Chinese Daily News

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Dec 26, 2007

21-CA-036178 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 26, 2007)

JD(SF)-36-07
Monterey Park, CA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
CHINESE DAILY NEWS
and Cases 21-CA-36178
21-CA-36181
21-CA-36630
21-CA-36632
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF 21-CA-36635
AMERICA, AFL-CIO 21-CA-36919
21-CA-36920
21-CA-36981
21-CA-37114
Irma Hernandez and Ami Silverman, Attys.,
Counsel for the General Counsel, Los Angeles, California.
Steven D. Atkinson and Thomas A. Lenz, Attys., Atkinson, Andelson, Loya,
Ruud & Romo, Counsel for Respondent, Cerritos, California
Eric D. Geist, Administrative Director to the Vice President,
Charging Party, Washington, D.C.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Lana H. Parke, Administrative Law Judge. This matter was tried in Los Angeles,
California on October 1 through 4, 2007 upon an Amended Consolidated Complaint (the
Complaint) issued April 18, 2006 by the Regional Director of Region 21 of the National
Labor Relations Board (the Board) based upon charges filed by Communications
Workers of America, AFL-CIO (the Union.) The Complaint, as amended, alleges
Chinese Daily News (the Respondent) violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act).1 Respondent essentially denied all allegations of unlawful
conduct.

1 In her post-hearing brief, Counsel for the General Counsel noted that unfair labor
practice charges alleging the conduct described in Complaint paragraphs 9 and 10 were
previously dismissed by the Region, and she withdrew that portion of Complaint
paragraph 11 alleging that the Respondent directed an employee to cease talking about
the hiring of part-time drivers.
JD(SF)36–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2
Issues
1. Did Respondent independently violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the following acts:
on February 9, 2004 directing an employee not to talk about employee overtime issues;
on June 14, June 28, July 26, and August 24, 2005 respectively, interrogating
employees in the course of deposing them.
2. Did Respondent violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by the following acts: on
and after January 29, 2004, promulgating and maintaining a dress code prohibiting the
wearing of union insignia and promulgating and maintaining an overly broad no-
solicitation/distribution rule; in late June or early July 2004, refusing to assign employee
Shieh-Sheng Wei certain shift rotations and shift assignments, resulting in loss of
overtime pay; and on August 17, 2004, issuing a written warning to employee Shieh-
Sheng Wei.
On the entire record,2 including my observation of the demeanor of witnesses
and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I
make the following
Findings of Facts
I. Jurisdiction
At all relevant times, the Respondent, a California corporation, with facilities
located at 1588 Corporate Center Drive, Monterey Park, California and 1230 Monterey
Pass Road, Monterey Park, California, has been engaged in the business of publishing
and distributing newspapers and selling books.3 During the 12-month period ending
February 16, 2006, a representative period, Respondent, in conducting its business
operations described above in paragraph 2(a), derived gross annual revenues in excess
of $200,000. In addition, the Respondent held membership in or subscribed to various
nationally syndicated features, and advertised nationally sold products. During the same
time period, Respondent purchased and received goods valued in excess of $50,000,
which goods were shipped directly to Respondent’s Southern California facilities from
points located outside of the State of California. Respondent admits, and I find, it has at
all relevant times been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and the Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

2 Counsel for the General Counsel’s unopposed post hearing motion to correct the
transcript is granted. The motion and corrections are received as ALJ exhibit 1.
3 Unless otherwise explained, findings of fact herein are based on party admissions,
stipulations, uncontroverted testimony, and findings of fact in the decision of
Administrative Law Judge, Clifford H. Anderson, regarding the parties herein, issued on
February 25, 2005 and affirmed, as modified, by the Board at Chinese Daily News, 346
NLRB No. 81 (2006).
JD(SF)36–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
3
II. Background
The Respondent is a major Chinese-language daily newspaper published in
Southern California. It is part of a multi-national family of Chinese language newspapers
with the primary enterprise being the Taipei based United Daily News. The Respondent
utilizes reporters and various news services to acquire news and then uses its own staff
to prepare its newspaper pages and to print, bundle, and distribute copies of its paper to
retail distribution points. Essentially all of the Respondent’s employees and managers
speak Chinese as their first language. All employee witnesses testified in Chinese, and
various documents introduced at the hearing were written in Chinese, necessitating oral
and written translation.
At relevant times, the following individuals served in the following positions as
supervisors and agents of the Respondent:
Ming Sheng Su (President Su) President
Bo Li (Mr. Li) Assistant Business Manager
Ren-Shiun Wing (Group Leader Wing) Group Leader
The Respondent’s packing department handles its newspaper bundling and
distribution functions. Assisted by Deputy Group Leader Ching Hwa Kao (Deputy Group
Leader Kao), Group Leader Wing supervised the packing department at all relevant times.
Four to six full time and part time packing employees operated two bundling machines.
Consequent to a representation petition filed by the Union on October 26, 2000,4
the Board conducted an election in a wall-to-wall unit of the Respondent’s employees on
March 19, 2001, in which a majority of the votes was cast for the Union. Four years later,
the Board overturned the election results based on the Respondent’s objection to
supervisory solicitation of union cards. Chinese Daily News, 344 NLRB 1071 (2005). On
December 22, 2005, the Union lost the rerun election to which no objections were filed.
On April 17, 2006, the Board issued a Decision and Order, affirming in part the
February 25, 2005 decision of Administrative Law Judge, Clifford H. Anderson. Chinese
Daily News, 346 NLRB No. 81 (2006), enfd 224 Fed App 6 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The Board
found, inter alia, that in 2001 the Respondent had committed numerous violations of the
Act, including threats, interrogation, distribution of a memo prohibiting employees from
discussing union matters, issuance of a warning letter to employee Lien-yi (Lynne) Wang
(Ms. Wang) for her remarks at a union rally, and an increase in Ms. Wang's beat
assignments after she led a reporters' protest against the Respondent’s proposed beat
changes.
Throughout and following the above-described proceedings, the Union has maintained
an ongoing post election campaign to retain employee support for the Union, regularly
communicating to employees, holding rallies and generally encouraging union activism.

