National Labor Relations Board v. Gruber's Super Market, Inc.
501 F.2d 697
7th Cir.
1974
Check Treatment

*1 kept property jury enti the one who the books or had sold. The was from of the reject supervision as not over them.” v. assessment Sabatino Baker’s tled probative prop Bank, fair value of Curtis National of the (CA 1969). place erty In of sale. at the time and testimony of Gresham addition Affirmed. jury anit ex had before and Baker the consisting of the record SBA’s hibit company prepared sale auction The ex the auction.

which conducted copies of advertisements

hibit contained company

placed by concern the auction expenses sale, in records LABOR RELATIONS NATIONAL conducting and in curred the sale Petitioner, BOARD, buyers at a de the sale with voices v. scription prices of and the received MARKET,INC., property sold. On basis SUPER GRUBER’S Respondent. testimony advertisements Gresham’s registered that about 140 bidders No. 73-1269. present, “some of whom Appeals, Court United States must have property,” one or more bid lots Seventh Circuit. jury did, find, Argued Jan. 1974. “commercially sale was having found, reasonable.”7 And Aug. so 1974. Decided jury was entitled to infer that the total

amount tiary at received the sale eviden was goods.8 of the fair value

This inference combined with Gresham’s

lower assessment of their minimum fair support

value is sufficient to the conclu government sion that the met its burden proving preponderance by a of the ev goods

idence that the fair value of the at the time and sale did ex $31,696.98,

ceed the net amount received sale.9 contention the exhibit properly

discussed above was not within exception

the hearsay business records

rule is without merit. na testimony plus

ture of exhibit brought

Gresham it within the federal statute, records U.S.C. §

1732(a). require “The does not Act the foundation come except price 7. least sale where At it was entitled to find that foreclosure received as to value of notice to Baker Simon sale is the evidence' that goods publi- “commercially reasonable,” is, is less well or where the sale respects in all Bar- other than this one. See conducted so cized or conducted price property. Horn, to return a fair Ark. 432 S.W.2d ker (evidence (1968) received amount Blair, (Tex. Of., 8. Kolbo v. 379 S.W.2d private sale, more, is not sufficient without Ot.Civ.App.1964). party’s where no to meet the secured burden given). imply party may us. case is before We do not that a secured notice is No such bootstrap way to a verdict based on the *2 Acting Moore, Elliott Asst. Gen. Counsel, Bernstein, Atty., William M.

N.L.R.B., Washington, C., peti- D. tioner. Gilmer, 111., Chicago, Frank B. for re-
spondent. HASTINGS, Before Senior Circuit Judge, SPRECHER, and PELL and Cir- Judges. cuit Judge. PELL, Circuit The National Labor Relations Board (Board) seeks enforcement of its order 1973, against February 5, issued Gru- Super Market, (Gruber’s) (201 ber’s Inc. NLRB No. principal issue before the court is
whether a Gissel1 order should be en- single forced when there has been a of unfair labor act practice arguable de- monstrability and an absence of either any other indication anti-union bias protected interference with rights under the National Labor Rela- tions Act.

I. operated Gruber’s had owned supermarket Bend, Indiana, in South part the better of a decade. In June purchased supermarket, 1970 it Mishawaka, Indiana, located in nine miles from the first store. Al- though separate political municipalities, ap- South Bend and Mishawaka pearance municipality, one continuous and the two stores catered to the same general buying public, operated similarly, and, time, time interchanged between stores. August A Board was held on election

16, 1971, at the store and as a result the Clerk’s Union Local Retail Retail Clerk’s International As- a/w Packing Co., 1. NLRB v. Gissel L.Ed.2d U.S. S.Ct. (Union),

