A week before a certification election, a WalShop store manager(who resides in Walnut) walks by a Rancho Cucamonga church in orderto observe a union organizing meeting she read about on a bulletinboard in the employee cafeteria.  According to her roughcount, approximately a hundred of the 250 employees at the storewere attending.  She looks for familiar faces from thesidewalk outside (and makes notes of what she observes) but doesnot attempt to make contact with anyone going inside thechurch.    After several nervous employeescalled the manager’s presence out to the union supporter, ArturoCruz, Cruz comes outside and orders the manager toleave.  After a brief argument, the manager departs butnot before wagging her finger at the church and shouting “Unionswill be the death of us all!”   The union loses theelection by a close margin (120 in favor of certification, 130against).  Shortly thereafter, the union files an unfairlabor charge against WalShop claiming that the supervisor’spresence and words constituted a “threat of reprisal” and therebyinvalidated the election.  In testimony before theAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ), the supervisor states she wasmerely in the neighborhood and walked by out ofcuriosity.  Management tells the ALJ that it neitherordered nor was aware of the supervisor’s action at the time itoccurred. A regional vice president admitted, however, that hereceived a memo from the manager the day after the meetingdescribing what she had seen (including the names of some prominentemployees in attendance) but claims to have taken no action basedon the memo.   Does the union need to prove that anunfair labor practice charge occurred in order to invalidate theelection?  Without regard to whether an unfair laborpractice can be proven, should the election be ruled invalid (besure to name the appropriate test the NLRB uses for judgingelections and analyze the facts to determine whether that test canbe proven)?  Be sure to explain your answer.