that the Union’s misrepresentations, if any existed, were not so egregious as to justify setting aside the election. The standard for setting aside an election is as follows: There may be cases where no forgery can be proved, but where the misrepresentation is so pervasive and the deception so artful that employees will be unable to separate truth from untruth and where their right to a free and fair choice will be affected. We agree with the Board that it should not set aside an election on the basis of the substance of representations alone, but only on the deceptive manner in which representations are made. Van Dorn Plastic Mach. Co. v. NLRB, 736 F.2d 343, 348 (6th Cir.1984). See also Con-tech Div., SPX Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 164 F.3d 297, 307 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). 1. “Vote Yes” petition . Maremont argues that
holding that employees retaliatory discharge based on employees election to public office did not violate public policy holding that an employer could only distribute its proposal to union employees when the proposal was properly before the union holding that a settlement agreement between dana and the union rendered an appeal moot even though the agreement effectively prevented dana from communicating with its employees regarding a union campaign at one of danas subsidiaries holding in a case involving not intraunion politics but rather a matter of an employer requiring the union to carry out the penalty provision of a collective bargaining agreement that the statutory term otherwise disciplined is narrowly confined to regulatory actions that affect a union members rights or status as a member of the union that the sanctions imposed were employmentrelated rather than internal union related and that the safeguards in  411a5 were not available for such action holding that letters from the union during an election campaign containing arguably misleading statements did not affect the employees right to a free and fair choice