Tomco Carburetor Co.

TOMCO CARBURETOR CO I Tomco Carburetor Company and Teamsters Automo-' tive Workers Local 495, affiliated with Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case 21-CA-23219 8 April 1985. DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER AND DENNIS On 20 December 1984 Administrative Law Judge Joan Wieder issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, i and conclusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order. 1 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Tomco Car- buretor Company, Vernon, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order. ' In describing an early May conversation between Luis Castaneda and Arturo Castro, the judge inadvertently stated that Castro responded to his own comment about his wife needing an operation In fact, it was Castaneda who responded by saying that there was never going to be in- surance 2 In agreeing with the judge that Luis Castaneda is a supervisor, we find it unnecessary to rely on the judge's conclusion that the failure of Castaneda and Plant Manager Jaime Alfaro to testify requires the draw- ing of an adverse inference, because the evidence establishes that Castan- eda is a supervisor Furthermore, because Castaneda is a supervisor, we find it unnecessary to rely on the judge's further finding that he was in any event acting as an agent of the Respondent DECISION All parties were given full opportunity to appear, to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-exam- ine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. The General Counsel chose to argue orally Counsel for Re- spondent waived its right to oral argument. No briefs have been filed. Based on the entire record, and especial- ly observations of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS I. JURISDICTION Respondent admits that it is a corporation operating a facility engaged in the rebuilding of carburetors in Vernon, California. In the normal conduct of this busi- ness, the Company annually purchases and receives goods and products valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of California. Respondent further admits, and I find, that it is an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act Similarly, Respondent admits, and I find, that the Union is labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 11. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Issues Respondent 'admits that its Vernon, -California plant is managed by Jaime Alfaro, who is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. It is also uncontroverted that Re- spondent employs at the facility several foremen. Luis Castaneda is one of the foremen -Respondent denies that Castaneda is a supervisor The parties stipulated that Castaneda does not hire or fire employees, but did rec- ommend firing two employees within the past year, one recommendation was 'accepted. Castaneda is paid a salary. All foremen are paid salaries. Castaneda has ap- proximately 18 individuals working with him He is paid approximately $85 a week more than the majority of em- ployees working with him. Three employees working under Castaneda are also salaried. Castaneda receives ap- proximately $50 a week more than these three salaried employees. All the other employees in Castaneda's de- partment would be hourly. STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOAN WIEDER, Administrative Law Judge. The trial was conducted in this proceeding on October 30, 1984, in Los Angeles, California, based on an unfair labor practice charge filed by. Teamsters Automotive Workers, Local 495, affiliated with Internaitonal Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (the Union) on June 6, 1984, and amended on June 26, 1984.1 A complaint was issued on July 20, 1984, on behalf of the Regional Director for Region 21 of the National Labor Relations. Board alleging that Tomco Carburetor Company (Respondent or the Company) en- gaged in certain violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act (the Act) i All dates referred to are in 1984 unless otherwise stated B. Supervisory Status of Luis Castaneda All the testimony was given by two former employees and one current employee. No witnesses were called on behalf of Respondent. -Rodrigo Amaya credibly testified without contradiction that Castaneda did not do the same type of work as the other employees. He stated that he knew Castaneda to be his supervisor. Casteneda did not work at a table like the other employees; he worked at a desk and spent all his tigie supervising those employees who worked at tables Amaya believed he had to ask Castaneda for permission to take time off to go to the doctor The only incident where he asked Cas- taneda for such permission, he was told that there was a lot of work to be done and he could not lose the-time, that if he wanted to go to a doctor he should go to a hospital which was cheaper. Castaneda gave Amaya his 275 NLRB No. 1 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD work assignments and has altered those assignments. Cas- taneda would also move employees from one work sta- tion to another, but Amaya does not know if Castaneda had to-get prior authorization for such a move. Amaya did not know Castaneda's official title, he was only told he was - "a supervisor or a foreman." According to Amaya. Tomco has, approximately 350-400 employees. He sees the plant manager approximately three times a day on the floor, but,he spends very little time there. ' Caesar Gabriel Castro, a current employee of the Company, testified that he was supervised for 2-3 months by Castaneda.. He stated that Castaneda assigned him work but never changed that assignment after a period of time. Its appears Castro had a routine job. He never had an • occasion to ask permission for time off from work while under the supervision