The Company also objected that it had been required to furnish an election eligibility list pursuant to the doctrine of Excelsior Underwear, Inc., 156 N.L.R.B. 1236 (1966). The Board's right to require such a list has now been sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States. N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759, 89 S. Ct. 1426, 22 L. Ed. 2d 709 (1969). Union, United Auto, Aerospace, etc., Workers of America, etc. v. N.L.R.B. (Preston Products Co.), 129 U.S.App.D.C. 196, 201, 392 F.2d 801, 806 (1967), dert. den., Preston Products Co. v. N.L.R.B., 392 U.S. 906, 88 S. Ct. 2058, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1364 (1968). Specifically, it was not unreasonable for the Board to conclude that the plain meaning of the Company's words-- particularly in the context of its bluntly expressed hostility to unions-- was that, if the employees chose to exercise their right of organization the Company could and would retaliate by discontinuing its practice of soliciting marginal contracts to avoid loss of work and by closing the plant. It is established law that 'an employer's 'prediction' of untoward economic events may constitute an illegal threat if he has it within his power to make the prediction come true.' International Union of Electrical, etc., Workers v. N.L.R.B. (NECO Electrical Products Corp.), 110 U.S.App.D.C. 91, 97, 289 F.2d 757, 763 (1960). See also I.U.A. v. N.L.R.B. (Preston Products Co.), 129 U.S.App.D.C. 196, 392 F.2d 801 (1967), cert. den., 392 U.S. 906, 88 S. Ct. 2058 (1968); N.L.R.B. v. River Togs, Inc., 382 F.2d 198, 202 (2d Cir. 1967). 'Conveyance of the employer's belief, even though sincere, that unionization will or may result in the closing of the plant is not a statement of fact unless, which is most improbable, the eventuality of closing is capable of proof.' N.L.R.B. v. Sinclair Co., 397 F.2d 157, 160 (1st Cir. 1968), quoted with approval and affirmed in N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575, 618-619, 89 S. Ct. 1918, 23 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1969). Further, the employees were warned of the futility of joining the Union because the Union would only bring strikes and violence without benefit to them. Finally, Mr. Weinsten in his speech plainly solicited and urged the employees to repudiate the Union and provided the necessary information, together with form letters of resignation from the Union, required for them to do so. The Board was justified in finding that such conduct was in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Retail Clerks International Assoc. v. N.L.R.B. (Montgomery Ward & Co.), 125 U.S.App.D.C. 389, 391, 373 F.2d 655, 657 (1967); N.L.R.B. v. Priced-Less Discount Foods, Inc., 405 F.2d 67, 69 (6th Cir. 1968); N.L.R.B. v. S & H Grossinger's Inc., 372 F.2d 26, 29 (2d Cir. 1967); N.L.R.B. v. Movie Star, Inc., 361 F.2d 346, 348-349 (5th Cir. 1966). In summary, there is reasonable support in the record as a whole for the Board's conclusion that the Company's communications were either directly coercive or reasonably could be so construed by the employees and hence were unlawful

The questionnaire, distributed to the employees of the Winfield plant on the day after the election, presents a somewhat closer question. The Company asserts that the information sought by way of the questionnaire was essential to a determination whether the election should be challenged upon the ground that it had been conducted in a coercive atmosphere. Employees were asked to sign their responses, the Company says, because unsigned statements would have been worthless in a proceeding before the Board. It is further argued that the questionnaire was distributed without comment and that no threat to any employee was made in regard to it. The Board, however, found that the interrogation was coercive and in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

We cannot say that the Board's conclusion with respect to the questionaire has no reasonable support in the record. As we said in I.U.A. v. N.L.R.B. (Preston Products Co.), 129 U.S.App.D.C. 196, 204, 392 F.2d 801, 809 (1967), cert. den., 392 U.S. 906, 88 S. Ct. 2058 (1968):

