before May 9 that he wanted nothing to do with union representation and neither did Emerson. Id. at 188. The evidence accepted in Transpersonnel, and indeed in Levitz, are the same types of evidence presented by Mullican Lumber — statements received from its employees, who were members of the bargaining unit, who presumably voted, and who presented this information in an effort to accelerate the decertification process. The General Counsel also argues that in cases applying the Levitz standard, the probative value of hearsay evidence should be slight. We need not, however, decide the relevant weight of the evidence presented by Mullican Lumber — except to conclude that it was sufficiently substantial to be probative — inasmuch as the General Counsel offered 8, 731 (6th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>); Heritage Hall, 333 N.L.R.B. 458, 458 n. 4
holding that educational records are not privileged under ferpa holding that communications to the police are conditionally privileged holding that trial court properly refused to permit disclosure of privileged communications in part because use of the privileged information was not essential to the defense holding that authorization cards are privileged from disclosure to employer holding that the inadvertent disclosure of a privileged document does not waive the attorneyclient privilege if attorney took all reasonable steps to avoid disclosure and asserted the privilege as soon as the disclosure became known