of Casteneda. Analysis Section 2(11) of the Act defines "supervisor" as: A'ny individual, having authority, in the interests of --the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or disci- pline other employees, or responsibly to direct them,-or- to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely- routine or clerical 'nature, but requires the use of independent judgment. The possession of any one of these indicia of supervisory status is, sufficient to find one a supervisor. Research De- signing Service, 141 NLRB .211 (1974). Conversely, as in- dicated -by the ,last two clauses of the above-quoted por- tion of the-statute, supervisors are distinguished from em- ployees who do not exercise genuine managerial preroga- tives such as. the right to hire.or fire or make effective recommendations to -such actions or do not issue more than minor, orders or directives; to supervise the work of others. James Fuqua, 263 NLRB 57 (1982). . It appears that Castaneda made all work assignments and allocated work locations for those employees under him. He was paid by salary in an -amount substantially more than those employees 'he" supervised. At least one of his 'recommendations regarding' discharge was fol- lowed. Further, ' employees sought time off for medical appointments from him and he was clothed with the ap- parent ' authority; at the very least,, to grant such requests. Castaneda'and'Alfaio, the witnesses best 'able to testify as to Castaneda's' authority` and- the effectiveness of his recommendations, -did not testify Overnight -Trdiisporta- tioh"Co', 1'61 NLRB 461, 467 (1966). In view of the fore-' going, ' I find that' Castaneda could' effectively 'recom- mend discharge, and at all times responsibly direct em= ployees• in more- than 'routine fashion. 'In 'performing his duties, Castaneda exercised independent ,judgment suffi cient to bring' him' under the 'statuto'ry definition of "su- - pervisor" Broyhill Co.,`210 NLRB 388, 394'(1974). The- unexplained -failure 'of these individuals to testify. requires the drawing of an adverse inference. See Martin Luther King Sr. Nursing Center, 231 NLRB 15 fn. 1 (1977), and authorities cited therein. Further, based on these indicia as well as a statement of the plant manager that employ- ees should turn in their cards to Castenada and other foremen convinces me that Castaneda is, and has been at all times relevant, acting as an agent of Respondent. Mars Sales & Equipment Co, 242 NLRB 1097 (1979), enfd. in part 626 F 2d 567. Thus, his actions are imputa- ble to Respondent Machinists v. NLRB, 311 U S. 72, 80 (1940). Section 2(13) of the Act provides. In determining whether any person is acting as an "agent" of another person so as to make such other person responsible for his acts, the question of whether the specific acts performed were actually authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be con- trolling. See NLRB v. Georgetown Dress Corp., 537 F.2d 1239 (1976), Guaranteed Products Corp. v. NLRB, 562 F 2d 500 (7th Cir. 1977). As detailed later, Alfaro- authorized and directed Castaneda to collect union authorization cards, thus instigating, soliciting, and authorizing Castaneda's conduct. Cagles, Inc. v. NLRB, 588 F 2d 943 (5th Cir. 1979). - C. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices 1. Alfaro's speech of February 24 It is undisputed that after work on February 23, 1984, union' representatives passed out authorization cards to departing employees The following day, February 24, 1984, all employees were directed to attend a meeting in an area referred to as "the front of the plant."2 All su- pervisors and employees were present at the meeting. Alfaro conducted the meeting. He commenced his speech stating that union authorization cards had been distributed the preceding day and he held up several cards. Alfaro then said: - Don't pay any attention to those things about those, cards nor the people that had distributed them because those, people only want to mislead you. And that those that are going to be harmed would be the workers . . . because the workers will not get anything with that. They were going to lose their job. Some, he said, have-already filled out the cards and sent them. The ones that haven't done it, I plead, please, not to send them and give them to me or to your foreman. . . He said that he - was going- to try -to get better conditions for the worker and that he had experi- ence in those matters of the union, and that he would counsel, that you should not get involved in that Rather to take care of ; your --job because the majority of. the workers-'there-we 'were undocu- ,mented and, we were. going to have problems be- cause-the. union's-they always need that they had - citizenship from here, but _in our case, we-were not going to- get anything We should take care of our, job and he was going to help us and we were going 2 The three witnesses testified in Spanish and their. testimony was translated by-a mutually accepted interpreter - - ' 1 TOMCO CARBURETOR CO 3 to have a lot of work, and that the company was increasing in the business He also talked about an- other company that-where the union had entered and had-going bankrupt-had gone bankrupt, and that that was the same thing they wanted with Tomco The company that had gone bankrupt was named Carter Precision Amaya also testified that Alfaro said that if employees that had not executed the union authorization cards did not turn them in, "that they were going to lose their jobs if they got involved in that The one harmed would be the workers in that case." Caesar Gabriel Castro corroborated Amaya's testimo- ny, stating that Alfaro referred to the Union as "not sin- cere and fraudulent people," only trying to get money from the employees and instructing the employees that they had to -turn in their cards to