'This court has noted that, because of the conflicting interests involved, a delicate balance must be achieved between the employer's need to prepare adequately for pending unfair labor practice cases and the inherently coercive nature (in violation of an employee's Section 7 rights) of employer interrogation of employees during a labor dispute. Joy Silk Mills v. N.L.R.B., supra, 87 U.S.App.D.C. (360) at 371-372, 185 F.2d (732) at 743-744. In an attempt to strike such a balance, the Board has 'established specific safeguards designed to minimize the coercive impact of such employer interrogation. Thus, the employer must communicate to the employee the purpose of the questioning, assure him that no reprisal will take place, and obtain his participation on a voluntary basis; the questioning must occur in a context free from employer hostility to union organization and must not be itself coercive in nature * * *.' Johnnie's Poultry Co., 146 N.L.R.B. 770, 775 (1964). Cf. International Union of Operating Eng., Local 49 v. N.L.R.B., 122 U.S.App.D.C. 314, 316-318, 353 F.2d 825, 854-856 (1966).'

We note in the case at bar that the questionnaire sought to identify every employee who solicited for the Union in any manner, whether proper or improper, and that the employees were not told the purpose of the questionnaire nor were they assured that no reprisals would be taken for Union activity. Furthermore, the leading nature of many of the questions-- e.g., 'What wild promises did he or she make?'-- 'What pressure did he or she apply * * *?'-- clearly reflected the Company's hostility to the Union and the Union's efforts to organize the employees. Such manifestations of hostility could not have been conducive to a feeling of confidence or security on the part of those sympathizers or supporters of the Union who were asked to respond to the questionnaire. In short, we cannot say that the Board unreasonably concluded that in the absence of 'specific safeguards' the questionnaire was inherently coercive. See I.U.A. v. N.L.R.B. (Preston Products Co.), 129 U.S.App.D.C. 196, 204, 392 F.2d 801, 809 (1967), cert. den., 392 U.S. 906, 88 S. Ct. 2058 (1968); Retail Clerks International Assoc. v. N.L.R.B. (Montgomery Ward & Co.), 125 U.S.App.D.C. 389, 373 F.2d 655 (1967); Texas Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 336 F.2d 128, 133-134 (5th Cir. 1964).

THE REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 8(a)(5) and (1) OF THE ACT

Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election the Board conducted an election at the Company's Winfield plant on November 9, 1967. The Union won, 142 to 128, with one vote voided and three challenged. On November 15 the Company filed timely objections, alleging that Union agents, adherents and representatives engaged in conduct which warranted setting the election aside. In support of its objections the Company submitted signed statements in which five employees alleged that fellow employees had threatened them with loss of jobs or benefits or with other reprisals for failure to support the Union, that one employee's production was hindered and that the breather of her car stuffed with cotton as a reprisal, and that two of the five employees were promised jobs at another plant if they voted for the Union and lost their jobs with the Company as a result. The Company alleged that the employees who made the alleged threats and promises had been 'speaking for the Union'.

The Board's Acting Regional Director concluded that the Company's objections were without merit. He found that the statements submitted in support of the objections 'do not justify a finding that the employees alleged to have committed the objectionable conduct held any office in the Petitioner' or that the Union 'authorized' or 'ratified' the alleged misconduct. He stated further that 'none of the conduct complained of occurred on the date of the election and even assuming arguendo that the conduct occurred as alleged, such activity by rank-and-file employees was insufficient to create a general atmosphere of confusion or fear of reprisal which rendered impossible a free election'. The Acting Regional Director accordingly concluded that the Company's objections 'do not raise any material or substantial issues affecting the results of the election' and he recommended that the 'objections be overruled in their entirety' and the Union 'certified as bargaining representative' of the employees.

The Company filed timely exceptions to the Acting Regional Director's report. In support of its exceptions the Company filed affidavits from three of the five employees whose unsworn statements had previously been submitted. The affidavits repeated in substance the allegations contained in the unsworn statements. The Company in its exceptions specifically objected to the fact that no hearing was held on the Company's allegation that the Union authorized or ratified the alleged unlawful conduct of the employees. The Board considered the Company's exceptions and found that they raised 'no material or substantial issues of fact or law which would warrant reversal of the Acting Regional Director's findings or recommendations.' Accordingly, the Union was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Company's employees.

