47 Old Country, Inc. d/b/a Babi I; Jilly SN Inc. Babi Nail USA II Corp. d/b/a Babi II

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Apr 3, 2012

29-CA-030247 (N.L.R.B. Apr. 3, 2012)

JD(NY)-08-12
Bohemia, NY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
47 OLD COUNTRY, INC. d/b/a BABI I; JILLY SN, INC.;
BABI NAIL USA II CORP. d/b/a BABI II
A Single Employer
and Case No. 29-CA-30247

CHINESE STAFF AND WORKERS’ ASSOCIATION
Rachel Zweighaft, Esq., Brooklyn, NY,
for the General Counsel.
Saul D. Zabell, Esq. (Pitta & Giblin, LLP),
New York, NY, for the Respondent.
Aaron Halegua and Karen Cacace, Esqs.,
The Legal Aid Society, New York, NY, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
STEVEN DAVIS, Administrative Law Judge:
Based upon a charge and a first amended charge filed by the Chinese Staff and
Workers’ Association on May 24 and July 12, 2010, respectively, the Regional Director issued a
complaint on December 30, 2010 which alleged that 47 Old Country, Inc. d/b/a Babi I; Jilly SN,
Inc., Babi Nail USA II Corp. d/b/a/ Babi II (Respondents) violated the Act in certain respects.
The complaint alleged, essentially, that the Respondents, a single integrated business
enterprise and a single employer, issued a disciplinary warning to an employee, and threatened
employees with (a) closure of the business (b) discharge and (c) a reduction in wages. The
complaint further alleged that the Respondents created an impression among their employees
that their concerted activities were being kept under surveillance by the Respondents. Finally,
the complaint alleged that the Respondents reduced the working hours of, and discharged four
employees, namely, De Ping Song, Bai Song Li, Chun Sen Zhu, and Yan Zhang.
I. Procedural Background
On March 31, 2011, the Regional Director approved a bilateral Settlement Agreement
(Agreement) executed by the Respondent, resolving the allegations made in the amended
complaint.
The Agreement provided that the Respondents agree that:
In case of non-compliance with any of the terms of this Settlement
Agreement, and after 14 days notice… of such non-compliance
without remedy by the Charged Party, the Regional Director will
JD(NY)-08-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
reissue the complaint previously issued on December 30, 2010….
Thereafter, the General Counsel may file a motion for summary
judgment with the Board on the allegations of the complaint. The
Charged Party understands and agrees that the allegations of the
aforementioned complaint will be deemed admitted and its Answer
to such complaint will be considered withdrawn. The only issue
that may be raised before the Board is whether the Charged Party
defaulted on the terms of this Settlement Agreement. The Board
may then, without the necessity of trial or any other proceeding,
find all allegations of the complaint to be true and make findings of
fact and conclusions of law consistent with those allegations
adverse to the Charged Party, on all issues raised by the
pleadings. The Board may then issue an order providing a full
remedy for the violations found as is appropriate to remedy such
violations.
The Agreement required, inter alia, that the Respondents reinstate Bai Song Li upon his
presentation of a valid nail specialty license within a reasonable period of time.1
By letter dated June 27, 2011, Charging Party’s attorney Aaron Halegua e-mailed a copy
of the “valid nail specialty license” issued to Bai Song Li to Respondents’ attorney Saul Zabell.
The letter requested Li’s immediate reinstatement. Thereafter, he was not reinstated.
On January 5, 2012, the Region’s Compliance Officer wrote to Zabell, advising him that:
In a letter addressed to you and dated June 27, 2011, counsel for
Bai Song Li made an unconditional offer to return to work on Li’s
behalf. Enclosed with the letter was a valid nail specialty license;
however, to date, your clients have failed to reinstate Li at Babi I
or Babi II. Full compliance with the Informal Settlement Agreement
required your clients to reinstate Bai Song Li, upon his
presentation of the license.”
The letter asked for verification, by January 19, 2012, that the Respondents have
reinstated Li. The letter concluded that if no such verification was received, the Compliance
Officer would conclude that the Respondents do not intend to cure the default of their obligation
to reinstate Li, and he would recommend that the Agreement be revoked, the complaint be
reissued, and that the Board issue a default order against the Respondents.
