With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". decades after enactment of the Act. Essential a tool as the rule may be to fair elections, it cannot reasonably be viewed as a statutory mandate violated by the Board’s actions in this case. Id. at 278-79. Rather than “disregarding] a specific and unambiguous statutory directive,” UFCW Local 400, 694 F.2d at 278, the Board in fact was exercising a power specifically granted to it under § 9(c)(1) of the Act. 29 U.S.C.A. § 159(c)(1). Indeed, both the Supreme Court and the Court of Ap peals for the Third Circuit have interpreted this statutory provision to vest the Board with “wide discretion” over representation proceedings. Wells Fargo Guard Services v. NLRB, 659 F.2d 363, 370 (3d Cir.1981), relying on NLRB v. A.J. Tower Co., 329 U.S. 324, 330, 67 S.Ct. 324, 327-28, 91 L.Ed. 322 (1946) (<HOLDING>). Although the Act allowed the Board to decide

A: holding that except in rare circumstances an appellate court should not intrude upon the domain which congress has exclusively entrusted to an administrative agency
B: holding due process requires that 1 the board be presented with a full statement of the facts and all supporting data bearing upon the disputes  and 2 the parties may be heard either in person by counsel or by other representatives  and the  board shall give due notice of all hearings to the employee 
C: holding in part that congress has entrusted the board with a wide degree of discretion in establishing the procedure and safeguards necessary to insure the fair and free choice of bargaining representatives by employees
D: holding vagenerated documents to be in the possession of the secretary and the board at the time of the board decision and thus constructively part of the record of proceedings as mandated by 38 usc  7252b
C.