Aeon Precision Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 1978

239 N.L.R.B. 60 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Aeon Precision Company, Inc., and International As-
sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
District Lodge No. 86. Case 27-CA-5623
October 24, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY, AND TRUESDALE
On July 11, 1978, Administrative Law Judge James
T. Rasbury issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and Respondent filed
an answering brief in support of the Administrative
Law Judge.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and
to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Aeon Precision Compa-
ny, Inc., Aurora, Colorado, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
said recommended Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and
it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair la-
bor practices not found herein.
' The General Counsel has excepted to certain credibility findings made
by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibili-
ty unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces
us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products. Inc. 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's recommendation dismiss-
ing the 8(aX3) allegation of the complaint, we find it unnecessary to rely on
Coleli's Furniture, Inc. v. N.L.R RB, 550 F.2d 1292 (Ist Cir. 1977), cited by
the Administrative Law Judge in his Decision.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES T. RASsuRY, Administrative Law Judge: This mat-
ter was heard by me in Denver, Colorado, on March 23,
1978. On December 21, 1977,' the Regional Director for
Region 27 issued a complaint and notice of hearing, based
upon an unfair labor practice charge filed on November 3,
alleging violations of Section 8(aXI) and (3) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C., § 151,
et seq. (herein called the Act).
All parties were afforded full opportunity to appear, to
introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Based upon the
entire record herein, including the briefs filed by the Gen-
eral Counsel and the Respondent, and upon my observa-
tion of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all times material, Aeon Precision Company, Inc.
(herein called Respondent), has been a corporation duly
organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the
State of Colorado, maintaining its principal office and
place of business in Aurora, Colorado, where it operates a
machine shop. In the course and conduct of its business
operations Respondent annually sells and ships goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points and
places outside the State of Colorado. Respondent admits,
and I herewith find, that at all times material Respondent
has been an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2)
of the Act, engaged in commerce and in operations affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
At all times material International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge No. 86
(herein Union), has been a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. ISSUES
1. Did Respondent on or about August 17 unlawfully
interrogate an employee, create the impression of surveil-
lance, and/or promise benefits to employees?
2. Did Respondent violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act by terminating Peter King on October 21 because of
his Union or other concerted activities protected by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act?
IV THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Union Activity
The parties stipulated that a petition was filed by the
Union on August 31 seeking to represent employees in a
unit consisting of "all production and maintenance em-
m Unless otherwise indicated, all dates hereinafter shall refer to the year
1977.
60
AEON PRECISION COMPANY
ployees, including janitors and leadmen; but excluding of-
fice clerical employees, salesmen, professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act." As a result
of the election held on November 15, the Union was not
certified as the collective-bargaining agent of the employ-
ees in the aforementioned unit. The results of the election
were certified as final on November 23.
Peter King was employed by Respondent from April
1971 until the date of his discharge, October 21. King
served his apprenticeship in England and was employed by
Respondent as a lathe operator and at the time of his dis-
charge was operating an N/C lathe, on which he had
worked for the past 2 years. According to King's testi-
mony, he first spoke to some of the employees about the
desirability of having a union sometime during the month
of June. This early June activity was unconfirmed, but
James Moorhead confirmed that he and Peter King had
gone to see Jim Dugan, an organizer for the Union, in late
July. Thereafter Moorehead, Charles Adams, and Peter
King actively solicited the employees to join the Union,
obtained signed union authorization cards, and frequently
wore union insignia on their clothing. (The parties stipulat-
ed that the union authorization cards which provided the
basis for the Board-conducted election were dated August
16, 17, and 18.)
B. The 8(a)(1) Allegations
Charles Adams testified, "On the morning of August 17,
Mr. Meanor had called me in to his office and asked me if
I knew anything about union activities, cards, or anything
else. At that time I told him I didn't know. He said, 'Do
you know if persons by the name of Jim Moorehead or Bill
Carpenter are involved?' and I told him also then I didn't
know. It wasn't until later on that afternoon that I even
found out about cards or signing my own then." 2
On or about August 18, Joe Black, president of Respon-
dent Company, met with the employees.