sociation, certi- The election was held as scheduled AFL-CIO agent. resulted in a 5-5 On October fied vote. any attempt record does reflect the Union filed election,2 alleging, inter unit was made to have the conduct of the alia, had interfered of both stores. consist promising the em- of the Mishawaka At about time *3 wage they if voted increases having certification, Union, nine au- the against the Union.3 thorization from the South Bend hearing employees, majority February 16, 1972, the thirteen eli- a a On 5, gible recognition employees, requested objections. April at held the On granted the at the same time it Bend South Bend store the South Gruber’s proposed wage comparable Mish- employees a contract for submitted increases negotiated wanted the awaka. Gruber’s indicated it those that had been put in due course was into effect store and 30,1971. April September for scheduled On there late December 1971. Hearing his Officer issued the September 27, After hours on report objections the on the Union’s Gruber, president Gru- James vice election; he recom- 30th manager of Bend the South ber’s and sustained, objections be mended that two store, meeting that store of called a aside, a the election be set eligible employees there. The re- the excep- filed held. Gruber’s by on that made Gruber marks James and, report, on June tions the occurring occasion, although more than Hearing adopted Officer’s Board the the charged prior unfair six months the recommendations. practice and therefore themselves labor charge, Subsequent con- a increases not a basis such by prior elec- Administrative Law decision on the sidered the to the Board’s light shedding un- Judge (ALJ) objections, had filed Union tion the occurring charges. Adopting practice true character of matters fair period. findings the the and recommendations within the limitation Texas, argued deprived Worth, Mexico, 2. Gruber’s that the Board to Fort New accepting day process by date. of due the Union’s before the due noon of the day objections though they timely Here, mailing the even did occur filed the Indianapolis objections due, but there were received the Board’s post Regional day 7th, testimony by office Bend Office the after October South routing 102.92(a) charge that a letter date ' normally Regulations required. in In- Rules The Board mailed be delivered so would early appear day. dianapolis to im- Board conclud- concedes decisions next that Regional pose rigid requirement processing objections received that that ed actually objections with accords Office receive on or be- under these circumstances merely noting Co., policy. We, that fore the due date. Dunn Motor Board (1952) (objections transpired than 1974 NLRB in 1971 rather refused events might day well have mailed one when before due date but received entirely day late). credi- least not Board’s decision Rio available or at Since the been disagree Mines, Inc., ble, determination 119 NLRB 153 with the de Oro cannot Uranium (1957), however, compliance with the test of made the Board. 102.92(a) section reasonably could be is whether “it allegations were that Gruber’s 3. The other party filing [by assumed “unlawfully with threatened objections] ef- that its actions would have they jobs if voted for hours loss of Hughes timely delivery.” fected Tool “unlawfully and that Retail Clerks Union” KLAS-TV, 197 NLRB No. 178 d/b/a concerning misrepresented procedures Board (1972), Thus, in 80 LRRM n. 21. Rio held could be second election the time a accepted employer’s de Oro Board they Retail Clerks Union.” voted they day although were received investigation, Re- After an adminstrative airmail, reg- gional latter late had been sent because Director recommended objection istered, delivery Albuquerque, special be dismissed. from difficulty finding ALJ, the found that Gruber’s had much illuminative significance by granting request its in the the com- violated section pany increases Bend chance statement South discourage support the Union vote order to refusing to rec- and section Union at a election. While re- later ognize conveyed impression on the basis of the au- the Union marks signed prefer nonunion- thorization cards would store, unit. ized Bend South we are unaware subject any legal management’s preclusion In the order which is the required right present petition, express Further, so to itself. giving to cease and desist these must examined in the remarks discourage in order context of Gruber’s statements bargain company support Union, policy collec- because of interrelat- upon request, Union, tively ed nature of the was to stores maintain *4 post basically pay notice. and to the same scale at the two

