contrary evidence. Indeed, the General Counsel never even objected to Mullican Lumber’s evidence. Finally, the General Counsel argues that the Company could have made efforts to corroborate better the evidence that it had, stating in his brief: [Plant Manager] Burchfield admitted that he never saw the [decertification] “slips” mentioned in the letter and did not ask Carroll to provide him with copies of them. Moreover, the Company “made no effort to verify the statements in Carroll’s letter.” [Citing to the ALJ’s opinion]. Although these points may be true, they do not address the evidence that was in fact admitted. Moreover, they ignore established Board policy that prohibits the employer from asking its employees for decertification slips. See Air Prods. & Chems., 717 F.2d at 144-45 (<HOLDING>); Madeira Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. NLRB, 615 F.2d
holding that  8e protected an employers speech undertaken to correct any misunderstandings informing employees that their signed union cards were not confidential and that the employer retained the right to discharge or discipline employees for cause holding that the board may not dictate specific procedures and rules that a union must adopt not that the board errs when it determines that a union engaged in unfair labor practices by failing to operate in accordance with objective criteria holding that the plaintiffs acted on behalf of all union members and reimbursing the attorneys fees from the union treasury such that all union members in effect equally contributed to the costs of litigation 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 holding that a county had no duty to bargain with a union of its employees