B o a r d c o n c lu d e d th a t L a k e M a ry h a d e n g a g e d in u n f a ir l aborpr a c t i c e s by r e f

us i ng t o ba r ga i n w i th the U ni on a nd thus vi ol a t e d s e c t i ons 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d ( 5 ) o f

th e N L R A a n d o r d e r e d L a k e M a ry to c e a s e a n d d e s is t a n d to bargai n u po n the U ni on ’ s r equest . A s f or L ake C l ar e’ s a rgum entthatthe B oard ha d e rr e d i n di r e c t i ng the s e c ond e l e c t i on, the B oa r d c onc l ude d tha tthi s a r gum e nt r a i s e d r e pr e s e nt a t i on i s s ue s tha t“ w e r e orc oul d ha ve be e n l i t i ga t e d i n the pr i or re pres ent at i on proceedi ng ” a nd thatL ake M ary had no tpres ent ed any new e vi de nc e ors pe c i a l c i r c um s t a nc e s tha tr e qui r e d the B oa r d t o r e - e xa m i ne i t s pr i or deci si on t o setas i de the fi rs tel ec t i on and d i re cta s ec on d el ec t i on . T hu s, the B oard co n clu d ed th at L ak e M ar y “h a[ d ] n o t raise d an y r ep re se n tati o n issu e th at [w a]s prop er l y l i t i gabl e i n thi s unfai r l abor pract i ce proceedi ng . ” L ake M ary H ea l th C ar e A ss ocs. , L . L . C . , 34 6 N . L . R . B . N o. 10 3, 20 06 W L 11 68 87 3 (20 06 ). L ake M ary f i l e d thi s pe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w a nd the B oa r d c r os s - pe t i t i one d s e e ki ng e nf or c e m e ntof i t s order . I I . DI S CUS S I ON T h e N L R A p ro h i b i t s an em p l o yer fro m i n t erfering w i th i t s em p l o yees’ ex erci se o f th ei r N L R A ri g h t s an d fro m refu si n g t o b arg ai n w i th i t s em p l o yees’ du l y c ert i fi ed re pres ent at i ve. S ee 29 U . S . C . § 1 58 (a )( 1), (5). Iti s und i sput ed that L ake M ary r ef

used t o b ar gai n w i th the U ni on . T he on l y i ss ue on appeal i s w hether th e U n io n w a s d u ly c e r tif ie d .The NLRA does not provide for direc t reviewof a repre sentation elec tion procee ding. 1 There fore , “where unf

air labor prac tice is cha

rg ed for ref usal to barg ain, and the employer ha s ref used to rec ognize the cer

tification, the ele ction proce edingis beforethe cour t for review. The repre sentatio n c a seand

theun fair

la bo r p rac tic ec a sebe c omea s o neand thec omp le tere c ord is fully reviewa ble .”U. S. Ru

bb er C o. v. N. L .R. B ., 37 3 F .2 d 6 02 , 6 04n. 3 ( 5th Cir . 1 96 7) ; se ealso 29 U.S.C. § 159(d). 6 L ake M ary a rgues thatthe U ni on w as no tdu l y c ert i fi ed because the B oard erroneou sl y i nv al i dat ed the re sul t s of the fi rs tdece rt i fi ca t i on el ec t i on , i n w hi ch uni on r e pr e s e nt a t i on w a s de f e a t e d. A c c or di ng t o L a ke M a ry , the r e c or d doe s not s u p p o r t th e B o a r d ’s c o n c lu s io n in th e r e p r e s e n ta tio n p r o c e e d in g th a t th e c h a n g e in th e ex tra-sh i ftb o n u s i m p ro p erl y i n t erfered w i th em p l o yees’ free ch o i ce i n th e fi rst de c e r t i f i c a t i on e l e c t i on. 1 T he ul t i m a t e que s t i on i n r e pr e s e nt a t i on e l e c t i on c a s e s i s w he the rthe chal l enged con du ct“ cr ea t ed an envi ronm entof t ensi on or coer ci on w hi ch p r e c lu d e d e m p lo y e e s f

r o m e x e r c is in g a f

r e e c h o ic e .” T R W - U n ite d G r e e n f ie ld D i v. , 716 F . 2d 1391, 1394 ( 11th C i r . 1983) . “ F orc onduc tt o w a rr a nts e tt i ng a s i de a n e l e c t i on, notonl y m us ttha tc onduc tbe c oe r c i ve , buti tm us tbe s o r e l a t e d t o the el ec t i on as t o h ave had a probable ef fe ctup on the em pl oyee s’ ac t i on s a tthe po l l s. ” Id. (quo t at i on m arks om i tt ed). T h e b u r d e n is o n th e p a r ty o b je c tin g to th e c o n d u c t to p r o v e b y s p e c if ic e v id e n c e th a t th e c o n d u c t “in te r f e r e d w ith th e e m p lo y e e s ’ e x e r c is e o f f r e e c h o ic e to s uc h a n e xt e nttha tthe y m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t e d the r e s ul t s of