In February 1968 the Company refused to bargain with the Union despite its certification as bargaining representative of the Company's employees. This refusal to bargain was the basis of the Union's charge under Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, which was consolidated for hearing with the other charges. In its answer the Company alleged that it was 'not required to bargain collectively with the Union' because of conduct which interfered with the election and because the Board refused to hold a hearing on the Company's objections. The Company also alleged for the first time that during the period preceding the election the Union sent to prospective voters material stating that those who joined the Union would be covered by Union benefits such as free insurance. This allegation, that the Union promised free insurance, was later incorporated by the Company in an 'Amendment to Objections to Election'. The amendment was rejected by the Regional Director upon the ground that under Board rules objections to an election must be filed within five working days after the date of the election.

The General Counsel filed a motion for summary judgment on the charge of refusal to bargain collectively. In response, the Company argued that in the unfair labor practice hearing it was entitled to litigate the validity of the Union's certification, because it had previously been denied a hearing on its objections to the election. The Company contended also that it was entitled to a hearing to introduce newly discovered evidence concerning improper statements made by Union agents and illegal offers of insurance made by the Union prior to the election. The trial examiner granted summary judgment with respect to the charge of refusal to bargain; he found that since the Company had conceded the refusal to bargain there was no reason to hold a hearing on this issue. With respect to the alleged newly discovered evidence he found that the Company's proffer was too general in nature, and that in any event no explanation was offered as to why this evidence was not discovered or could not have been discovered earlier by the exercise of due diligence. These rulings were subsequently confirmed by the Board.

The Act entrusts the conduct of representation elections to the Board, which must have wide discretion in controlling and overseeing the election process. N.L.R.B. v. A. J. Tower Co., 329 U.S. 324, 330, 67 S. Ct. 324, 91 L. Ed. 322 (1946); N.L.R.B. v. Capital Transit Co., 95 U.S.App.D.C. 310, 311, 221 F.2d 864, 866 n.4 (1955). The only question presented on judicial review is whether the Board has reasonably exercised its discretion in the matter. Pepperell Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 403 F.2d 520, 522 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. den., 395 U.S. 922, 89 S. Ct. 1774, 23 L. Ed. 2d 238 (1969). Further, 'the burden is on the party objecting to the conduct of the representation election to prove that there has been prejudice to the fairness of the election.' Southwestern Portland Cement Co. v. N.L.R.B., 407 F.2d 131, 134 (5th Cir. 1969). And the objecting party must produce 'specific evidence' that the election was improperly conducted and that the acts complained of 'interfered with the employees' exercise of free choice to such an extent that they materially affected the results of the election.' N.L.R.B. v. Golden Age Beverage Co., 415 F.2d 26, 30 (5th Cir. 1969). In short, there is a heavy burden on the Company in showing that the election was improper. We find that the Board acted well within its discretion in finding that the Company did not meet this burden.

The opinion and reasoning of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in N.L.R.B. v. Golden Age Beverage Co., 415 F.2d 26, 32 (5th Cir. 1969) are dispositive here. In that case the Court said:

'This conclusion (of the Regional Director) was not unreasonable inasmuch as the ultimate question here is not whether any improprieties occurred during the campaign, but whether, in the circumstances, the particular conduct complained of 'created an environment of tension or coercion such as to preclude employees from exercising a free choice. For conduct to warrant setting aside an election, not only must that conduct be coercive, but it must be so related to the election as to have had a probable effect upon the employees' actions at the polls.' N.L.R.B. v. Zelrich Company, 344 F.2d 1011, 1015 (5th Cir. 1965). The Company has made no such showing here, and the Board's refusal to set aside the election because of alleged threats of physical violence was well within its discretion.'