According to Peter King, Black told the employees "[h]e
knew there was a union attempt. He asked us to hold off
signing cards and that he was getting information and he
would continue getting information on the Union and
union activities." King was of the opinion that Black held a
second meeting that day after he (Black) had talked to his
attorney and at that meeting he told the employees he
couldn't make any promises. King thought there were two
other meetings a day or two later at which the same thing
was repeated by Black.
Adams was quite sure there were three or four employee
meetings around the 18th or 19th of August, and he quoted
Black as having said that he was "getting information
about the Union and would continue to do so." However,
Adams did not give this information to the Board's investi-
gator at the time he gave his investigative affidavit, which
1 Respondent's brief points out that the name Bill Carpenter as it appears
in the quote above was undoubtedly a reporter's error and the name should
have been Bill Carter. This would appear to be an accurate observation
inasmuch as the same witness testified on cross-examination that he was
asked if he had heard anything about Jim Moorehead or Bill Carter being
part of the lead.
was dated November 15 (the day of the election and only I
month after King's discharge).
Moorehead's testimony regarding the meeting was much
less definitive. He said he did not recall what was said too
clearly because he was not that impressed and besides his
mind was already made up about the Union. Moorehead
did not relate anything to the field investigator regarding
the employee meetings with Black.
Charles Curtis, who was called by Respondent, testified.
"To me. it was not an eventful occasion. I can remember
mainly that Mr. Black's thing was, he couldn't say any-
thing, that he had consulted with his attorney, and that his
mouth was closed." Curtis was uncertain of the number of
meetings and confessed that he just could not recall too
much about these meetings.
Joe Ray, currently an assistant foreman but a produc-
tion control manager who was included within the bargain-
ing unit at the relevant and significant time, testified that
he recalled attending two meetings but could not be sure if
they were on the same day. His recollection was vague. He
testified that Black "said he knew--he told us that he knew
about the union drive. He said that he could make no
promises to us by law, that he had talked to his attorney
and that is all that sticks in my mind at those meetings."
Donald Meanor, the shop foreman, was not questioned
regarding the meetings.
Joe Black testified that he first talked to the employees
about 12:30 p.m. on August 18. He told them he had
"heard that there was some union activity going on and I
would like them to not sign cards until I could see what I
could do and I was going to talk to my lawyer. I also did
not make any promises. I never threatened-. .. I said I'd
have to wait until I got advice from my attorney and until
then I wasn't going to say anything." Black was quite cer-
tain that there was only one other meeting, that it occurred
on August 23 at 5:30 p.m., and that both shifts were pres-
ent. At the second meeting, he testified, "I told them I was
not allowed to say anything. I could not promise. I could
not say anything and whatever they wanted to do, they had
to do it on their own. They started it and they could finish
it." Black testified that each meeting only lasted about 5
minutes, and this time estimate was not disputed by the
other witnesses.
Black further testified that he first became aware of the
Union's organization drive at Aeon about August 16 or 17,
when he received a call from Chuck Curtis, who advised
him that he was thinking about signing a union card. Curtis
testified that he called Black, at which time he said, "Mr.
Black, I'm about to sign a union card," to which Black
replied, "Chuck, that is your business. I wouldn't try to
stop you. You do what you think is right, but you know my
feelings."
On cross-examination by the General Counsel, the fol-
lowing series of questions explain why Curtis called Black.
Q. Why did you call Mr. Black and tell him you
were going to sign a card?
A. I consider Joe Black a friend of mine. I thought
he should know.
Q. After talking to him, you decided to not--not to
sign a card?
61
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. No, after talking to my wife. Mr. Black had no
effect on my decision. I called him back to tell him I
was not going to sign any card.
Q. You never did sign a card?
A. No ma'am I did not.
Curtis also testified that while he could not remember too
clearly all that he had said to Black, it was probable that he
had told him that union authorization cards were being
passed out among the employees.
C. The Discharge of Peter King
Peter King was discharged on October 20, because-Re-
spondent contends-he had received three warning slips
within a period of 6 months regarding either faulty work-
manship or a disregard of company safety and efficiency
procedures. The General Counsel contends King was dis-
criminatorily discharged because he was a union activist.
