Mueller Energy Services

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 2001

333 N.L.R.B. 262 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 262
Mueller Energy Services, Inc. and International Un-
ion of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 17.
Cases 3–CA–20542–1R and 3–CA–20542–2R
February 6, 2001
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS
LIEBMAN
AND WALSH
On May 4, 1998, Administrative Law Judge Eleanor
MacDonald issued the attached decision. The Respon-
dent filed exceptions and a supporting brief and the Gen-
eral Counsel filed an answering brief.
Finding that the Respondent had timely filed a brief
with the judge, but that the judge had not received the
brief, the Board, by unpublished Order issued February
12, 1999, remanded the proceeding to the judge for her to
reconsider the issues, the record, and her decision in light
of both the Respondent’s and the General Counsel’s
briefs. On May 14, 1999, the judge issued the attached
supplemental decision, in which she reconsidered her
prior decision as directed and reaffirmed the findings of
fact and conclusions of law set forth in that decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief and
the General Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision, the supplemen-
tal decision, and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions1 and to adopt the recommended
Order.

1 The judge found, inter alia, that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1)
of the Act by soliciting employees, in its second letter dated February
27, 1997, to resign from Local 17. In its exceptions, the Respondent
cites cases such as Ace Hardware, 271 NLRB 1174 (1984); Perkins
Machine Co., 141 NLRB 697 (1963); Cyclops Corp., 216 NLRB 857
(1975); University of Richmond, 274 NLRB 1204 (1985); and Mari-
posa Press, 273 NLRB 528, 529 (1984), for the proposition that an
employer may lawfully inform employees of their right to revoke their
authorization cards (including supplying information and forms) even if
employees have not solicited such information, as long as the employer
does not attempt to ascertain if employees avail themselves of the right,
nor offers any assistance or otherwise creates a situation in which em-
ployees would tend to feel peril in refraining from revocation. Here, as
the judge found, the Respondent did more than merely inform the em-
ployees of their right to revoke their Local 17 authorization cards. The
Respondent’s first letter to employees, also dated February 27, 1997,
contained an unlawful threat of job loss for those employees who sign
with Local 17. Thus, the Respondent created a situation in which the
employees would tend to feel peril in refraining from revoking their
cards. In these circumstances, the Respondent could not lawfully in-
form its employees of their right to revoke their authorization cards.
Accordingly, we agree with the judge that the Respondent’s solicitation
of resignation from Local 17 violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Mueller Energy Services,
Inc., West Seneca, New York, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Order.

William F. Trezevant, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Roger L. Sabo, Esq. (Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn), of Colum-
bus, Ohio, for the Respondent.
Catherine Nugent, Esq., of Cheektowaga, New York, for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ELEANOR MACDONALD, Administrative Law Judge.
This case was tried in Buffalo, New York,, on October 14,
1997. The Complaint alleges that Respondent Mueller Energy
Services, Inc., in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, inter-
fered with its employees’ rights by the issuance of two docu-
ments. Respondent denies that it engaged in any violations of
the Act.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the brief filed by
the General Counsel on December 17, 1997, I make the follow-
ing1
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a corporation with an office and place of busi-
ness in West Seneca, New York, is engaged in providing gas
line services. Annually, Respondent provides services valued
in excess of $50,000 to enterprises directly engaged in inter-
state commerce. I find that Respondent is an employer within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No.
17, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent’s employees install pipelines for various local
gas companies. The employees are represented by Local 8-215
of the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers. In February 1997,
Local 17 of the International Union of Operating Engineers was
conducting an organizing campaign among Respondent’s em-
ployees.
B. Supervisory Status
The instant case arises from the distribution of two docu-
ments by an employee of Respondent. The General Counsel
asserts that the documents were issued by a supervisor and that
they contained matter which violated employees’ Section 7
1 The record is hereby corrected so that at p. 135, L. 6, it reads, “Pat
was staying more in the office, Paul was going out in the field.”
333 NLRB No. 32
MUELLER ENERGY SERVICES 263
rights. The Respondent disputes the supervisory status of the
employee who issued the documents and disputes their effect.
The documents at issue herein were signed by Paul Gotto, a
former employee of Respondent, who did not testify herein.
Prior to the opening of the hearing, the General Counsel had
subpoenaed from Respondent certain records which might have
shed light on Gotto’s status. Although directed to produce the
records in a ruling on Respondent’s petition to revoke the sub-
poena, Respondent did not produce these records at the hearing.
I therefore permitted General Counsel to introduce secondary
evidence concerning Gotto’s alleged supervisory status. Brad-
ley Olson, the president of Respondent, testified that four field
managers report to him. All the crew members, including
foremen, operators, laborers, and others report to the field man-
agers. The field managers have the authority to hire and fire
employees, they effectively recommend raises for employees
and they grant time off to employees. In addition, Respon-
dent’s job description for field managers shows that they assign
employees and evaluate employees. I find that the field man-
agers are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of
the Act.
Olson testified that Paul Gotto was a field manager in the
Buffalo area. Olson hired Gotto in the third week of February
1997, to replace departing field manager Pat Patterson.2 Ac-
cording to Olson, there was a period between the third week of
February and the first or second week of March when Patterson
remained on the job to take Gotto around, show him his duties,
and introduce him to employees. Olson stated that Gotto exer-
cised managerial authority and issued instructions to the em-
ployees every morning even while Patterson remained on the
job. Employee David Saviano testified that at some point, both
Patterson and Gotto were supervising employees; Gotto laid off
Saviano in the first week of March 1997. Employee Todd
Coppola testified that in February 1997, he reported to Gotto
and followed his instructions. Gotto told Coppola how he
wanted the jobs done and Coppola went to Gotto with his prob-
lems. During this time Patterson was backing out of his job and
transferring everything to Gotto. I conclude that Gotto exer-
cised supervisory authority within the meaning of Section 2
(11) of the Act from the time he was hired in February 1997.
C. Content of the Letters
On February 27, 1997, Gotto issued a letter, which was dis-
tributed to employees in the field by the foremen. The docu-
ment read in its entirety as follows:

To All MES, Inc. Employees,

As you all may have heard, operating engineers have been
confronting various individuals within our company regarding
signing up with the Operating Engineers, Local 17.

Mueller Energy Services, Inc. as you know has a ratified
agreement with the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Un-
ion, Local 8–215. Which is affiliated with the AFL–CIO, the
largest union organization in the country. (sic) This affiliation
has enabled our company to move into areas such as Buffalo,
NY, and competitively bid work that is done by mostly non-

2 Gotto ceased working for Respondent in July 1997.
union contractors while providing health insurance, a vacation
fund and a pension plan for all employees. And keep rela-
tively busy twelve months a year.

Mueller Energy Services, Inc. has been successful in part to
our union organization and intends to continue to recognize
the OCAW as our union affiliate. (sic) Therefore those who
choose to sign up with Local 17 should make sure they have a
place of employment when they do, because as OCAW
members, we will in no way hire building trades union mem-
bers, nor will we ever. Signing with Local 17 will just get
you a union card and a seat at the union hall waiting for a
place of employment and waive your rights under the agree-
ment that Mueller Energy Services, Inc. abides by.

To continue employment at Mueller Energy, my best advice
is to refer those persons from Local 17 to your foreman who
will in turn refer them to myself. If you have any questions
regarding this matter, feel free to ask me.

Sincerely,

Paul Gotto

PG/pp

Olson stated that the two sets of initials at the bottom of the
letter belonged to Gotto and Patterson.
Olson testified that Gotto had not been authorized to send
this letter. When Olson learned of the letter, he directed Gotto
to send another letter. This second letter, also dated February
27, 1997, and addressed to all Union employees, read as fol-
lows:

We understand from comments of several employees that you
have been approached by representatives of Local 17 and to
sign authorization cards for that union. (sic) We also under-
stand that you have been promised you will get more money
if you join Local 17.

We want to emphasize a few points that are obviously not be-
ing made clear by representatives of Local 17 in this matter.

1. Our company has a contract with the Oil, Chemical, and
Atomic Workers Union . . . ocal 17 cannot change the terms
and conditions of employment. . . ..

2. As an OCAW union contractor, this company could not
bargain with Local 17 if it wanted to. . . .

3. As a member of this company, you are obligated to the un-
ion shop clause negotiated by this company with the OCAW
. . . If you do not tender your periodic dues, you can be sub-
ject to discharge for failure to do so.

4. If Local 17 is telling you they can get you better wages,
then it would have to be with another company. If they are
talking about a job with one of their union employers, it is not
likely to be in the gas industry. . . .
5. Local 17 is a craft union. … Unless and until one becomes
a journeyman within Local 17, one receives wages as an ap-
prentice. . . .
6. We understand and appreciate that Local 17 has been at our
doorstep because of a dispute they have with a contractor
across the street, Arbys. . . .
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 264

7. In addition to promising higher pay, we understand the rep-
resentatives of Local 17 have stated that unless you sign with
them, you will be subject to strikes and picketing. . . . This
company will not allow anyone to act in such a fashion. . . .