their respective fore- men. He could not recall if Alfaro told employees they would lose their jobs if they did not turn in the authori- zation cards. His brother, Arturo Castro, also provided some corroboration, testifying that Alfaro said, "Boys, I know that the union was distributing cards yesterday. I do recommend not to get yourselves into problems be- cause I know that many of you are from Mexico and you don't have your papers. . . . I do promise better sal- aries, insurance in May, if you do cooperate with the company " According to Arturo Castro, Alfaro also said that the employees should turn in their cards to the fore- men because otherwise they would see the consequences. This uncontroverted testimony is credited, particularly that of Amaya who gave a detailed rendition of the meeting demonstrating clarity of recall. Also his testimo- ny was given in a forthright and direct manner. 2 The alleged collection of the cards by Castaneda on February 25 Amaya testified without'contradiction that at approxi- mately 9 a in. on the following workday, a Saturday, Castaneda passed by his work station and asked him if lie was going to turn in his union authorization card.3 Cas- taneda had at the time some union authorization cards in his hand Amaya lied and said he was not given a card. Amaya not only was given a card as was the individual who was exiting the premises at the same time he was in his vehicle, but he signed it and mailed it to the Union. Under the circumstances existent here, Amaya's state- ment does not discredit his testimony. Amaya observed Castaneda walk to other worktables but did not hear what was said and did not see other employees give him authorization cards. Also on February 25, 1984, Castaneda approached Arturo Castro and, in the presence of a coworker; Juan Garcia, asked Arturo Castro for his union authorization card. Arturo Castro said he-threw it away. Castaneda told Castro to give him his card. He then saw Castaneda talk to other employees but did not overhear the conver- sations. He saw two coworkers, Nicholas Alvarez and 3 The actual translation of, the witness' testimony was that Castaneda asked him if he was going to'deliver the card or give him the card The verbiage used could be interpreted either as "deliver". or "give" the card Hilario Pinada, give Castro authorization cards. Juan Garcia also told him that Castaneda asked him to give him his card. Arturo Castro received cards from the Union to pass out to other employees in May. He re- turned signed cards to a union representative. 3. Alleged threat by Castaneda in May Arturo Castro testified without contradiction that in early May, in response to Alfaro's promise of insurance in the February 24 speech, he went up to Castaneda and inquired about the promised benefit. Arturo Castro told Castaneda his wife needed an operation. Castro replied that there was never going to be insurance. Arturo Castro then said he would seek assistance from the Union to get, these benefits for himself and his cowork- ers. Castaneda replied that if he sought such assistance, he would fire him. 4 Allegation of violations occurring on May 22 According to the unrefuted testimony of Caesar .Gabri- el Castro, he was told by his foreman , Rudolfo Paez, that he was not going to be given any overtime until fur- ther notice. Caesar Gabriel Castro then went to speak to Alfaro to determine the cause of this message . Alfaro told him that overtime was eliminated, "that he had cut off overtime because he had done so much for us, but then now we had paid him by bringing the union in, and that we were [unappreciative]." Caesar Gabriel Castro told Alfaro they sought union representation because they wanted insurance . Alfaro told him that work was slow : He also said the employees should wait a little longer .for him to arrange for insur- ance. Alfaro indicated he was talking to the Company's owners about insurance . Alfaro then showed him a list of individuals who had joined the Union. Caesar Gabriel Castro's brother, Arturo Castro, was the first person named on the list. His name also appeared on the list. Caesar Gabriel Castro's overtime was not terminiated or cut by the Company.4 5. Alleged events of May 23 'On May .23, 1984, Arturo Castro 'sustained a back injury at work and asked his foreman , Paez, to send him to a clinic because he felt ill . He was taken to Alfaro's office and in the presence of Paez he told Alfaro he in- jured his back and asked to be sent to a clinic. In re- sponse, Alfaro said, "I know that - you have - distributed some cards to your , companions " Arturo Castro asked the source of said information , and Alfaro did not reply. Arturo Castro then told him that his information was correct. Arturo Castro noted that Alfaro had some union authorization cards on his desk. , Arturo Castro then said that the employees needed family health insurance . Alfaro.said he was discussing in- surance with the owners but the owners had not as yet agreed to give the employees the benefit. Alfaro also said that giving . such benefits was "not convenient for the company." As far as A. Castro knows, no new insurance 4 It is noted -that Alfaro spoke to Caesar Gabriel Castro in Spanish 4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD benefits have been instituted since he left the Company's employ on disability in February. D Analysis and Conclusions I Threats and promise of benefits' Alfaro, the plant manager and apparently- honored principal supervisor at the facility,5 told an assemblage of all employees that they -would be "harmed" if they supported the Union. He also mentioned that many of the employees were undocumented and that the union- activity jeopardized them in an unspecified manner, indi- cated that there was a potential loss of their jobs since they were undocumented workers; and