Reaching what I believe to be the correct resolution of this
conflict has not been done hastily or without some vacilla-
tion on my part. However, mere suspicion is not sufficient
to sustain proof of a violation.3 And the burden is on the
General Counsel to prove the violation by a preponderance
of the evidence.'
Joe Black testified that King exhibited his temper some 2
years before his actual discharge, when there was a
"threat" to remove him from his machine because of ina-
bility to set up the machine properly, but that the supervis-
or changed his decision "to keep him [King] from blowing
his block." On that occasion the supervisor had recom-
mended discharge, but Black had intervened.
In June, Joe Ray-a temporary foreman while Meanor
was on vacation-saw King reclining on a stool with one
foot on a bench in a position which he believed to be un-
safe insofar as the operation of his machine was concerned
and thereupon spoke to him. Ray said, "Pete, I'm tired of
getting my ass chewed out about you not doing your work
and please get up." 5 King replied, "If they want me to get
up, you tell those people to come down here and tell me."
Ray reported this incident to the Blacks, and Randy Black
immediately went to speak to King. The result was a first
warning notice dated June 16 (G.C. Exh. 3). During this
conversation King acknowledged that he told Black, "I'm
your employee, not your slave." King acknowledged that
he thought he had been fired over this incident when he
was told to punch out, but upon specific inquiry he was
told, "No, you can come back tomorrow."
King also acknowledged that in August Joe Black had
spoken to him about being careless because he had scrap-
ped two parts. This action was not written up as a warning
notice.
In September King received a second written notice
' Mere suspicion cannot substitute for proof of an unfair labor practie."
Kings Terrace Nursing Homre taid Health Related Faiilri. 229 NL.RB 1180
(1977). citing DSiL fg. Inc. 202 NLRB 970 (1973)
alsrtaff Brewing Corp.. 128 NLRB 294, 295. fn. 2 (1960). enfd. as minldi
fied 301 F.2d 216 (8th Cir. 1962).
According to Ray. King had been wandering awa) from his machine
talking to another operator during much of Ihe week that Ray had served as
a tcntporary foreman
(G.C. Exh. 4), because he had run 18 parts that had to be
reworked.
On October 20, King was responsible for running two
different operations on each of 100 parts; he was to run the
first operation on all 100 parts and then reset his machine
to perform the second operation on those same 100 parts.
In the late afternoon of October 20, Don Meanor had oc-
casion to observe that those parts had an excessively slop-
py fit in the "pot" for which they were designed. Meanor
advised King that the parts were too sloppy and that the
proper dimensions appeared on the printout which King
was supposed to have been following. King's answer was,
"I have always run it that way." It was necessary for Mea-
nor to readjust the other machines down the line to accom-
modate the results of King's errors on the first operation.
After King changed his machine to run the second opera-
tion, he took one of the parts to Jim Moorehead, who
worked at quality control, to ascertain if it passed inspec-
tion. According to both Moorehead and King, the part
passed inspection and, shortly thereafter, at 5:30 p.m. King
left work for the day.
King was scheduled to work on Friday, October 21, at 7
a.m., but, without having made any effort to advise the
Company that he would be late for work, he appeared at
approximately 10 a.m.6
When King failed to report for work as scheduled, and
because the parts were needed, a trainee, Bruce Miller, was
assigned to run the second operation on the rest of the
parts by using King's machine as he had left it set up the
night before. After running only one part, Miller discov-
ered that the machine was improperly set up and that the
offsets needed to be changed. Don Meanor asked Moore-
head to inspect the four parts on which King had run the
second operation on the previous afternoon. Two of the
four parts were correct and two were incorrect. Meanor
then reported this incident to Randy Black, observing that
he had spoken to King concerning the first operation on
the previous day only to learn that King had set the second
operation inaccurately, a fact which had been discovered
by a trainee. Black prepared King's final notice (G.C. Exh.
2), and when King arrived at approximately 10 a.m., he
was advised of his discharge. Some angry words were ex-
changed between Randy Black and Peter King.' Shortly
thereafter King received his final paycheck and a substan-
tial check ($10,000) from the profit-sharing plan, accumu-
lated during his 6 years of employment.
