With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". collectively with the representatives of [its] employees.” 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(5). It was reasonable for the Board to conclude that Beverly Farm’s unilateral implementation of parts of its final offer, in the absence of a valid impasse, constituted a violation of the Act. The Board also found that Beverly Farm violated Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) when it twice refused to resume bargaining with the Union despite the Union’s request to resume bargaining and its submission of new proposals. In support, the Board stated that even if a genuine impasse existed on July 27, 1995, when the employees rejected Beverly Farm’s final offer, the Union’s August 4 letter obligated Beverly Farm to resume direct negotiation with the Union. See NLRB v. U.S. Cold Storage Corp., 203 F.2d 924 (5th Cir.1953) (<HOLDING>). The Board’s finding that Beverly Farm

A: recognizing that the involvement of supervisory union members in union affairs conflicts with the need to assure the complete devotion of union negotiating teams to employee interests
B: holding that an employer could only distribute its proposal to union employees when the proposal was properly before the union
C: holding that an employer who insists on negotiating by mail or that a union submit its proposals in writing has unlawfully refused to bargain
D: holding that a county had no duty to bargain with a union of its employees
C.