On January 20, 2012, the Director issued an Order Revoking Settlement and Re-Issuing
Complaint and Notice of Hearing. The Order stated that the Respondents had failed to comply
with the Agreement by failing to reinstate Bai Song Li upon his presentation of a valid nail
specialty license.
The Order concluded that inasmuch as the Respondent failed to comply with certain
terms of the Agreement and cure its default, the Director revoked the Agreement and asserted
that the allegations in the reissued complaint may be deemed to be true by the Board.
The Order stated that the only issue that the Respondents may contest is whether they

1 The three other workers had already been reinstated.
JD(NY)-08-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
defaulted upon the terms of the Agreement and/or if they received notice to cure the default.
The Respondents’ Answer to the reissued complaint denied that they defaulted in
complying with the terms of the Agreement, but admitted receipt of the January 5 letter advising
them of their obligation to cure their default.
As set forth below, I find and conclude that the Respondents defaulted upon the terms of
the Agreement by not reinstating Li, and also that they received notice to cure the default and
have not done so.
On February 29, 2012, a hearing was held before me in Brooklyn, New York. On the
entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and the briefs
received from Counsel for the Acting General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the
following:
II. Analysis and Discussion
A. The Acting General Counsel’s Case
The Agreement requires the Respondents to reinstate Bai Song Li upon his presentation
of a valid nail specialty license within a reasonable period of time. On June 27, 2011, attorney
Halegua made an unconditional offer to return to work on Li’s behalf, and included in the
correspondence a copy of Li’s valid nail specialty license.
This tender of the offer to return to work and Li’s license was sufficient to trigger the
Respondents’ obligation to immediately reinstate Li. The Respondents failed to do so and now
raise certain arguments in their defense. These arguments were raised for the first time in this
proceeding, at the instant hearing.
B. The Respondents’ Arguments
The Respondents make several arguments which they claim excuse them from their
obligation to reinstate Li. They assert that Li should have, himself, presented his nail license and
that his attorney’s presentation of the license was insufficient. The Respondents also argue that
they received Li’s offer to return to work at a time when Babi I was being operated by the
prospective purchaser of the salon, and the offer was received when the Respondents’ attorney
was on vacation and could not have responded to the offer. Further, in this regard, they claim
that they could not have reinstated Li upon receipt of his June 27 offer to return because Babi I
was sold on July 1.
It is significant to note that the Respondents apparently at no time prior to the hearing
raised any of these issues. For eight months after they received Li’s license, from June 27, 2011
to February, 2012, they did not claim that he did not make a proper offer to return to work
because he failed to personally present his license. Nor did they raise any of the above
arguments in their answer to the reissued complaint.
1. The Sufficiency of the Offer to Return
Pursuant to the express terms of the Agreement, the Respondents were required to
reinstate Bai Song Li upon “his presentation of a valid nail specialty license within a reasonable
period of time.”
JD(NY)-08-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
Li’s license bears an effective date of May 20, 2011. He testified that he received it in
late May or early June, 2011, and called Yean Ling Tsoi (Christie), the nail manager at Babi I. Li
told her that he received his license and asked when he could return to work. Thereafter, he
received no offers of reinstatement.
As set forth above, on June 27, attorney Halegua sent an e-mail to Respondents’
attorney Zabell, requesting that Li “be put back to work immediately” to which was attached an
image of Li’s license. Li admitted that he did not present his license to any of the Respondents’
representatives, and that although he was present with Zabell in a federal court proceeding in
the summer of 2011 he did not present it to Zabell because he was not asked to do so.
The owner of Babi I, Kui Soon Cho (Rosemary) testified that she told manager Tsoi,
when the employees were returning to work pursuant to the Agreement, that she should “have
everyone bring their license,” but also stated that she never told Christie that she needs to see
the actual license. Cho also stated that she did not believe that she saw the license of another
employee who was reinstated pursuant to the Agreement.
The Respondents seem to argue that, under a strict reading of Li’s obligation under the
Agreement, he was required to present the license to the Respondents, and that his attorney’s
presentation of the license did not meet the requirements of the Agreement.
I do not agree. Halegua was at all times acting as counsel to the Charging Party, the
Chinese Staff and Workers’ Association. As such, he was authorized to represent Li. Thus,
Halegua signed the Agreement and sent the e-mail to Zabell which contained Li’s license and
set forth Li’s unconditional offer to return to work.