8. If you wish to remain a member of Local 17 and seek em-
ployment opportunities that they offer, we would request that
you give us at least two weeks advanced notice. . . .

Clearly Local 17 has not told you the complete story. Part of
the story they did not tell you is that you are free to resign
from a union. That is, you can simply advise Local 17 that
you are resigning from their union. It is a simple letter and we
enclose a sample that you could send directly to that union.
We express no opinion as to whether you should do
so. . . .But, since we will continue to abide by our agreement
with the OCAW which requires membership in their union,
we see no reason you need to belong to two unions if you
wish to remain working for our company.

The next page of this letter is a sample membership resigna-
tion and authorization card revocation form addressed to Local
17.
The first letter addressed to employees by supervisor Gotto
and bearing the initials of Gotto and supervisor Patterson told
employees that if they sign up with Local 17 they will not be
hired by Respondent, but instead will have to find another job
through the Local 17 union hall, and they will have waived
their rights under the applicable collective bargaining agree-
ment between the OCAW and Respondent. This language
constitutes a direct threat that employees who join Local 17
will lose their jobs with Mueller Energy Services. Respondent
thus violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Further, the first
letter told employees that to continue employment at Mueller
Energy they should refer persons from Local 17 to a foreman
who would in turn refer them to Gotto. This statement clearly
conditions continued employment upon reporting persons en-
gaged in concerted activities to supervisors. Respondent thus
violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Eastern Maine Medical
Center, 277 NLRB 1374–5 (1985).
The second letter addressed to employees by Gotto pursuant
to the direction of president Olson told employees that Respon-
dent was aware that they had been approached by representa-
tives of Local 17 and asked to join that Union. By this lan-
guage Respondent created an impression among its employees
that their union activities were under surveillance. Respondent
thus violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. Finally, the second
letter told employees that they had no need to belong to Local
17 since they were subject to a union shop membership re-
quirement with the OCAW and the letter provided employees
with a sample resignation form to send to Local 17. Respon-
dent did not merely provide employees with information relat-
ing to union resignation, but by threatening employees in its
first letter issued on February 27, that they would lose their jobs
if they signed up with Local 17. Respondent created a stituation
in which employees would tend to feel imperiled should they
refrain from resigning. Therefore, the statements relating to
resignation from Local 17 constituted unlawful soliciation of
resignation from union membership in violation of Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act.. Schenk Packing Co., 301 NLRB 487, 489
(1991).
At the instant hearing, Respondent contended that the second
letter in some way remedied the violations contained in the first
letter. This contention does not merit serious consideration. In
order for the second letter effectively to repudiate the first letter
it would have had to be specific and unambiguous with respect
to disavowing the coercive language in the first letter and it
would have had to assure employees that in the future Respon-
dent would not interfere with the exercise of their statutory
rights. Passavant Memorial Area Hospital, 237 NLRB 138
(1978).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By threatening employees that if they joined Local 17 they
would lose their jobs and waive their rights under the existing
collective-bargaining agreement, by conditioning continued
employment upon reporting persons engaged in concerted ac-
tivities to supervisors, by creating an impression among em-
ployees that their union activities were under surveillance, and
by unlawfully soliciting employees to resign their membership
in Local 17, Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended3
ORDER
The Respondent, Mueller Energy Services, Inc., West Se-
neca, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall

1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees that if they join Local 17 they
will lose their jobs and waive their rights under the esisting
collective bargaining agreement, conditioning continued em-
ployment upon reporting persons engaged in concerted activi-
ties, creating an impression that the union activities of employ-
ees are under surveillance and unlawfully soliciting employees
to resign their membership in Local 17.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
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 effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in West Seneca, New York, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided

3 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.
4 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-
MUELLER ENERGY SERVICES 265
by the Regional Director for Region 3, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In
the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility in-
volved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respondent at
any time since February 27, 1997.
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
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 ordered 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 protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted
activities.

WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of your job and
waiver of your rights under the existing collective-bargaining
agreement if you join International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, Local Union No. 17.
WE WILL NOT condition your continued employment upon
reporting persons engaged in concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT create the impression that your union activi-
ties are under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully solicity you to resign your
membership in Local 17.
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.