stores. II. ALJ, adopted The whose decision was Board, did not discredit the testi- violation, Turning 8(a) (1) first mony policy uniformity had will, ALJ, as did the look first at been established when the store meeting employees three purchased apparently rather determine what the election to being great brushed it aside as without light granting of the is shed on the significance. Giving due deference to wage lat- increase more than six months expertise of the Board in such mat- er, during period indi- there is no ters, difficulty we nevertheless have any activity cation of anti-union consigning heap to the waste such an ob- part company. viously true fact of economic life which present purpose, For the we note the operation is bound to in the occur statement of its brief multiple, type single similar stores this court: employees area. Whether “He asked each Gruber] [James plant employer nonunion will why ployee union. Most he wanted a choose to ride dues free on the coat tails employees they were concerned said employees plant in another wages. their Gruber said that company which has been unionized give Company could not afford to operated which is located and in a them at that time be- virtually and a manner so as to mandate expenses opening cause of incurred in working maintenance uniform store and reminded wages conditions and is a choice not in- ‘wage employees the national put. frequently We further are not un- August freeze’ had been on since put, mindful that when the choice is He said did if the Union not win majority voting employees will' fre- election, Bend South quently they prefer determine get any comparable would raise dispense with the free ride favor of negotiated the Mishawaka store representation. union We know of no employees. the em- He added reasons that at Gruber’s ployees give Company should were not entitled to be informed pointed out that the em- chance uniformity obvious truth as to the fac- opportuni- another would have tor. The Board itself has on numerous ty period to vote for the Union after representation proceedings occasions in of time if failed to satis- recognized uniform-treatment fact fy (Citations omitted.) them.” by authorizing of economic life area- light April wage The of multi- shed units cases wide caliginous ple simply metropolitan is a one. stores in a area creases We pro- uniformity of conditions III. because primary objec- peace, industrial motes employer’s reasons for The Relations the National Labor tive of actions determine whether the Company, g., See, e. The Interstate Act. by conferring violates section (1957); At- Great 118 NLRB 746 The during an election cam benefits either paign Company, 119 Pacific Tea lantic & objec or after an while Stores, (1957); Food Fair NLRB 603 pending. example, For no vio tions are Drug (1958); Katz 120 NLRB 497 increases an lation occurs (1959); Company, Chi- 123 NLRB 1615 grants simply implementa cago Newspapers, 124 NLRB North Side practice peri tions of its well-settled (1959); House Interstate Glass 254 Restaurants, etc., raises; practice, or, odic absent such a NLRB 101 justify compelling reasons ALJ, however, that James found employer’s unilateral to furnish decision promised com- Gruber However, new benefits. wages parable “voted if the “prohibits . against at the election.” the Union immediately favorable regard record, without express is undertaken with which purpose testimony, is extreme- to James Gruber’s upon impinging their free susceptible ly equivocal. of inter- It is dom of choice unioniza promise pretation on the one hand as a reasonably tion to have and is calculated wages contingent upon an increase in Exchange that effect.” NLRB Parts *5 including voting against factors several Co., 405, 409, 457, 84 11 375 U.S. S.Ct. susceptible equally But it is the Union. (1964). L.Ed.2d NLRB v. Fur 435 interpretation aas the other hand of on (7th nas Electric 669 463 F.2d that, or not there statement whether Drives, Inc., 1972); 440 Cir. NLRB v. store, Bend was a union at the South (7th 1971); Texaco, F.2d 363 policy for the under the uniform two NLRB, v. Inc. wages negoti- comparable those to stores 1971); & Allied General Teamsters expected.4 ated at Mishawaka could be NLRB, Workers Union No. U.S.App.D.C. 312, ambiguity Despite the remarks the reported as the on of the remarks