At no time did the Respondents or Zabell question attorney Halegua’s authority to
represent Li or contest the legality of his presentation of Li’s license or the unconditional offer to
return to work he made in Li’s behalf.
The Board has long held that offers to return to work may be made on behalf of
employees by a union, and need not be made personally. Ford Bros., 294 NLRB 107, 129
(1989); Colonial Haven Nursing Home, Inc., 218 NLRB 1007, 1011 (1975); Little Rock
Airmotive, Inc., 182 NLRB 666, 672 (1970). Here, where attorney Halegua was counsel to the
Charging Party, he certainly had the authority to act on behalf of Li.
I also cannot find, as argued by the Respondents, that Li did not present his license
within a reasonable period of time as required by the Agreement. The Agreement does not
define the term “reasonable period of time.” Li’s license is effective May 20, 2011. The license
was e-mailed to the Respondents’ attorney’s office, 38 days later. Although Li’s license is
effective May 20, it is unknown when he actually received it. He testified that he received it in
late May or early June. There is no evidence that he delayed applying for his license.
Accordingly, he may have been in possession of the license for fewer than 38 days. Under
these circumstances, it cannot be held that Li failed to present the license within a reasonable
period of time.
2. The Transfer of Ownership and Control of Babi I
The Respondents also argue that attorney Halegua sent the offer to return on behalf of
Li at a time when Zabell could not reply because he was out of the office on vacation, and that
by the time he returned, Babi I had been sold, thereby excusing the Respondents of their
obligation to reinstate Li.
JD(NY)-08-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
As part of this argument, the Respondents assert that Li worked only at Babi I, and since
that company was sold, their obligation to reinstate Li has ended.
First, there is some dispute as to whether Li worked solely at Babi I. Li testified that he
worked at Babi I and also worked at Babi II in Glen Head, although he could not recall the
address of that salon or the hours he worked there. However, he stated that when Babi II was
very busy he was asked to work there.2
Li’s testimony that he worked at Babi II is supported by the former owner of Babi I, Kui
Soon Cho, who testified that, although there was no regular interchange of workers between
Babi I and Babi II, on about one or two occasions, one or two employees of Babi I were asked
by the manager of that salon to work at Babi II for one or two hours when Babi II had a large
party with 10 or 20 guests and needed more workers to help with the large group. I recognize
that Cho did not believe that Li was sent from Babi I to Babi II on such occasions, but I credit
Li’s testimony that he was. In support of this finding I note that Cho stated that due to illness,
she was not present at Babi I very often. Thus, Li could have been assigned to Babi II when she
was absent from the salon.
The manager of Babi I,Tsoi, testified first that Li worked only at Babi I. However, she
also testified that, pursuant to a request from the manager of Babi II who needed help with a
large party, she sent employees from Babi I to work there a couple of times. She was not certain
whether Li was one of the workers she sent to Babi II.
I need not resolve this conflict as to whether Li worked at Babi II. The Respondents
agreed to reinstate Li to his former position as nail technician, they operate at least two nail
salons, and he could have been reinstated to Babi I or Babi II. Importantly, the Compliance
Officer’s letter of January 5, advised the Respondents’ attorney that they “have failed to
reinstate Li at Babi I or Babi II.”
Accordingly, the Respondents had a clear obligation to reinstate Li to Babi I or Babi II.
The evidence reflects that after Halegua sent the offer to return on June 27, he was e-
mailed by Zabell’s office that Zabell was out of the office that week due to a vacation. In reply,
Halegua stated that he believed that Zabell’s vacation was to start the next day, June 28, adding
“we would like to see our plaintiffs put back to work immediately. Therefore, we would
appreciate if you or he could communicate this to the Defendants [Respondents here] before he
leaves.” In response, Zabell’s office wrote that Zabell’s “vacation started today and he has not
been in the office all day.’’
Kui Soon Cho, the owner of Babi I, testified that in about mid June, 2011, she ceased
operating that salon, and the new, prospective owner of that salon began operating it. The
closing of the sale of Babi I took place on July 1, 2011.
The Respondents rely on an e-mail sent by Halegua on July 13, 2011 which reads as
follows:

2 Respondents’ counsel’s leading question that Babi I “was the one location that you worked
at” was answered in the affirmative by Li. I do not accept that as evidence that he worked only
at Babi I.