Analysis
The testimony of Charles Adams concerning his interro-
gaticn by Don Meanor regarding his and/or other employ-
ees' union activity was straightforward and, I believe, hon-
est and should be credited. Meanor did not deny the
interrogation. The Board has long held that interrogation
" \llhough it ssas not an emlergency. King decided that it was necessary
for him to assist his wife in taking their haby to the doctor to keep an
appointment. While the reason for being late may have been justifiable, I
can see no reason why he should not, or could not. have made some effort
to ad .ise the C ompany of his personal problem.
While this conversation tends to reflect King's undisciplined character. I
can find nothing in this area of the testimony tending to prove or disprove
ans allegations of the complaint
62
AEON PRECISION COMPANY
of employees by a supervisor concerning union or other
protected concerted activity directly interferes with the
Section 7 rights of employees and thus violates Section
8(a)(l) of the Act. Answering, Inc., 215 NLRB 688 (19;4).
Although King testified that he talked to a few employ-
ees in June concerning possible interest in a union, based
on his own testimony I conclude that this activity- if
any-was miaimal and remained unknown to Respo:ldent
as well as to one of his close friends and later coactivist.
Chuck Adams. Both King and Moorehead testified tl-ev
first contacted the Union in late July: the authorization
cards were all dated in mid-August. Charles Curtis testified
that he informed Joe Black about the Union in mid-Au-
gust; this timing coincides with Meanor's wrongful ques-
tioning of Charles Adams. Based upon the cumulative cvi-
dence it seems both logical and reasonable to conclude that
Respondent had no knowledge of union activity until mid-
August. Moreover, the testimony of Joe Ray as to the June
incident leading to the first warning notice was convincing;
King made light of the event and sought to explain his
comment to Ray by indicating they frequently kidded
around.
It is difficult to determine just what Joe Black said at the
brief employee meetings. The three activists--King. Moore-
head, and Adams-all testified they made no attempt to hide
their activities; they, along with others, wore union insignia
at work. Under such circumstances it would not seem unusual
to begin one's comments to the employees with a phrase such
as "I'm aware that the Union is active" or "I'm informed that
the Union is seeking to have you sign cards." Such comments
are not necessarily coercive; this is particularly true in an
environment where the union activists are operating openly
and without apparent fearof retaliation.8 1 am concerned that
neither Adams nor Moorehead was sufficiently impressed.
concerned, or coerced to remember any part of the speech
at the time they gave their pretrial affidavits to the Board
investigator.
Moreover, Joe Black was an impressive witness, whom I
believe to have been completely candid and honest in his
testimony. Even when viewed in the most favorable light
(from General Counsel's viewpoint), the alleged remarks
attributed to Joe Black are subject to dual interpretation,
and I have grave doubt that it was employer conduct which
might reasonably be said to have tended to interfere with
the exercise of employee rights under the Act. The testi-
mony does not establish a strong pattern of conduct hostile
to unionism. Not only did King, Moorehead, and Adams
openly solicit union authorization cards, but a number of
employees openly displayed the union insignia without ad-
verse consequences. I find it impossible to conclude from
the evidence in this record that Black's casual remarks ever
created the impression of surveillance, and certainly he
made no promises but, to the contrary, stated that he could
not make any promises.
The testimony establishes that Respondent had an un-
published, but generally well-known, rule that three warn-
ings within a 6-month period would result in dischargef.
Neither the management nor the employees were strangers to an organl-
zational campaign. A union had unsuccessfully sought to organize the em-
ployees in 1972.
King received three such warnings and, in accordance with
the policy. was discharged for that reason. The incidents
which precipitated the warning notices are not denied. The
General Counsel-through the testimony of Peter King-
merely seeks to minimize their importance. or significance.
thereby seeking to enhance the possibility of inferring an
unlawful motive. The issue, then, as in nearly every Section
81a)(3) termination case, is "the 'true purpose' or 'real mo-
tive' " for the discharge.'0 If Peter King was in fact dis-
charged because of his union activities, it makes no differ-
ence that there may also have been a legitimate reason for
fitrlic him. LN Conversely, if his discharge was not discrimi-
natorils motivated, it is immaterial whether the discharge
was arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. The Act does not
"give the Board any control whatsoever over an employer's
policies. including his policies concerning tenure of em-
ployment. .... (Aln employer may hire and fire at will for
any reason whatsoever, or for no reason, so long as the
motivation is not violative of the Act." 12
As suggested earlier herein, I am unable to conclude that
Respondent was illegally motivated in the discharge of Pe-
ter King. I reached that conclusion for the following rea-
sons.