fact that employees the basis The found—and ALJ might well have concluded effect) (and agreed purpose —that wage they increases that to assure wage grant a increases at of Gruber’s Union rather indeed vote for the should possibility of a it faced time when against it, proceed on will than we sup- to erode Union rerun election was light was shed that some nebulous basis among port employees at the South wage subsequent in- unilateral however, Gruber’s, main- unit. creases, Bend now turn. which we clerk, Douglas Way, part-time “if we didn’t had said fied that Gruber a stock tes- 4. comparable bearing to the February be our union that tified at em- Mishawaka [the union contract with . . if didn’t had declared “. we Gruber hearing, August. ployees].” be, you get 10th At don’t a union in we would —I Sappington testi- exactly didn’t, Howard he former said we but know he if if said, compa- we didn’t get “[I]f fied that Gruber had ... raise said we would get they got get raise our a union that we would rable to the other store soon comj)arable once (Emphasis added.) store negotiating.” to the At done ” negotiations . . . . hearing, over stated their that same David Jozwiak ten-year veteran, Margaret Ellis, tes- question And “. there much, promised salary had not tified that Gruber about I can’t recall too they against ployees wage voted something if that, increases said I that he recall promise, “No, guess, raise, that was Union. I if the that we would receive would we it. Just we voted a raise.” union would receive wasn’t possible get for them (Emphasis added.) Horvath, raise when a former Ken give store, us one.” clerk Bend testi- stock the South build-up employee pressure from lawful tains that it acted motives, economic for more money prior April 5th, animus. not anti-Union much less staffing problem hampered which indicated, timing As we have Company’s business.” The or other benefits unilat- supports record this evaluation. Accord- significant erally is a factor conferred family, members Gruber Here, in section cases. Grub- they received, most, eight seven or in- granted er’s increases while substantial quiries, made three or four of the pre-election objections Union’s employees, wages. Four of these September conduct of inquiries September occurred between hearing pending. The were still December, is, manage- objections had taken those seven grant ment had decided the increases. grant, February prior weeks The two veteran who raised Hearing Officer issued the response accepted matter after December management’s report, his critical con- the Union’s recommending —that holding duct and would first have to resolved—with no just five after they might intimation that leave their gave Bend Gruber’s its South jobs. Furthermore, between changes increases. April 5, 1972, only 1971 and two em- hourly ranged rates from 20 to one cents ployees who had voted in the election comparable dollar and were to the in- employment. left Gruber’s And the as- negotiated creases Union had corporation’s sertions officials for the at the Mishawaka su- experiencing difficulty permarket gone and which into ef- finding help were confirmed fect there in December 1971. objective sum, evidence. In in rebuttal Although acquisition the Mishawaka Gruber’s failed to show that it had suf- occurred in the record June does injury justify fered such toas its uni- unequivocally establish that lateral proc- action while Board was South Bend had been essing objections, the Union’s the sus- parity poli- formed of asserted taining probably require would *6 cy September 27, until 1971—three that a rerun election be held. prior representation to the scheduled lag, As for the time on which Gru- election and after Mishawaka relies, although hearing ber’s Even if become unionized. we as- objections arising out of the sume, arguendo, did that James Gruber did take until management not commit to a hike February 1972, there was no reason for reject should corporation’s officials to assume that Union, junc- the announcement at that Hearing Officer would not soon is- suggests policy ture uniform sue his decision and recommendations. attempt employees’ an to obviate the pay not have been Further, need for the if the Union. granted pursuance in manage- previously South Bend workers had been parity policy ment’s until or December corporation’s sup- informed about the January, and Gruber’s counsel at that posed policy, saw evidence of it corporation’s time advised the officials April 1972, until when and taking such action. After so the Union in an were embroiled election long period raises, of no it is “curi- controversy. ous,” remarks, its brief found that ALJ Gruber’s had Gruber’s decided it could not wait any Hearing “failed to show that there decision Officer course, double-edged implica- tendency impact 5. Of this has have some to minimize the Q-issel tions for issue since the lack the unilateral increase free employee pressure an increase would choice in an election. least. NLRB v. Furnas Electric IV. at (7th 1972), F.2d Cir. We turn now to finding sustained a Board where we bargaining violation and the or- Board's Company’s “that announcement der. wages benefits, prior increase in and an Gissel, at knowledge In 395 U.S. at S.Ct. a new of the date that held, 547, the Court 23 L.Ed.2d excep- held, and while election was be alia, bargaining ter “a is an Board, order pending tions were remedy and authorized practice.” an unfair Contrast labor rejects major- a card where NLRB, 124-125 Monroe v. F.2d committing ity 1972). same time (4th while Cir. practices un- that tend to unfair labor question is “The on this review not majority make the union’s and dermine interpreted the whether we would have unlikely possibility a fair election an employer’s intention did the Board ” Although the Court es- instance, whether the first per rule, approve se chewed a did resolution this factual issue (1) order issuance of a supported by evidence is substantial “exceptional” cases marked “outra- whole as a the record considered geous” “pervasive” unfair labor ” Luxuray York v. of New practices if can- their “coercive effects” NLRB, (2d Cir. reme- not be eliminated traditional Although conduct here was not dies, extraordinary (2) “in less eas- employer in Tex- like blatant aco, pervasive practices marked less es Inc., supra, transparently manip- tendency which nonetheless still have like condemned in Tower ulative Enterprises, strength to undermine (1970), Inc., 182 NLRB 382 processes.” impede Id. the election (9th enforced, 79 LRRM 2736 613-614, 89 at 1940. S.Ct. opinion, 1972), did, in our satisfy proof. Contrast its burden case, as II and III of our This Parts Ambox, NLRB v. indicate, clearly opinion does not involve 1966), “outrageous” practices. unfair be “made the increases would clear that Because had a valid card ma- the Union granted retroactively as soon as the elec- recognition, jority requested when up, cleared tion promise remaining determinative —issue —and not made de- of benefits was present with- whether the situation falls pendent of the election on the outcome category broad mentioned the second proceeding.” circum- Under these present stances, our found Gissel. *7 case, Fifth Circuit concluded that NLRB, America, of In Peerless Inc. v. pre-election prohibition extend the “[t]o 1973), 484 we F.2d 1118 post-election period reminded the Board that unnecessarily seriously curtail the would rights employees.” employers of and consistently held that Gis- “[w]e contemplates must sel that the Board Although consider the a we case findings’ ‘specific as to the im- make scope one, of the