the e l e c t i on. ” N . L . R . B v.This C ourt a dopte d a s b indingpre c e dent all F if th C ircuit de c isi on s rendere d p ri or

to 2 October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1982) (en ba nc). “Determination of whether a union repre sentation elec tion was unfairly conducte d and 3 s h o u ld b es e t a s ideisp rim arily

a qu e s ti o nf

o r th eN ati o n al La

b o r Re lati o n s B o ard . ”T RW United Gre enfie ld Div. v. N.L .R.B., 716 F .2d 1391, 1393 (11th Cir. 1983). “B eca use it is for the Boa rd to dec ide if the c onduct cha rg ed re asonably

tends to interfere with the employees’ fre e choice , this Court, i n reviewingthis decision, must be slow to overrule a discretionar

y deter mination by

the B oard.”N.L .R.B. v. Golden A g e B everag e Co., 415 F.2d 26, 29 ( 5th Cir. 1969) (c itations and quotation marks omitted). To this end, “[w]hether this Court would reach the same c onclusion as the B oard f rom the conf

licting evidenceis imm aterial, so long a s the Boa rd’s findingthat the elec tion was fairly conducte d is supported by substantial evidencein the rec ord considered as a

whole.” Id.; see also N.L .R.B. v. Dy natron/B ondo Corp., 176 F.3d 1310, 1313 (11th Cir. 1999); 29 U.S.C. § 160(e). We uphold the B oard’ s leg al conc lusions unless they are“ar bitrary or contra ry to the law.” N .L .R.B. v. Dy natron/B ondo Corp., 992 F.2d 313, 315 (11th Cir. 1993). 7 G ul f S t a t e s C a nne r s , I nc . , 585 F . 2d 757, 759 ( 5th C i r . 1978) ( quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . I n de t e rm i ni ng w he the rthe obj e c t i ng pa r ty ha s pr ove d the e f f e c tof 2 pa r t i c ul a rc onduc ton ar e pr e s e nt a t i on e l e c t i on, w e appl y the “ t e nde nc y - t oin f lu e n c e te s t” r a th e rth a n s p e c u la te ab o u t th e “s u b je c tiv e r e a c tio n o f

e m p lo y e e s to el ect i o n eeri n g . . . . ” Id . U n d er th e t en d en cy-t o -i n fl u en ce t est , th e B o ard m u st a s s e s s “w h e th e rth e q u e s tio n e d a c tio n b y a n e le c tio n c a n d id a te h a d a te n d e n c y to i nf l ue nc e the out c om e of

the vot i ng. ” I d. 3 S u b stan ti al ev id en ce su p p o rts th e B o ar d d eter m in atio n th at L ak e M ar y’s a nnounc e d e l i m i na t i on of the e xtr a - s hi f

tbonus w a s c onduc ttha tw a rr a nt e d s e tt i ng a s i de the f

i r s tde c e r t i f

i c a t i on e l e c t i on. E vi de nc e i n the r e c or d i ndi c a t e s tha tthe abruptchange i n such a l on g-es t abl i shed m on et ary benef i tcr ea t ed an atm osph er e o f c o n f u s io n a n d a la rm th a t c o n tin u e d u p to th e m in u te s b e f o r e th e p o lls o p e n e d .8

T he e l i m i na t i on of

the bonus c a m e j us ttw o da y s be f or e the e l e c t i on a nd a f

t e rL a ke M a ry ha d w a ge d avi gor ous a nt i - uni on c a m pa i gn. T he r e f or e , the t i m i ng of

a nd cont extw i thi n w hi ch the anno un ce d chang e i n b enef i t s occ urre d sup po rt s a n i n f e r e n c e th a ti twa s t i e d t o th e c a m p a i g n . Un d e rth e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , th e C NA s r e a s onabl y c oul d ha ve i nt e rpr e t e d the bonus e l i m i na t i on t o be a n a tt e m ptby L a ke M a ry t o i nf

l ue nc e the i rvot e s a ga i ns tthe U ni on a s a n uns uc c e s s f ul a dvoc a t e f

orthe em pl oyee s. S peci fi ca l l y, as the B oard st at ed, “ the un i l at er al el i m i nat i on of a l ongs t a ndi ng e c onom i c be ne f i t2 da y s be f

