National Labor Relations Board v. Import Motors II, Inc. Dba Audi Concord

discussion about a proposed ballot signing meeting. Because “a clear

preponderance of all the relevant evidence” does not convince us that the Hearing

Officer’s credibility determinations were incorrect, we refuse to disturb them. Bell

Foundry Co. v. NLRB, 827 F.2d 1340, 1343 (9th Cir. 1987).

Finally, contrary to Audi Concord’s allegations, Hudec did not directly

3 attribute her apprehension “about how to vote” to the proposed restaurant meeting.

Instead, she explained that it would be “obvious who votes which way” because

there were “only so many people here.” The Hearing Officer reasonably inferred

that Hudec’s concerns were “based primarily on the fact that because it was a small

unit, most other members of the unit would know from the results how she voted.”

Because substantial evidence supports the Hearing Officer’s findings, the Board

properly rejected Audi Concord’s allegations of objectionable ballot solicitation.

2. The Board also correctly rejected Audi Concord’s claim that the video call

constituted unlawful electioneering under Milchem, Inc., 170 N.L.R.B. 362 (1968).

In Milchem, the Board established a “strict rule” against “prolonged…