Please analyze and answer question provided in the case below. Thank you.

Case Analysis: Election Interference, or Permissible Campaign Propaganda? The case between: Company: Caf de Flore, Inc., and Caf de Paris, Inc., Chicago, Illinois Union: Local No. 10, International Restaurant Employees Union BACKGROUND In late 1990, Local No. 10 of the International Restaurant Employees won a representational election to represent certain employees at Caf de Paris, Inc. In the spring of 1991, Caf de Paris and the union signed a collective bargaining agreement covering employees of Caf de Paris. Caf de Paris was owned by the same management that operated Caf de Flore, another restaurant located several blocks from Caf de Paris on the north side of Chicago. In 1991, the union began an organizing campaign among employees of Caf de Flore, and an election was ordered by the regional office of the NLRB to be held on July 9, 1991. Prior to the election date, the company on June 25, 1991, sent a letter to the home address of all its employe The letter contained the following statements (which are designated for reference purposes by paragraph numbers): Dear Fellow Employees: 1. As you know, there will be a Union election on July 9. At that election, each of you will have the opportunity to vote to determine whether or not you want to be represented by the restaurant workers' union. 2. You are much luckier than the employees at Caf de Paris, our restaurant on the north side. Some time ago those employees voted to be represented by the restaurant workers' union. They were led down the primrose path by union promises of increased wages and benefits. In fact, after the election the Union negotiated a contract with the restaurant management, which, in my opinion, gave the employees at Caf de Paris no more than they would have gotten had there been no union - and probably gave them less. In addition, I believe many of these employees will be hurt by the inflexibility of the Union contract. 3. On the other hand, you know from the experience of the Caf de Paris' employees exactly the kind of contract the Union would negotiate if it became your collective bargaining representative. A contract which produces nothing more than you would expect to receive were there no union in the picture. For that, you are afforded the privilege of paying Union dues. Paragraph 6 of the letter stated: 1. The restaurant does not want a union at Caf de Flore! Our experience on the north side has shown that we can negotiate an agreement with the Union which does not cost us any more in wages and benefits than without the Union and may even cost less. But our experience on the north side has also shown us that the presence of the Union results in a tense working relationship with extreme disharmony among the employees. This is a real cost to everyone. It can result in a loss of customers and a loss of income to our employees who serve those customers, as well as to the restaurant itself. The Union benefits no one but itself. The union lost the representational election at Caf de Flore. Immediately thereafter, the union filed unfair labor practice charges and exceptions to the election under Section 9(c) of the NLRA, requesting that the result of the election be set aside. UNION AND COMPANY VIEWPOINTS The union claimed that since the company letter contained both promises of benefits and threats of loss of benefits, the company had violated Section 8(c) of the NLRA and thus had coerced and interfered with employees' rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 7 of the NLRA. The company claimed that all of the language within its letter of June 25, 1991, was legitimate and permissible "campaign propaganda within the protected limits of Section 8(c) of the NLRA. The company explained that it distributed copies of the collective bargaining agreement between the union and Caf de Paris at a general meeting with its Caf de Flore employees. At this general meeting, the management team informed the employees that a union business agent had made management an offer to sign the same basic agreement for Caf de Flore employees if the company would agree to forgo an election. Alternatively, if the election were held, the union was willing to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement for Caf de Flore based on the one formulated for Caf de Paris. Regarding paragraph 2 of the letter, the company claimed it simply was stating its opinion relative to a union contract at its other location. . Regarding paragraph 3 of the letter, the union protested the language, claiming that words conveyed the impression that not only would no new benefits come to the employees with a union, but that the employees would lose benefits because they would have the additional requirement of paying union dues. The company argued that this paragraph did not indicate what the company's position would be if the union won the election; it only indicated management's interpretation of what the union's position in negotiations would be. Additionally, the company pointed out that they did not say that voting for the union indicated to the employees that a union would be futile. Regarding paragraph 6 of the letter, the company argued that it constituted permissible predictions of the effects of unionization and that its statements did not correlate unionization with a loss of job security. As such, these statements were not threats. The union requested that a new election should be held, and that the company should be ordered to cease and desist in interfering and coercing employees in their selection of a collective bargaining representative. The company requested that the union's exceptions to the election and unfair labor practice charges filed by the union should be dismissed, and that the NLRB should certify the results of the representational election. QUESTION 1. Using the NLRA Section 8(c), argue for the union that the statements in the company's letter went far beyond what is permitted employer statements allowed under the Act. Where appropriate, use The National Labor Relations Act (1935, as Amended). concepts to support your arguments