close on the basis impact of the mediate and residual review, uphold part of our we that practices the election unfair labor on decision and order which found Board’s granting wage process make and the Board must that Gruber’s increas that assessing 5, 1972, pos- April analysis’ had violated section ‘a detailed es holding sibility 8(a)(1) required to election and which cease fair any continuing of mis- and from such in the fu terms of effect desist conduct recurring conduct, ture. likelihood 704 misconduct, potential reviewing effec- terms can courts under- ordinary Stencils, tiveness remedies.” stand.” NLRB v. General Cf. Inc., (2d 472 F.2d decision here consists of The Board's reviewing The usual course for a conclusions; Peerless, stark and Gissel court that finds the Board’s actions un provide however, demand that satisfactory we have here —is re to —as satisfactory explanation for its choice agency may mand the matter so that bargaining remedy order supply missing findings analy employer practices unfair supra, Peerless, 1119; sis. represent majority the union claims to Employees NLRB Food Store Un cf. in a unit basis ion, 1, 8-11, Local U.S. S. of authorization cards. The decision Ct. 40 L.Ed.2d 612 How why specifics here as to furnishes ever, analysis conclude on “[w]e “the risks a fair rerun election simple facts involved that we would be might possible great not be too to abdicating judicial our function disregard the desires of the shirking responsibilities our if we ever already expressed through the cards.” bargaining enforced a order in this case. Gissel, supra, U.S. 89 S.Ct. Consequently, in our desire to avoid at 1941.7 delay, and futile needless shall make judicial The Board’s reliance on defer- analysis deny essential enforce expertise ence to administrative Peerless, supra, ment.” 484 F.2d at

misplaced.8 Judge Cummings point- As 1120. Peerless, supra, ed out 484 F.2d at n.16, presumed exper- that, contrary the Board’s firstWe note tise contention, the Board of “does relieve its record does responsibility explain employer’s open, conclusions reveal continu- 8(a)(1), lingering dissent See the of Chairman Miller in Gen- is such as to have a ef- Stencils, Inc., 1608, 1611, eral 79 LRRM fect and to make it unlikely the use (1972), enforcement or- traditional insure remedies will a fair denied, Cir.) (2d unambiguous der : rerun election. . . . The per- represent “No recent decisional has more . task . . therefore a more plexed Board, this or confounded the reliable measure of desire on the decisions, representation courts which review our than issue of case. . . . this Accordingly, Respondent by us in Gissel: . committed to To deter- . . re- bargain fusing recognize mine an whether order is an Union basis remedy engaged of its interfer- authorization cards in con- rights protected ence Section 7 duct violative of Section Act. bargaining . . which we . standards Board has held that a must whether enter an order is here, [such] decide under warranted Gissel amorphous. where, uniquely order . . . refuses rec- ognition . . . The . abun- Court . . made cards from a of the em- dantly grants . . aim . . clear . of our . and thereafter inquiry quantify high per- must be substantial somehow increases to impact upon employees centage follows from in violation of employer. unlawful their Section the Act. O & G Electric, Inc., 426; . I do not doubt the state- 172 NLRB Tower En- by Respondent terprises, ments could have affected 182 NLRB note 1.” atmosphere, [Footnote interfered with omitted.] *8 choice, employee the free exercise of brief, placed empha In its the Board some prevented the conduct a fair rerun of elec- opinion, sis on a footnote to the Gissel my view, however, tion. In there is not U.S. at 612 n. 89 S.Ct. at which showing sufficient [Foot- that occurred.” provides part: fashioning in “In its reme notes omitted.] provisions 10(c) dies under § the broad of justification imposition (29 160(c)), 7. The Board’s of for the the Act § U.S.C. bargaining expertise knowledge of a order was that draws on a fund of “Respondent’s giving own, remedy in all all the em- and its choice of must ployees bargaining given special respect by in the a substan- unit therefore be review wage increase, ing tial in of violation Section courts.” though controlling, some, employ- hostility not An Union. We the ous weight changed composition of the unioniza- lack of enthusiasm er’s equivalent the store. the force at South Bend the work is not tion of his workers complement at the Almost Gruber’s half the work animus.” James of “anti-union n ambig- pertinent injudicious, here have left Gruber’s remarks, also times employment; Further, purpose most former of our of these for the uous. high ascertaining who school students the bar- reasonableness college positions. gaining order, or to went other context which the supra 1121; significant, Peerless, NLRB v. is increases occurred Stencils, Inc., though granting the of those General even (2d it is the n.5 an violation. “Since creases constituted Enterpris- employer present de- force that be in Tower work stands Unlike the exercising es, Inc., prived supra, choice did not award of its free Gruber’s preferred process, fact the heels increases hot on the of election substantially recognition. Also, it different is union’s demand for justifications the one existed at asserted which the time - employer clumsy of misconduct militates issuance Tower were here, reasons, bargaining makeweights; order where, in con- Gruber’s clearly though remedy trast, not drastic otherwise found not to sufficient- be Peerless, ly supra, supported by warranted.” evidence in the record to successfully at 1121. Board’s determi- rebut comport any

