and they typically involve elements of pressure or inducement.” Id. A certain amount of hyperbole and exaggeration is expected in an election campaign, which is why the responsibility for assessing the relevant facts and deciding whether the union’s conduct interfered with a reasonable employee’s free and fair choice in a representation election lies with the Board. Id. This case is no different. Third and finally, we agree with the Board that, even if Knowles’ statement could somehow be construed as a threat, the statement merely implied that Knowles should not forsake a good relationship with Jones, even if Knowles moved into management, because no one knows what the future may bring. As such, the statement would not coerce a voter or cause a voter to change his or her vote. Cf id. (<HOLDING>). In sum, the Board’s determination that the
holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted holding that a union agent did not engage in coercive conduct when he told employees that they should sign a petition stating they would vote for the union to  separate the men from the boys  recognizing that union members interests are adequately represented by the union holding that a union officials comments may be used to infer the object of union activity holding that a rico action by union members was properly dismissed where any financial improprieties occurred with union funds and directly injured solely the union