Here, as in the Golden Age Beverage case, the Company has not come forward with 'specific evidence' that the 'particular conduct complained of 'created an environment of tension or coercion * * * so related to the election as to have had a probable effect upon the employees' actions at the polls." There was no evidence that the alleged misconduct was widespread, that any of the 276 employees who voted, other than the six persons affected, was even aware of the incidents, or that the incidents occurred in such proximity to the date of the election that they might have had any special significance to the other voters. In these circumstances the Acting Regional Director and the Board could reasonably find that 'even assuming arguendo that the conduct occurred as alleged, such activity * * * was insufficient to create a general atmosphere of confusion or fear of reprisal which rendered impossible a free election.' See Intertype Co. v. N.L.R.B., 401 F.2d 41, 45-46 (4th Cir. 1968), cert. den., 393 U.S. 1049, 89 S. Ct. 686, 21 L. Ed. 2d 691 (1969); N.L.R.B. v. Zelrich Co. 344 F.2d 1011, 1014-1015 (5th Cir. 1965); Shoreline Enterprises of America, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 262 F.2d 933, 942, 69 A.L.R. 2d 1174 (5th Cir. 1959).

The Company's conclusory allegation, unsupported by evidence, that in certain instances the Company's employees who were alleged to have made threats or promises were 'speaking for the Union' was not sufficient to demonstrate, even prima facie, that the Union was responsible for their utterances. See Intertype v. N.L.R.B., 401 F.2d 41, 45-46 (4th Cir. 1968), cert. den., 393 U.S. 1049, 89 S. Ct. 686 (1969); Manning, Maxwell & Moore, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 324 F.2d 857, 858 (5th Cir. 1963); N.L.R.B. v. Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. 745, 264 F.2d 642, 648 (5th Cir.), cert. den., 361 U.S. 814, 80 S. Ct. 54, 4 L. Ed. 2d 61 (1959).

THE DENIAL OF A HEARING

The Company argues that hearings were unlawfully denied, both during the representation proceeding and during the unfair labor practice proceeding, when its objections were dismissed pursuant to a motion granting partial summary judgment.

It is clear that there is no right to a post-election hearing in a representation proceeding. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B., 135 U.S.App.D.C. 355, 360, 418 F.2d 1191, 1196 (1969); N.L.R.B. v. Golden Age Beverage Co., 415 F.2d 26, 32 (5th Cir. 1969). Rather the Board's rules and regulations provide only that such hearings must be held when the objections raise 'substantial and material factual issues' which cannot be resolved on the basis of administrative investigation without a hearing. 29 C.F.R. 102.69(c). This provision 'is designed to resolve expeditiously questions preliminary to the establishment of the bargaining relationship and to preclude the opportunity for protracted delay of certification of the results of representation elections.' N.L.R.B. v. Golden Age Beverage Co., 415 F.2d 26, 32 (5th Cir. 1969). See also International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B., 135 U.S.App.D.C. 360, 361, 418 F.2d 1191, at 1196-1197 (1969); N.L.R.B. v. Tennessee Packers, Inc., 379 F.2d 172, 178 (6th Cir.), cert. den., 389 U.S. 958, 88 S. Ct. 338, 19 L. Ed. 2d 364 (1967). That this qualified right of hearing satisfies all statutory and constitutional requirements is settled. N.L.R.B. v. Golden Age Beverage Co., 415 F.2d 26, 32 (5th Cir. 1969); N.L.R.B. v. Air Control Products, Inc., 335 F.2d 245, 249 (5th Cir. 1964).

In order to be entitled to a post-election hearing on its objections, 'the objector must supply the Board with specific evidence which prima facie would warrant setting aside the election, for it is not up to the Board staff to seek out evidence that would warrant setting aside the election.' United States Rubber Co. v. N.L.R.B., 373 F.2d 602, 606 (5th Cir. 1967). Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Mattison Machine Works, 365 U.S. 123, 81 S. Ct. 434, 5 L. Ed. 2d 455 (1961). The burden on the Company to show that the election was not fairly conducted is not met by 'nebulous and declaratory assertions, wholly unspecified,' but only by 'specific evidence of specific events from or about specific people.' United States Rubber Co. v. N.L.R.B., 373 F.2d 602, 606 (5th Cir. 1967).