1. While I believe King was reasonably accurate in most
of his testimony, nevertheless his demeanor reflected a def-
inite "cockiness" or arrogance that was distasteful. The il-
lustration that King testified about when Randy Black told
him he (King) had stretched the rubber band too far was
undoubtedly appropriate. King's complete failure to make
any effort to notify his employer on the morning of Octo-
ber 21 that he would be coming in to work at a late hour
under nonemergency conditions further illustrates his total
lack of concern or an improper attitude.
2. I credit Joe Black's testimony, particularly when he
stated he did not learn that Peter King was a leader among
the union activists until December 28, 2 months after
King's discharge.
3. The decision to discharge King was not hastily made.
Not only did Randy Black and Don Meanor participate in
the decision. hut Joe Black testified that the final decision
kwas his. I he testimony of all the witnesses-with the possi-
ble exception of King--indicates that the senior Black is a
fair-minded. highly respected employer whom the employ-
ees liked and trusted.
4. None of the other union activists or known union
supporters have suffered any retribution. To the contrary,
all have received raises along with the other employees,
and one known union supporter has been the recipient of
two postelection wage increases. The testimony' is convinc-
ing that Respondent was of the opinion that Moorehead
See the testimon of Rands Black, Donald Meanor. and Joe Black I hat
the pohc.s as generally known to the employees was in no was refuted or
questioned by the General Counsel
I .raL l 357 U'nired Briihrhood of 7eantsters. etc [Los Angeleu.-Sealtle
V.olor Elpresr/ v .S i R B. 365 L.S 667. 675 1961): Radi, Offtier' It ni.o
of the C omnnierioal Telegraphers tLnion. AFL JA. H. Bull Steariship ( onrm-
ls LRB. 347 U.S 17.43 (1954).
Local 152. 'nited Brotherhood of Teamsters, enl /Anter-itn Co.mprersed
Sleell v. N L R B. 343 F 2d 307. 309 (D,('. Cir. 1965).
I_ 'Il. RB v A4c, ( 'onih (o. ci . 342 F.2d 841. 847 (8th (ir. 1965)l 1s,,
.5 I. R B s. (,,rhei, 1: 4 , r .Xr e da. d u ( olumbs hu firhl Ii rl . 2! 3
F 2d 406. 413 (5th ( ir 19561. and caises there cited
63
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Adams and possibly Carter were the ringleaders of the
union activity and not Peter King.
The Company has not been shown to harbor the type of
animosity against union activity that would give it a motive
to discharge Peter King because of that activity, and the
Company has established by credible evidence that it had
legitimate business reasons for the discharge. I herewith
find that the General Counsel has failed to establish by a
preponderance of the credible evidence that there was ca-
sual connection between Peter King's union or other pro-
tected activity and his discharge.' 3
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. The Company is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when,
on or about August 18, Supervisor Donald Meanor en-
gaged in interrogating Charles Adams concerning his and/
or other employees' union activity.
4. The discharge of Peter King was not discriminatorily
motivated.
5. Respondent did not illegally make promises to the
employees or create the impression of surveillance as al-
leged in the complaint.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered
to cease and desist therefrom and to take affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 14
The Respondent, Aeon Precision Company, Inc., Auro-
ra, Colorado, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees concerning their or their fel-
low employees' union activities or other protected concert-
ed activities.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its plant in Aurora, Colorado, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 27, after being duly signed by Respondent's author-
ized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof. and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
1 (elelis Furniurture, In, v. . L.R. B., 550 F. 2d 1292. 1293 (Ist Cir. 1977).
14 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec, 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findir.gs. conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
I5 In the event that 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 National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National L abor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties had an opportunity to
present evidence and cross-exanune witnesses, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post this notice and to comply with its intent.
The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees
these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or engage in union activities
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all of these activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning
their, or other employees', union and/or protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their Section 7 rights.
AEON PRECISION COMPANY. INC.
64