election unless it is so de minimis that it is ‘virtually impossible to conclude that [the violation] could have affected the results of the election.’ ” Airstream, Inc., 304 NLRB 151, 152 (1991) (quoting Enola Super Thrift, 233 NLRB 409, 409, 1977 WL 9300 (1977)). The Employer argues that this principle extends to every violation of the NLRA, not just violations of Section 8(a)(1). However, none of the cases addressing violations of other provisions, including Section 8(g), have treated such violations as inherently interfering with an election. See Regent Assisted Living v. NLRB, No. 05-1185, — FedAppx.-, 2006 WL 994565 (D.C.Cir.2006) (rejecting the argument that all NLRA violations, a fortiori, interfere with elections); Ara Living Centers, 300 NLRB 888, 888, 1990 WL 250760 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Holt Bros., 146 NLRB 383, 384, 1964 WL 15697
holding the connection is an element holding that the fourth amendment requires a finding of probable cause as a condition for any significant pretrial restraint of liberty holding that section 8g has no significant connection with the restraint and coercion of employees holding that mental coercion led to an involuntary confession holding that a government officer has the right to use some degree of physical coercion to effect an arrest