or e the e l e c t i on w oul d r e a s onabl y s e nd a m e s s a g e to u n it e m p lo y e e s th a t th e s e e m in g in ab ility o f th e in c u m b e n t U n io n to prot ec tthem fr om the E m pl oyer ’ s detri m ent al ac t i on s m ade the U ni on ’ s c on t i nu ed pr e s e nc e a s a ba r ga i ni ng r e pr e s e nt a t i ve poi nt l e s s . ” L a ke M a ry , 2005 W L 2115871, at*2 . T here fore , L ake M ary’ s e l i m i nat i on of the bo nu s w as suff i ci ent l y c oerc i ve. I n a ddi t i on, the f

i r s tde c e r t i f

i c a t i on e l e c t i on w a s ve ry c l os e – 40 t o 37 a g a in s t th e U n io n . A c h a n g e in ju s t af e w v o te s w o u ld h a v e a lte r e d th e o u tc o m e . S e e N . L . R . B . v. O ve r l a nd H a ul i ng, I nc . , 461 F . 2d 944, 946- 47 ( 5th C i r . 1972) ( “ C onduc tw hi c h c oul d ha ve a f f e c t e d onl ya f

e w vot e r s m a y notha ve a ny e f f e c ton the ul t i m a t e out c om e of the e l e c t i on i n c a s e s w he r e the vot e di s pa r i ty i s l a r ge , but the sa m e c on du cti n a cl ose e l ec t i on coul d b e det erm i nat i ve. ”) ; G ul f S t at es C anners , 58 5 F . 2d at75 9 (“ [W ] hen, as i s the ca se here , a c hang e of onl y afe w vo t es w ou l d aff

ec tthe ou t com e of the el ec t i on , l es s e gregi ou s a ct i on s m ayre qu i re9

ar e run of

the e l e c t i on tha n ac a s e i n w hi c h a c l e a r - c utc hoi c e ha s e m e r ge d f r om the ba l l ot i ng. ” ) . A l though L a ke M a ry r e i ns t a t e d the e xtr as hi f tbonus j us tpr i ort o the e le c tio n , a ll o f

th e C N A s w e r e n o t n o tif ie d o f th is c h a n g e o f

h e a r t b e f

o r e th e p o lls o p e n e d . I n s te a d , L a k e M a ry r e lie d u p o n “w o r d o f m o u th .” G iv e n th e e x tr e m e ly na rr ow vot i ng m a r gi n a nd a l l the othe rc i r c um s t a nc e s s urr oundi ng the e l i m i na t i on o f th e b o n u s, su b stan ti al ev id en ce su p p o rts th e B o ar d ’s fin d in g th at L ak e M ar y’s c onduc tha d at e nde nc y t o i nf l ue nc e the r e s ul t s of

the e l e c t i on. L a k e M a ry a r g u e s th a t th e U n io n , a s th e o b je c tin g p a r ty , f

a ile d to m e e t its bur de n t o s how tha tL a ke M a ry i nt e nt i ona l l y e l i m i na t e d the bonus t o a f f e c tthe e l e c t i on. T he obj e c t i ng pa r ty , how e ve r , ne e d nots how a n i nt e ntt o i nf l ue nc e the e l e c t i on. S e e G ul f

S t a t e s C a nne r s , 585 F . 2d a t759. R a the r , “ [ i ] n de t e rm i ni ng w hether a n el ec t i on shou l d b e i nv al i dat ed, the focus s ho ul d b e on the ef fe ct s of a pa r t i c ul a ra c ton the e l e c t or a t e r a the rtha n on the a c t or ’ s i nt e nt . ” I d. L ake M ary a l so ar gu es that , even i f i nt entw as no tnece ss ary, the B oard none the l e s s m a de a n uns uppor t e d f i ndi ng tha tL a ke M a ry a c t e d w i th i nt e nt . L a ke M a ry poi nt s t o unr e butt e d e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d s how i ng tha tthe e l i m i na t i on of the bo nu s w as a m i st ake r es ul t i ng fr om a m i sc om m un i ca t i on . L ake M ary f urther c ont e nds tha tthe B oa r d “ e f f e c t i ve l y ” s hi f

t e d the bur de n of

pe r s ua s i on t o the E m p lo y e rb y ig n o r in g th e u n r e b u tte d e v id e n c e o f in n o c e n t m is ta k e .10