stated that union- ization could, lead to loss of jobs through bankruptcy al- though there were no predicates given for this predic- tion. He also directed the employees to turn in their union authorization cards to their foremen, stating that if they did not do so they would lose their fobs, again men- tioning that , the workers would be the individuals harmed. Further, Alfaro promised improved salaries and insurance in May if the- employees cooperated with the Company. - These threats require little or no comment. They are manifestly coercive and violative of the Act. Alfaro's' statements 'were not explained in a- context indicating' lawful purpose. Alfaro's assertion of economic peril or. imminent bankruptcy in the event of unionization was not supported by any evidentiary proffers' either of a verbal or documentary genre There was no claim-that such-threats of closure would be attributable 'to circum- stances outside the Company's control It was not dem- onstrated that..support of the Union would cause any economic difficulties. Similarly, there was no basis for in- dicating that undocumented employees were subjected to any danger by virtue, of supporting the union organizing effort I conclude that Alfaro's speech is not protected free speech, it is not a mere expression of opinion as to the disadvantages of unionization. Respondent clearly indi- cated that economic adversity would result from union- ization. Not only was-the employees' job security threat- ened, but the status of many employees as illegal or un- documented`aliens was also used as a basis for predicting undesirable consequences as a natural result of unioniza- tion. ' There were no bases or rational predicates ad- vanced for such predictions. These opinions rendered without explanation cannot be found to be objectively or factually based 'beliefs of demonstrably probable conse- quences beyond an employer's control. See NLRB v. Gissel Packing_Co., 395 U.S. 575, 616"(1969). Therefore, it is concluded that Alfaro's speech violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. ' It is also found that Alfaro threatened Caesar Gabriel Castro with loss of overtime because of his union activi- ties: C. Castro was not shown to be an open and active supporter of the Union The clear allusion ' to bringing in the Union and not being an appreciative employee was 5 This conclusion is based on the fact that the employees referred to him in their testimony exclusively as Don Jaime Alfaro, or "Teacher," even though he never instructed any of the employees given as the basis for the decision not to give any more overtime, which is a clear violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Also at this May 22 meeting, Alfaro renewed the promise about insurance being contingent on with- drawal of employee support for the Union It is further found that Castaneda's threat to Arturo Castro that he would be fired if he sought union assist- ance for acquiring insurance and other benefits is clearly violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Alfaro's promise of benefits to employees similarly violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The promise of bene- fitwas made in conjunction with the threats of loss of job, plant closure, and other unspecified injuries. Implicit in the promise-of health insurance and wages was the ob- vious caveat that these improvements would not be re- ceived unless the employees abandoned their support for the Union. Thus, I conclude that Respondent, by Al- faro's statements about improved' working conditions, -violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. See Keister Coal Co, 247 NLRB 375 (1980). 2. Interrogations It is further found on the basis of the uncontroverted testimony of the credited employee witnesses that Cas- taneda, about February 25, 1984, demanded that employ- ees turn over.their union authorization cards and interro- gated those employees about the location of the cards The Board set forth its standards for determining wheth- er an interrogation is unlawful in Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984). The circumstances surrounding such interrogations are to be analyed in determining if such action was. intimidating or coercive. In the instant case, we have immediately following union organizing activity a speech by the top company official to all the employ- ees During the speech, Alfaro made several threats and instructed the employees to turn over thier union author- ization cards to their foremen The next day a foreman goes around to employees demanding they turn over thier union authorization cards and inquiring about the location of those cards. This uncontroverted and cred- ited testimony establishes that Respondent; through 'an agent, violated Section 8(a)(1) by interrogating employ- ees. about their union activities and their, card-signing ac- tivities Purolator Armored, Inc, 268 NLRB 620 (1984). 3 Impression of surveillance of union activities It is also undisputed that Alfaro showed Caesar Gabri- el Castro a list of employees who had "enlisted in the union." Further, Alfaro told Arturo. Castro that he knew he had distributed some union authorization cards but would not reveal his source As held in California Dental Care, 272-NLRB 1153 (1985): Where management makes a statement to an em- ployee that creates an impression that, the employer learned of, the employee's union activities through surveillance it-constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. NLRB v. Long Island Airport Limousine, 468 F.2d 292, 297 (2nd Cir '1972) -In de- termining whether an employer created an impres- sion of surveillance the test applied by the Board is TOMCO CARBURETOR CO 5 whether, under the circumstances, the employee would reasonably assume from the statement in question that the employee's union