The acting Regional Director in his report assumed the truth of the Company's proffered testimony in support of its objections but he found, as a matter of law, that the objection was 'without merit.' In its exceptions to the report the Company merely objected to findings 'without a hearing.' It now argues that its exceptions were sufficient to require the Board to hold an evidentiary hearing to reconsider the facts underlying the Acting Regional Director's conclusions. But as we said in a recent case where similar arguments were made:

'Mere reference to the principles set out above is sufficient to rebut this argument. The company did not 'clearly demonstrate that factual issues exist which can only be resolved by an evidentiary hearing.' The exceptions do not 'state the specific findings that are controverted' and 'show what evidence will be presented to support a contrary finding or conclusion.' Indeed, the exceptions 'do (no) more than question the interpretation and inferences placed upon the facts by the (Acting) Regional Director.' * * * the Board is not itself required to rummage through a record in search of material which may controvert the Regional Director's findings. Such guidance was not provided here, and thus the Board was within its discretion in accepting the Regional Director's recommendations without holding a hearing.'

International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B., 135 U.S.App.D.C. 355 at 362, 418 F.2d 1191, at 1198 (1969). And the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has recently said in N.L.R.B. v. Tennessee Packers, Inc., 379 F.2d 172, 178, (6th Cir.), cert. den. 389 U.S. 958, 88 S. Ct. 338 (1967):

'Respondent's exceptions * * * do not state specific objections or indicate that material factual issues exist. They do not clearly put in issue the correctness of the Director's findings, but merely attack the correctness of his conclusions and inferences drawn from the facts uncovered in his investigation. It was proper for respondent to question the conclusions of the Director, but to require a hearing it was incumbent upon it to state what evidence it would produce to establish that the conclusions were incorrect. Respondent fails to suggest any material facts which would be developed at a hearing.'

In the case before us, as in the Tennessee Packers and the Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers International cases, the Board concluded that the Company's exceptions raised 'no material or substantial issues of fact or law.' Recognizing our limited role in the determination of such matters, we hold that 'the Board has not acted arbitrarily or capriciously or abused its discretion by denying the Company an evidentiary hearing on its objections' in the representation proceeding. N.L.R.B. v. Golden Age Beverage Co., 415 F.2d 26, 33 (5th Cir. 1969).

$12, 13$ Just as there was 'nothing to hear' (N.L.R.B. v. Air Control Products, Inc., 335 F.2d 245, 249 (5th Cir. 1964)) on the Company's objections in the representation proceeding, so there was 'nothing to hear' on this issue in the unfair labor practice case. No new and material evidence, previously unavailable, was offered. In this situation the Board, applying its rules, has consistently and correctly refused to permit the relitigation in an unfair labor practice proceeding of 'any issue which was, or could have been, raised in the representation proceeding'. 29 C.F.R. 102.67(f). This policy has been sustained by the courts. N.L.R.B. v. Tennessee Packers, Inc., 379 F.2d 172 (6th Cir.), cert. den., 389 U.S. 958, 88 S. Ct. 338 (1967); Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. N.L.R.B., 124 U.S.App.D.C. 365, 369-372, 365 F.2d 898, 902-905 (1966). Although of course 'an adversary hearing must be held at some point in the process where genuinely contested factual issues are properly raised' (International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B., 135 U.S.App.D.C. 355, 360, 418 F.2d 1191, at 1196 (1969), a hearing is not required where no such issues exist. Neither the statute nor the constitutional imperative of due process requires such an exercise in futility. It follows that the entry of summary judgment in the unfair labor practice case was proper. See N.L.R.B. v. Golden Age Beverage Co., 415 F.2d 26 (5th Cir. 1969); N.L.R.B. v. Air Control Products, Inc., 335 F.2d 245 (5th Cir. 1964). We do not consider that our conclusion on this point is inconsistent with N.L.R.B. v. Smith Industries, Inc., 403 F.2d 889 (5th Cir. 1968), on which the Company relies. In that case the court held that the employer had offered sufficient evidence to raise disputed issues of fact and make a hearing necessary. / 2/