JD(NY)-08-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
As per our discussion yesterday, please send us confirmation
about (1) whether the closing for the sale of the salon at 47 Old
Country Road has closed and (ii) if so, evidence that the amount
represented to the Court has been put in your escrow account.
If your clients still do own and operate the nail salon, then we
would expect a response to Plaintiffs’ request for reinstatement
which was sent along with evidence of Mr. Song’s employment
authorization and Mr. Li’s license.
The Respondents argue that Halegua’s “request for a response” to Li’s offer to return
implied that if the salon located at 47 Old Country Road was no longer owned by the
Respondents, Halegua was waiving any right that Li had to reinstatement.
Clearly, Halegua’s inquiry is unrelated to the Respondents’ commitment, under the
Agreement, or its legal obligation, to reinstate Li. In addition, as set forth above, if the
Respondents no longer owned Babi I, Li could have been reinstated to Babi II. No reason was
offered by the Respondents as to why they could not have reinstated Li to Babi II. There was no
evidence that Li was unqualified to work at Babi II, a nail salon. As noted above, the evidence
establishes that the technicians were occasionally sent to work from Babi I to Babi II.
I reject the Respondents’ argument, in their brief, that the “nail salons are not
interchangeable and nail technicians worked at individual locations, not as Babi Nails as a
single or consolidated entity.” First, there was no record evidence that the salons were not
interchangeable. Nor was there evidence that the work performed by the nail technicians at the
two salons was not interchangeable. It is clear that Li was qualified as a nail technician and that
his skills could be utilized at any nail salon. This is particularly true as he worked at Babi II in
helping out during a party there. Further, inasmuch as the Respondents’ answer has been
considered as withdrawn, I find that they are, as alleged, a single integrated enterprise and a
single employer.
C. Obligation to Reinstate
The Agreement clearly identifies the Respondents as Babi I, Babi II and Jilly SN, all nail
salons. In addition, the Agreement clearly set forth the Respondents’ obligation to reinstate Li to
his former job. I find that Li made a valid, unconditional offer to return to work within a
reasonable period of time, simultaneously providing a copy of his valid nail specialty license.
I accordingly find and conclude that the Respondents have failed to comply with their
obligation to reinstate Bai Song Li, and have therefore failed to comply with the terms of the
Agreement.
D. Conclusions
Based on the above, I find that the Respondents have failed to comply with the terms of
the Agreement by not reinstating Bai Song Li upon his presentation of a valid nail specialty
license. The evidence also establishes that the Respondents have not cured their default.
The Agreement provides that in the event of the Respondent’s non-compliance with its
terms, the complaint be reissued, and its allegations will be deemed admitted and its Answer to
such complaint will be considered withdrawn. The Board may then find all allegations of the
complaint to be true and make findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with those
JD(NY)-08-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
allegations adverse to the Respondents on all issues raised by the pleadings. The Board may
then issue an order providing a full remedy for the violations found as is appropriate to remedy
such violations.
III. Ruling on the Order Revoking Settlement
Findings of Fact
Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, I find that all of the allegations of the amended
complaint are deemed to be true, as set forth below:
Jurisdiction
Respondent Babi I, a domestic corporation with its principal office and place of business
located at 47 Old Country Road, Carle Place, New York, has been engaged in the business of
providing nail salon and related services to customers.
Respondent Jilly SN, a domestic corporation with its principal office and place of
business located at 47 Old Country Road, Carle Place, New York, has been engaged in the
business of providing nail salon and related services to customers.
Respondent Babi II, a domestic corporation with its principal office and place of business
located at 338 Glen Head Road, Glen Head, New York, has been engaged in the business of
providing nail salon and related services to customers.
On August 10, 2010, by letter, Respondents asserted that they are not employers
engaged in commerce, and that the Board lacks jurisdiction over them.
A subpoena duces tecum was served upon Respondents by certified mail on August 11,
2010, requiring and directing them to appear before a Hearing Officer on August 25, 2010, and
to produce certain documents relevant to Respondents’ assertion referred to above, at that time.
Since August 25, 2010, Respondents have failed to produce the documents referred to
in the subpoena duces tecum referred to above, nor have they filed a Petition to Revoke said
subpoena.
