Shortly before a representation election, an employer convened a series of meetings with its security officers. At these “focus meetings,” high-level managers discussed the union campaign and asked the officers about their work-related concerns. The officers were told that the purpose of the meetings was “so they could understand problems that we encountered and our working conditions,” “to answer the concerns and problems officers expressed,” and “to give senior management a chance to talk with officers about their desire to form a union.” Shift meetings were regularly held in this workplace, but the focus meetings with top management were unprecedented. At one focus meeting, the CEO addressed the officers’ concerns about overtime. Full-time officers’ overtime opportunities had been greatly reduced when the employer decided to hire part-time officers to work the extra hours. The full-time officers had complained repeatedly about this change in policy, with no response from management. The CEO told the employees at the focus meeting that “it was a failed strategy to bring in a large number of part-time officers and it was being addressed and looked at.” At a later focus meeting, the executive vice president repeated this comment. When the election was held, the union lost by a small margin. Do the employer’s actions warrant the holding of another election?