activities had been placed under surveillance. Schrementi Bros., 179 NLRB 853 (1969) Alfaro was preparing a list of all union supporters and refused to reveal the source of- his information, - i.e., whether it was an employee or supervisor. This mystery, cojoined with the existence of the list clearly created the impression of surveillance Accordingly, I find that Al- faro's statements to the Castro brothers created the im- pression that Respondent had engaged in surveillance of employees' union activities In fact, Alfaro pointed out to Caesar Gabriel Castro that his brother's name was at the top of the list The complaint alleges that during this conversation Alfaro interrogated Castro regarding em- ployees' union membership, activities, and sympathies. Caesar Gabriel Castro could not remember any other comments about his brother's involvement in the Union or questions about it Accordingly, it is found that the General Counsel has not supported this allegation and it is recommended that it be dismissed Similarly, there was no evidence relating to the allegation in section 6(a)(IX) in the complaint regarding interrogation of employee union membership, 'activities, and sympathies. All we have is a statement by Alfaro that he knew that Arturo Castro distributed cards. Accordingly, it is recommended that this allegation also be dismissed. - CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices affect- ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening employees with loss of jobs, dis- charge, and other unspecified adversities, including jeop- ardy to them as undocumented aliens, by promising raises and insurance benefits if they abandoned support of the Union; by creating the impression of surveillance; and by coercively interrogating employees concerning their own and their fellow employees' union activities by seeking- their union authorization cards and knowledge of the whereabouts of their union authorization cards. 4 The above are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Except as found herein, - Respondent has not com- mitted any other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint THE REMEDY Having found that "Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I recommend that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action' designed to, effectuate the policies of the Act On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed6 - ORDER The Respondent, Tomco Carburetor Company, Vernon, California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Interrogating employees about their union activi- ties (b) Requesting that employees turn over their union authorization cards. (c) Creating the impression that union activities are under surveillance (d) Threatening employees with dismissal in reprisal for their seeking union assistance in obtaining health in- surance and other benefits (e) Threatening filing for bankruptcy or 'other dire economic consequences as a consequence of union activi- ty (f) Making unspecified threats to employees due to their status of being undocumented aliens or otherwise in retaliation for their union activity- (g) Promising employees raises and health insurance if they abandon their support of the Union as their bargain- ing representative. (h) Threatening to eliminate an employee's overtime work because of the employee's union activities. (i) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Post at its Vernon, California facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix" in both Spanish and English. The Spanish rendition is to be prepared by the Regional Director for Region 21 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being duly signed by Respondent's au- thorization representatives, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consec- utive days thereafter inconspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees customarily are posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov- ered by any other material (b) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date - of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. 6 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board' and all objections to, them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses , If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading `Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board " 6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those allegations 'of the complaint not found to be substantiated or sustained are dismissed. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or protec- tion To choose not to engage in any of these protect- ed concerted activities. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with loss of em- ployment, plant closure, the filing for bankruptcy, or other economic adversity in the event-they support or select the Union as their collective-bargaining representa- tive WE WILL NOT threaten our undocumented employees with unspecified reprisals in the event that they support or select the Union as their collective-bargaining repre- sentative. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees concerning their own or their fellow employees' union activities, sympathies, and desires. WE WILL NOT promise employees raises, insurance benefits, or other improvements in working- conditions if they abandon their support of the Union as their bargain- ing representative. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge if they seek the assistance of the Union to be their repre- sentative in gaining benefits WE WILL NOT create the impression that the union ac- tivities of our employees are under. surveillance. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with loss of over- time for engaging in union activities. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. TOMCO CARBURETOR COMPANY