improperly withdrew recognition of the Union in violation of Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Most of the events alleged to establish a lack of union support came after a period when Beverly Farm refused to bargain, and during this very same period Beverly Farm committed unfair labor practices, suggesting that its behavior enabled it to undermine the Union. In addition, the Board found that many of Beverly Farm’s actions constituting unfair labor practices took place during the certification year. Under the circumstances of this case, we feel the Board properly concluded that Beverly Farm was not able to rely on the employees’ inaction to excuse its illegal behavior and its withdrawal of recognition violated Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. See Hi-Tech Cable, 128 F.3d at 279 (<HOLDING>). Beverly Farm also objects to the Board’s
holding that the temporal proximity between the unfair labor practices and the withdrawal of recognition allows for a conclusion that employees display of disaffection for their union might have been induced by the companys unlawful actions holding that a close temporal proximity between a public employees speech and a defendants actions suggested a causal relationship holding that intervening misconduct can sever the temporal proximity connection between the protected conduct and the adverse employment recognizing temporal proximity when agency had knowledge of employees protected activity holding that questioning of employees about number of union cards signed placing employees in a position of having to admit or deny union support and participating in antiunion petition were all unfair labor practices