nation, those that procedures appli- ordinary owner of small similar stores would two determination of whether cable likely offer, and, pre- be as we have repre- employees unit of to be desires viously observed, with the facts of eco- a union make available sented life. nomic calling privilege for a governmentally-supervised secret elec- Second, the not record does disclose tion. in a democ- This is as should be following that, talk, James racy. course, many instances Of employees South Bend lost interest provides use authorization cards Indeed, day, the Union. next harmony. expeditious route to industrial is, two before the some if sign hand, pressures au- On the other not all the unit’s attended an unknown, thorization are not cf. meeting sponsored by informational Corp., F.2d 239 NLRB v. Tel. Urban Texaco, Inc., supra, Union. Contrast and, person- 1974), Cir., because where, subsequent to two sessions with arising daily al factors work- out supervisor Texaco’s rela- among relationship employees, fellow tions and the employ- rectification of always easily resisted. vot- grievances, ment wrote ing booth, no over the one looks informing the union employee’s shoulder, is ideal forum longer representation. desired its expression for the the free choice employee. each It is one when Third, entry prongs of Gissel becomes an onlooker cease and order desist in the a re- booth that there should be posting anof notice about it recognition sort to of the bar- the forced will decrease likelihood of the recur- gaining may order, may be rence of employer. misconduct majori- accord with the desires of And the will be informed of ty granting kinds of benefits those affected. improper. which the Board finds In ad- sum, In order dition, will notice present unrea- case is unwarranted been has determined concededly superior sonable. “[T]he guilty to have been of an unfair process should take its course.” practice. Peerless, supra. *9 deny Accordingly, of we enforcement directing part of the Board’s order Nancy DUKES, Con- Louisiana d/b/a bargain Gruber’s to However, with the Union. cessions, Plaintiff-Appellant, enforce the Board’s deter- mination and of an violation The CITY and OF NEW ORLEANS point. cease-and-desist directive on that Landrieu, Moon Honorable proposed course, notice, The Board’s Defendants-Appellees. will have be modified conform to to No. 73-3979 holdings. with our Summary Calendar.* (concur- Judge SPRECHER, Circuit Appeals, United States Court dissenting ring part part). Fifth Circuit. Sept. 27, portion Judge I concur opinion whereby the Pell’s Board’s order

is enforced. I dissent from denial of enforce- directing part the order

ment bargain union. with the

My doing reason for I believe so promise that the days three tenden-

before the election had “the strength

cy majority undermine

impede processes.” Nation- Pack-

al Labor Relations Board v. Gissel 575, 614, U.S. 89 S.Ct. 23 L.Ed.2d 547

The nine authorization cards

out thirteen indicated opposed only four shortly prior Aft-

union election. promised wage increase, elec- er the indicating five, vote five

tion

change definitely op- one vote

posed employees, the union. Three hand, apparently

the other who enough signed were influenced having voting without abstain changed philosophy to that of their labor words, In other

anti-union.

temporarily tends to mollified. This causal connection between

show much promised increase the tainted reasonably

vote as can ever be traced. analysis possibility holding under these a fair election (footnote 7 of

circumstances

opinion) “specific find- sufficient satisfy ings” my Peerless of view to

America, Inc. v. Rela- National Labor Board,

tions F.2d 1108 * 18, Cir.; Enterprises, Casualty Company Rule Isbell see Inc. v. Citizens York New et al., Part I.