With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". supervisors’ scrutiny immediately before entering the polling area. The Board does not deny that the electioneering in this case took place at the only entrance to the Employer’s parking lot. Instead, the Board points to the factually similar cases which have upheld elections. See Boston Insulated Wire & Cable v. NLRB, 703 F.2d 876, 882 (5th Cir.1983) (refusing to set aside election results where electioneering was conducted directly outside the two entrances to the building but not in a no-electioneering zone or contrary to the instructions of the Board agent); Chrill Care, Inc., 340 NLRB No. 123, 2003 WL 22793755 (2003) (refusing to set aside election where union representatives picketed outside of employer’s premises during election); see also J.P. Transportation, 1998 WL 869984 (<HOLDING>). This circuit has recognized that “[t]he

A: holding that an injury occurring in a parking lot which was leased but not controlled by an employer was compensable because the employer instructed its employees to park in that lot
B: holding that party agents conversation with arriving voters in parking lot outside of polling place did not appear substantially to have impaired the employees free choice in the election
C: holding that injury in a parking lot did not occur on a covered situs
D: holding that speaking to employees in a parking lot near the polling place while the polls were open did not violate the milchem rule
B.