Pirelli Cable Corporation and IBEW Local 2236 began talks over terms of a new collective bargaining agreement in March 1994 to replace their existing contract, which would expire on May 1, 1994. Pirelli sought economic concession from the union, and the union talked to the membership about the possibility of a strike. On April 20, 1994, a letter was sent to all Pirelli employees expressing Pirelli's concerns about a potential strike and encouraging the employees to continue good faith negotiations. The two-page body of the letter addressed the financial difficulties Pirelli had encountered, noting specifically that both the demand for, and price of, its products had declined. Attached to the letter was a twopage list of nine questions and answers designed to convey information about the consequences of a decision to strike. Among the questions and answers was the following:
Q. If I go on strike, can I lose my job?
A. Yes. The Company can continue operating the plant, and can hire strike replacements. If you strike in an attempt to force the Company to agree to the Union's economic demands or to force the Company to withdraw its economic demands, the Company may permanently replace you. When the strike ends you would not have a job if you had been permanently replaced.
Subsequent negotiations led to a final offer by the company, which was rejected by the 200-person union membership. The union called a strike on May 5, 1994. The employer hired replacement workers, and the plant continued to operate. On June 20, the union made an unconditional offer to return to work. Pirelli told the union that replacement workers had been hired and that strikers would be put on a preferential hiring list.
In July 1994, some of Pirelli's employees circulated a petition and obtained 127 signatures of workers wanting the union decertified. The petition was presented to the management, which withdrew recognition of the union.
The union contends that the Q&A letter was threatening and coercive of employees' Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The union contends that because the employer violated Section 8(a)(1), the strikers were unfair-labor-practice strikers and should have been returned towork immediately upon their unconditional offer to return to work on June 20, 1994. The union contends that the decertification petition was tainted because of the employer's unfair labor practices.

The employer contends that the Q&A letter was explanatory of the problems and not threatening, and thus was not an unfair labor practice. It asserts that there was no causal link between the single Q&A on replacements in the Q&A letter and the subsequent strike. Rather, it asserts that the strike was an economic strike. It also contends that the decertification petition was an exercise of employee rights, untainted by the employer. Decide. [Pirelli Cable Corp. v.
NLRB, 141 F.3d 503 (4th Cir.)].