T hese ar gu m ent s a re w i tho utm er i t . T he B oard di d n otfi nd thatL ake M ary i nt e nt i ona l l y e l i m i na t e d the bonus i n a n e f f or tt o a f f e c tthe e l e c t i on. I nde e d, the B oard expl i ci t l y r ej ec t ed L ake M ary’ s a rgum entthati nt ent i on al cond uctw as ne c e s s a ry a nd i ns t e a d f

oc us e d on w he the rthe c onduc tt e nde d t o e f f e c tthe e l e c t i on, as fo l l o w s: I n de t e rm i ni ng w he the rc onduc ti s obj e c t i onabl e , the B oa r d doe s not in q u ir e w h e th e rth e e m p lo y e r ’s a c tio n s w e r e in te n tio n a l o ra c tu a lly af fe ct ed the re sul t s of the el ec t i on . T he t es ti s nota s ubj ec t i ve on e, bu tan obj ec t i ve det erm i nat i on of w hether the cond uctof a party t o an el ec t i on has the t endency t o i nt er fe re w i th the em pl oyee s’ fr ee choi ce . L ak e M ar y, 2 0 0 5 W L 2 1 1 5 8 7 1 , at * 2 . T h e B o ar d fu rth erstated th at L ak e M ar y’s s u b je c tiv e in te n t w a s “n o t g e rm a n e to w h e th e rth e c o n d u c t w a s o b je c tio n ab le .” I d . I ns t e a d, i n c onc l udi ng tha tthe U ni on m e ti t s bur de n, the B oa r d r e l i e d upon “ the t i m i ng of the a nnounc e m e ntof

the e l i m i na t i on of

the bonus 2 da y s be f

or e the e le c tio n , th e w id e d is s e m in a tio n o f th e a n n o u n c e m e n t, th e c lo s e n e s s o f th e v o te and the E m pl oyer ’ s f

ai l ure t o eff

ec t i vel y i nform em pl oyee s thatthe bo nu s had been r e s t or e d. ” I d. F i na l l y , L a ke M a ry a l s o a r gue s tha tthe e l i m i na t i on of the e xtr a - s hi f

tbonus w a s de m i ni m i s be c a us e i tl a s t e d onl y 24 hour s a nd w a s r e s c i nde d be f or e the e l e c t i on be ga n. T he B oa r d ha s l ong he l d tha tc onduc tdur i ng a“ c r i t i c a l e l e c t i on p e r io d ,” th a t is its e lf

a v io la tio n o f

S e c tio n 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) o f

th e N L R A , is “a f

o r tio r i” c onduc ttha ti nt e r f

e r e s w i th the r e s ul t s of

the e l e c t i on. A i r s tr e a m , I nc . , 30411

N . L . R . B . 151, 152 ( 1991) . H ow e ve r , the B oa r d ha s c a rve d outa na rr ow e xc e pt i on to th is p e rs e ru le w h e r e th e c o n d u c t “is s o d e m in im is th a t it is v ir tu a lly im p o s s ib le t o c onc l ude tha t[ the vi ol a t i on] c oul d ha ve a f f e c t e d the r e s ul t s of

the e l e c t i on. ” I d. (quo t at i on m arks om i tt ed). T hi s i s nota c as e i n w hi ch the B oard concl ud ed thatthe chal l enged con du ct i t se l f w as an un fa i r l abor pract i ce thatvi ol at ed S ec t i on 8(a) (1). Indeed, the B oard e xpl i c i t l y de c l i ne d t o do s o, i ns t e a d c onc l udi ng tha tthe e l i m i na t i on of the bonus i nt er fe re d w i th the el ec t i on i nd ependentof any S ec t i on 8(a) (1) f i nd i ng . L ake M ary

, 2005 W L 2115871, a t*3. F ur the rm or e , gi ve n the c i r c um s t a nc e s a l r e a dy di sc usse d – the t i m i ng of the el i m i nat i on of the bo nu s, the w i despre ad di ss em i nat i on of the change i n p ol i cyand the re sul t i ng t ensi on i n the w orkp l ac e, the c l os e ne s s of

the vot e , e t c . – i ti s not“ vi r tua l l y i m pos s i bl e ” t o c onc l ude tha tthe el i m i nat i on of the bo nu s a ff ec t ed the el ec t i on re sul t s. T here fore , w e c anno tsa y tha tL a ke M a ry ’ s c onduc t , e ve n a s s um i ng a r gue ndo i tw a s a vi ol a t i on of S e c t i on 8 (a)(1 ), w as d e m i n i m i s. F orthe r e a s ons di s c us s e d, w e de ny L a ke M a ry ’ s pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w a nd g r a n t th e B o a r d ’s c r o s s - ap p lic a tio n f o re n f o r c e m e n t. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D; E NF OR CE ME NT GR AN T E D.