zone and contrary to a Board agent’s direct instructions. Nathan Katz, 251 F.3d at 992-93; Star Expansion Industries, 170 NLRB at 365; Detroit Creamery, 60 NLRB at 180. The cases the Employer cites do show that electioneering near a polling place can interfere with employees’ free choice under certain conditions. Nevertheless, under some circumstances the Board has determined that electioneering in the vicinity of a polling place has not interfered with employees’ free choice. Boston Insulated Wire & Cable v. NLRB, 703 F.2d 876, 882 (5th Cir.1983) (refusing to set aside election results where electioneering was conducted directly outside entrance to building but not in a no-electioneering zone or contrary to the instructions of the Board agent); J.P. Transportation, 1998 WL 869984 (<HOLDING>); Chrill Care, Inc., 340 NLRB No. 123, 2003 WL
holding that injury in a parking lot did not occur on a covered situs holding that party agents conversation with arriving voters in parking lot outside of polling place did not appear substantially to have impaired the employees free choice in the election holding that an injury occurring in a parking lot which was leased but not controlled by an employer was compensable because the employer instructed its employees to park in that lot holding that the prisoner should have been allowed to choose whether to leave his car parked in a public parking lot holding that speaking to employees in a parking lot near the polling place while the polls were open did not violate the milchem rule