[Union Avoidance] Nadine Owned and Operated a Large Book Store

Multiple Choice

[Union Avoidance] Nadine owned and operated a large book store with 50 employees. She was aware of union organization attempts. She prohibited any discussion of the union and the distribution of literature at any time, including during employee breaks and lunches in the employee break room. She told employees that she would refuse to grant a raise to any employee who supported the union. Nadine was extremely unhappy when the union obtained enough signatures indicating an interest to be represented by the union. Nadine still refused to recognized the union, and the union organizers petitioned the National Labor Relations Board for a representation election. At that point, she promised employees that she would give a $1,000 bonus to any employee who voted against the union. Surprisingly to Nadine, employees who voted overwhelmingly supported the union. On the other hand, employees who voted failed to constitute all employees of the book store. A number of employees were absent on the day of the election and did not vote. Nadine stated that it was her understanding that the union would not be certified as the bargaining representative of the employees because fewer than 50% of the total number of the store employees voted for the union. Nadine further stated that, in any event, she would not deal with the union under any circumstances.
-Which of the following is true regarding Nadine's statement that if employees would refuse to elect the union, she would give each employee a $1,000 bonus, but that she would grant no raises to union supporters?

A) She could legally promise benefits to employees if they did not elect the union, but she could not threaten reprisals against employees who supported the union.
B) She could legally threaten reprisals against employees who supported the union, but she could not legally promise benefits to employees who did not support the union.
C) She could not legally threaten employees who supported the union nor grant benefits to employees who opposed the union.
D) She could legally threaten employees who supported the union and she could legally grant benefits to employees who opposed the union.
E) Only so long as the amount at issue was no more than $1,000 per employee could she legally grant benefits to employees who opposed the union, but she could not legally retaliate against any employee for support of the union.