During the past calendar year, Respondents, in the course and conduct of their business
operations referred to above, purchased and received at the Carle Place and Glen Head
facilities, goods, products and materials amounting to more than de minimis, directly from
enterprises located outside the State of New York.
At all times material, Respondents have been an Employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
At all material times, Respondents have been affiliated business enterprises with
common officers, ownership, directors, management, and supervision; have formulated and
administered a common labor policy affecting employees of said operations; have shared
common premises and facilities; have provided services for, and made sales to, each other;
have interchanged personnel with each other; and have held themselves out to the public as a
single integrated business enterprise.
By virtue of their operations as described above, Respondents constitute a single
JD(NY)-08-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
integrated business enterprise and are a single employer within the meaning of the Act.
The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
1. The charge was filed by the Chinese Staff and Workers’ Association (“CSWA”) on
May 24, 2010, and was served upon the Respondents by regular mail on May 27, 2010.
2. A first amended charge was filed by CSWA on July 12, 2010, and was served upon
Respondents by regular mail on July 16, 2010.
3. At all material times, the following individuals have held the positions set forth
opposite their respective names, and have been supervisors of Respondents within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and agents of Respondents, acting on their behalf:
Kui Soon Cho (a/k/a Rosemary) - Co-owner and Supervisor
In Bae Kim (a/k/a Frank) - Co-owner and Supervisor
4. On about December 21, 2009, Respondents’ employees De Ping Song, Bai Song Li,
Chun Sen Zhu, Yan Zhang, Yang Xu, and Jie Li, concertedly fled a lawsuit against Respondents
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in 09-cv-05566, alleging violations
of federal wage and hour, and other discrimination laws.
5. On about December 23, 2009, Respondents, through their agent, In Bae Kim, at the
Carle Place facility:
(a) issued a disciplinary warning to employee De Ping Song; and
(b) threatened employees with closure of the businesses.
6. On about December 26, 2009, Respondents, through their agent, Kui Soon Cho, at
the Carle Place facility, threatened employees with discharge.
7. In about January, 2010, Respondents, by their agent, Kui Soon Cho, threatened
employees with discharge and closure of their businesses.
8. On about January 7, 2010, Respondents, by their agent, Kui Soon Cho, threatened
employees with a reduction in wages.
9. On about January 20, and on about February 4, 2010, Respondents, by their agent, In
Bae Kim, at the Carle Place facility, created an impression among their employees that their
concerted activities conducted for the purpose of mutual aid or protection, were being kept
under surveillance by Respondents.
10. In about January, 2010, Respondents reduced the working hours of employees De
Ping Song, Bai Song Li, Chun Sen Zhu, and Yan Zhang.
11. In about the end of January, 2010, Respondents discharged Yan Zhang.
12. On about February 1, 2010, Respondents discharged Bai Song Li, Chun Sen Zhu,
and De Ping Song.
13. (a) Since the dates of the discharges referred to in paragraphs 11 and 12, above,
through the dates set forth below, Respondents have failed and refused to reinstate the below-
JD(NY)-08-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
named employees to their former or substantially equivalent position of employment:
Yan Zhang – April 10, 2011
Chun Sen Zhu – April 10, 2011
De Ping Song – April 12, 2011
(b) Since the dates of the discharges referred to in paragraphs 11 and 12, above,
Respondents have failed and refused to offer to reinstate Bai Song Li to his former or
substantially equivalent position of employment.
14. Respondents engaged in the conduct described above in paragraphs 5(a), and 10
through 13, because the employees named in paragraph 4 engaged in the conduct described
above in paragraph 4, and to discourage employees from engaging in these or other concerted
activities.
15. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 5 through 13, Respondents have
been interfering with, restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
16. The unfair labor practices of Respondent, described above, affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
Conclusions of Law
By the conduct described above in paragraphs 5 through 13, Respondents have been
interfering with, restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that they must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondents, having discriminatorily discharged employees, must offer them
reinstatement and make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits. Backpay shall
be computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the
rate prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily
as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010), enf. denied on other
grounds sub. nom., Jackson Hospital Corp. v. NLRB, 647 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
As set forth above, the Agreement provided, that in the event of noncompliance with any
of its terms, the Board could “issue an Order providing a full remedy for the violations found as
is customary to remedy such violations, including, but not limited to the remedial provisions of
this Settlement.” Thus, pursuant to such language, it is appropriate to provide the “customary”
remedies of reinstatement, full backpay, expungement of the Respondent’s personnel records,
and notice posting. Tuv Taam Corp., 340 NLRB 756, 757 (2003).