THE REMEDY

The Union is satisfied with the Board's disposition of the case in every respect, except that it asks that the Board be ordered to grant the Union's request for retroactive compensatory relief for the Section 8(a)(1) violations. It further requests the so-called 'J. P. Stevens remedy,' which would require the publication of the Board's mandates through oral explanation of the Board's ruling on this case to assembled employees on Company time. J. P. Stevens (I) v. N.L.R.B., 380 F.2d 292 (2d Cir.), cert. den., 389 U.S. 1005, 88 S. Ct. 564, 19 L. Ed. 2d 600 (1967); J. P. Stevens (III) v. N.L.R.B., 406 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1968); J. P. Stevens (IV) v. N.L.R.B., 406 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1968). It is said that in the circumstances of this case, the employees are entitled to a full explanation of their rights and the manner in which they are being protected, in such a way as to have as great an impact as the statements of the employer made in speeches to a captive audience.

In cases where similar requests have been made we have often noted that 'The Board's wide discretion is at its broadest in matters of remedial policy. See Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 215-216, 85 S. Ct. 398, 13 L. Ed. 2d 233 (1964).' Truck Drivers & Helpers Local No. 728 v. N.L.R.B., 135 U.S.App.D.C. 406, 415 F.2d 986, 990 (1969). Applying this principle, we have rejected pleas for compensatory financial relief and for the mailing of notices to employees. Truck Drivers & Helpers Local No. 728 v. N.L.R.B., 135 U.S.A.pp.D.C. 406, 415 F.2d 986 (1969); United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 5571 v. N.L.R.B., 130 U.S.App.D.C. 369, 373, 401 F.2d 434, 438 (1968), cert. den., Stanley-Artex Windows, etc. v. N.L.R.B., 395 U.S. 946, 89 S. Ct. 2020, 23 L. Ed. 2d 465 (1969). See also International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. N.L.R.B., 135 U.S.App.D.C. 201, 417 F.2d 1144, at 1148 (1969). In this case as in those, 'we cannot say the Board went beyond the bounds of its large latitude and discretion in the area of remedies.' Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. N.L.R.B. (Block-Southland Sportswear, Inc.), 137 U.S.App.D.C. 93 at 100, 420 F.2d 1296, at 1303 (1969). Accordingly 'the Board's wide discretion to fashion appropriate remedies insulates its action in this case from judicial intervention', Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. N.L.R.B. (McEwen Mfg. Co.), 136 U.S.App.D.C. 226, 419 F.2d 1207, at 1210 (1969); and we must refuse to modify the Board's order as requested by the Union.

For the foregoing reasons, the Company's petition to review and remand for a full hearing is denied, the Union's petition to review and modify is denied, and the Board's cross application for enforcement is granted.

So ordered.

At the unfair labor practice hearing the Company offered testimony by its plant manager that he became aware of certain Union campaign materials at some time after the 5-day period for filing objections to the election had expired. These materials, which the Company offered in evidence, were the same as those offered in support of the Company's amended objections to the election. The amended objections had been rejected by the Regional Director upon the ground that they were untimely filed. The Company did not appeal this ruling to the Board nor did it raise the issue in its exceptions to the report on objections. Accordingly the Board properly declined to reconsider the Regional Director's ruling or to receive the evidence in the unfair labor practice proceeding. See Board Rules and Regulations, 29 C.F.R. 102.67(f) providing that the failure to request review 'shall preclude such parties from relitigating, in any related subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding, any issue which was, or could have been, raised in the representation proceeding'