MULLER ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

William F. Trezevant, Esq., for the General Counsel.

tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”

Roger L. Sabo, Esq. (Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn), of Colum-
bus, Ohio, for the Respondent.
Catherine Nugent, Esq., of Cheektowaga, New York, for the
Charging Party.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ELEANOR MACDONALD, Administrative Law Judge. On
February 12, 1999, the National Labor Relations Board re-
manded the above-captioned proceeding to me, ordering that I
shall prepare and serve on the parties a Supplemental Decision
containing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recom-
mended Order. The purpose of the remand was so that I could
reconsider the issues, the record and my prior decision in this
proceeding in light of the Respondent’s and the General Coun-
sel’s briefs. The Board found that although the Respondent had
timely filed a brief with me I did not receive the brief and I was
thus unable to consider it in issuing my prior decision in the
instant matter.1
Upon reconsideration of the issues, the record and my prior
decision in light of the Respondent’s brief and the General
Counsel’s brief, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a corporation with an office and place of busi-
ness in West Seneca, NY is engaged in providing gas line ser-
vices. The Respondent admits that annually it provides ser-
vices valued in excess of $50,000 to National Fuel Gas Com-
pany. The Complaint alleges that National Fuel Gas Company
is an enterprise directly engaged in interstate commerce which
meets a Board standard for the assertion of jurisdiction, exclu-
sive of indirect inflow or indirect outflow. The Respondent’s
Answer denies this allegation “for want of knowledge.” The
record shows that the Respondent works for National Fuel Gas
Company in New York State installing and maintaining distri-
bution gas lines. In National Fuel Gas Distribution Corp., 308
NLRB 841 (1992), the Board found that National Fuel Gas
Distribution Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of National Fuel
Gas Company, is a public utility incorporated in New York
State and engaged in the purchase, distribution and retail sale of
natural gas. The utility has a principal office and place of busi-
ness in Buffalo, New York, and various facilities throughout
New York State and Pennsylvania. The Board found that the
utility is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act. I find that the General Counsel has made a prima
facie showing that the Respondent herein is an employer under
the Act, and that the Respondent has not provided any facts to
the contrary. Respondent’s conjecture, stated in its brief, that
there may have been changed circumstances in the status of
National Fuel Gas Company since 1992 does not amount to a
showing that in fact there have been changes. I adhere to the
finding in my prior decision that the Respondent is an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
1 My prior decision, JD(NY)–28–98, issued May 4, 1998.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 266
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Respondent’s brief urges that because its employees
were covered by a contract with the OCAW it was not unlawful
for it to tell its employees that they could not join Local 17.
The Respondent urges that because Local 17 could not become
the employees’ bargaining agent at the time the alleged unfair
labor practices occurred, its statements to employees were not
coercive. Manifestly, the Respondent’s employees were enti-
tled to join any union they wished. The fact that Local 17
could not represent employees during the time at issue does not
entitle the employer to threaten employees with loss of em-
ployment and benefits under the existing contract if they should
decide to join Local 17. None of the Respondent’s other
unlawful statements to its employees were privileged by the
fact that Local 17 could not be certified to represent the em-
ployees.
All of the other arguments contained in the Respondent’s
brief address issues that were discussed in my prior decision.
My view of the facts remains the same after a review of the
record in light of the Respondent’s brief. It is not necessary to
repeat the prior factual and legal discussion here and I adhere to
the findings of fact made in my prior decision.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By threatening employees that if they joined Local 17 they
would lose their jobs and waive their rights under the existing
collective-bargaining agreement, by conditioning continued
employment upon reporting persons engaged in concerted ac-
tivities to supervisors, by creating an impression among em-
ployees that their union activities were under surveillance, and
by unlawfully soliciting employees to resign their membership
in Local 17, the Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
Based on my reconsideration of the issues, the record, and
my prior decision in light of the Respondent’s brief and the
General Counsel’s brief, I issue the following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent, Mueller Energy Services, Inc., West Se-
neca, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees that if they join Local 17 they
will lose their jobs and waive their rights under the existing
collective-bargaining agreement, conditioning continued em-
ployment upon reporting persons engaged in concerted activi-
ties, creating an impression that the union activities of employ-

2 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.
ees are under surveillance and unlawfully soliciting employees
to resign their membership in Local 17.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
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 effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in West Seneca, New York, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 3, after being signed by the
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In
the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility in-
volved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respondent at
any time since February 27, 1997.
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
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 ordered 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 protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected con-
certed activities.

WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of your jobs and
waiver of your rights under the existing collective bargaining
agreement if you join International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, Local Union No. 17.
WE WILL NOT condition your continued employment upon
reporting persons engaged in concerted activities.
3 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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
MUELLER ENERGY SERVICES 267
WE WILL NOT create the impression that your union activi-
ties are under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT solicit you to resign your membership in
Local 17.
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.
MULLER ENERGY SERVICES, INC.