Although such full remedies include reinstatement and full backpay, I note that there was
evidence that three employees, Yan Zhang, Chun Sen Zhu, and De Ping Song were already
reinstated. To the extent that they have been validly and properly reinstated, the Respondent
need not offer them reinstatement. To the extent that employees have been paid back pay, they
JD(NY)-08-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
shall be credited with such amounts as they have received. If any further backpay is due them,
such sums shall be paid pursuant to this “full backpay” remedy.
In the complaint, the Acting General Counsel seeks an order requiring reimbursement of
amounts equal to the difference in taxes owed upon receipt of a lump-sum payment and taxes
that would have been owed had there been no discrimination. The Board has declined to order
such relief. Open Door Retail Group, Inc., 358 NLRB No. 9, slip op. at 2, fn. 1 (2012).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended3
ORDER
The Respondents , 47 Old Country, Inc. d/b/a Babi I and Jilly SN, Inc., Carle Place, New
York, and Babi Nail USA II Corp. d/b/a/ Babi II, Glen Head, NY, their officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Issuing disciplinary warnings to employees because of their protected concerted
activities.
(b) Threatening employees with closure of the businesses because of their protected
concerted activities.
(c) Threatening employees with discharge because of their protected concerted
activities.
(d) Threatening employees with a reduction in wages because of their protected
concerted activities.
(e) Creating an impression among their employees that their concerted activities
conducted for the purpose of mutual aid or protection were being kept under surveillance.
(f) Reducing the working hours of employees because of their protected concerted
activities.
(g) Discharging employees and failing and refusing to reinstate them, at various times, to
their former or substantially equivalent positions of employment because of their protected,
concerted activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer De Ping Song, Bai Song Li,
Chun Sen Zhu, and Yan Zhang full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights

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 purposes.
JD(NY)-08-12
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
or privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make De Ping Song, Bai Song Li, Chun Sen Zhu, and Yan Zhang, whole for any loss
of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the
manner set forth in the Remedy section of the decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from their files any
reference to the unlawful disciplinary warning to De Ping Song, and to the unlawful discharges
of De Ping Song, Bai Song Li, Chun Sen Zhu, and Yan Zhang, and within 3 days thereafter
notify them in writing that this has been done and that their discharges will not be used against
them in any way.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the
Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities in Carle Place, New
York, and Glen Head, New York, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix” in both
English and Chinese.4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 29, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted
by the Respondent 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 involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former
employees employed by the Respondent at any time since April 10, 2011.
(f) 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.
Dated, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2012.
____________________
Steven Davis
Administrative Law Judge

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 National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
JD(NY)–08–12
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 Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT issue disciplinary warnings to you because you complain together with other
employees about your wages and working conditions.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our business because you complain together with other
employees about your wages and working conditions.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge you because you complain together with other employees
about your wages and working conditions.
WE WILL NOT threaten to reduce your wages because you complain together with other
employees about your wages and working conditions.
WE WILL NOT make it look like we are watching you talk about your wages and other terms
and conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT reduce your working hours because you complain together with other
employees about your wages and working conditions.
WE WILL NOT fire you because you complain together with other employees about your wages
and working conditions.
WE WILL offer De Ping Song, Bai Song Li, Chun Sen Zhu, and Yan Zhang full reinstatement to
their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
JD(NY)–08–12
WE WILL make De Ping Song, Bai Song Li, Chun Sen Zhu, and Yan Zhang, whole for any loss
of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them and
WE WILL remove from their files any reference to the unlawful disciplinary warning issued to De
Ping Song, and the unlawful discharges of De Ping Song, Bai Song Li, Chun Sen Zhu, and Yan
Zhang, and within 3 days thereafter notify them in writing that this has been done and that their
discharges will not be used against them in any way.
47 OLD COUNTRY, INC. d/b/a BABI I; JILLY SN,
INC.; BABI NAIL USA II CORP d/b/a BABI II
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
Two MetroTech Center, Jay Street and Myrtle Avenue, Suite 5100
Brooklyn, New York 11201-3838
Hours: 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
718-330-7713.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 718-330-2862.