4 Case 21-RC-20280.
JD(SF)36–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
4
III. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Alleged Promulgation and Maintenance of
Overbroad Solicitation/Distribution Rule
and Discriminatory Dress Code
On December 12, 2003, the Respondent hosted a year end buffet dinner for all
employees and management on the facility’s fourth floor in recognition of a visit from a top
management official from Taipei. Reporter Ms. Wang, an active and known union
supporter who had testified and assisted the Union in the prior representation and unfair
labor practice proceedings, attended. On that occasion, Ms. Wang wore a navy blue vest
with a union logo on the upper left chest and on the back in Chinese the words, “Chinese
Daily News Union” (the union vest). About nine other employees, including sales
representative, Jui Jung Pao, driver, Jeffrey Sun (Mr. Sun), and part-time packing
employee Shieh Sheng Wei (Mr. Wei) also wore the union vests. Mr. Wei was a
prominent union supporter, participating in union demonstrations at the company and
wearing a red tee shirt with the union logo and/or the union vest to work several times a
week during December 2003 and January 2004.5
At the December 12, 2003 party, classified advertising supervisor, Karen Lee
(Ms. Lee), commented on Ms. Wang’s attire, saying, “What are you wearing? We don’t
have a union.”
Ms. Wang, said, “Yes, we have a union; don’t you know that?”
Mr. Wei’s supervisor, Group Leader Wing, commented on Mr. Wei’s attire, saying
that since the union shirts were free, he, too, would have enough courage to wear them.6
Two days later, Ms. Wang again wore the union vest to a company welfare
committee meeting attended by the Human Resource Manager, Steven Gao (HR
Manager Gao), General Manager, David Liu, and Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee criticized Ms. Wang
for wearing the union vest. Ms. Wang replied that the company had no dress code, and
employees could wear anything. Thereafter, Ms. Wang continued to wear the union vest
at work until the Respondent issued a dress code at the end of January 2004.
On January 29, 2004, President Su distributed a one-page document in Chinese to
all employees (Solicitation/Dress Code Rules), the English translation7 of which reads, in
pertinent part:
To avoid interruptions of business operation, our employees are not
allowed to do any promotion unrelated to the Company or distribute any
paper advertisement at workplace or during work [time].8 Those who are

5 Although Mr. Wei placed the celebration in January 2004, his testimony appeared to
refer to the December 12, 2003 function.
6 The General Counsel does not allege Group Leader Wing’s comment to be coercive;
however, it provides evidence of Respondent’s knowledge of Mr. Wei’s union activities.
7 The English translation is set forth as revised at the hearing by the official translator
who also provided the original translation of the document.
8 In other parts of the Solicitation/Dress Code Rules, the Chinese character translated
here as “hours” was corrected by the translator to read “time.” Therefore, I have
substituted the word “time” for “hours” in this sentence as well.
JD(SF)36–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
5
not Company employees are not allowed to enter the premises of the
Company, including parking lot, to promote or distribute paper
advertisement. (Business visits are excluded).
During work time, the time spent in engaging in or receiving promotion or
distribution of paper advertisement is deemed a violation of using normal
work time; break time and meal time are not included.
I would also like your attention of the following important regulation
because many colleagues have reported to the management that: some
employees during work time wear jackets not printed with “Chinese Daily
News” name or logo instead with names or logos of other entities, including
the name or logo of Communications Workers of America (CWA). This is a
violation of Company regulation.
It is your personal choice whether you choose to support or against
workers union. Nevertheless, the Chinese Daily News’ concern is those
who come to work wearing jackets printed with non-Chinese Daily News
name or logo; when they have contacts with customers or public for
business, they may misrepresent their identities and cause unnecessary
mistakes and fail to achieve the missions at work.
On this note, I would like to stress again the rule we have followed always:
during work, those employees who have business contacts with customers
or general public are not allowed to wear CWA jackets to work. This rule
applies to employees including reporters, drivers, business reporters, and
those who may have direct business contacts with customers or general
public.
The Solicitation/Dress Code Rules were issued to employees, including Mr. Wei,
who have no contact with the public, as well as to employees who meet with the public.
Prior to the issuance of the Solicitation/Dress Code Rules, the Respondent had no dress
code and no rules restricting dissemination of written materials or promotion of employee
activities. Employees had regularly worn tee shirts with commercial advertising imprinted
such as “ATT” and “Toshiba,” and both before and after issuance of the rules, the
Respondent permitted employees to distribute to fellow employees such entrepreneurial
solicitations as dry cleaning offers and clothing and food sales promotions. After the
Respondent issued the Solicitation/Dress Code Rules on January 29, 2004, employees no
longer wore clothing with union insignia.
B. Shieh-Sheng Wei: Written Warning
and Alleged Work Assignment Change
In preparing the newspapers for delivery, the packing department utilizes two large
machines to bundle the newspapers in two sequential stages: bundling of retail
newspapers and bundling of postal newspapers. A group of two to three employees
operates each machine, both of which function nonstop during each stage. If it is
necessary for an employee to leave the machine during operation, the group leader or
deputy group leader momentarily replaces the absent employee.
On June 14, 2004, after the packing employees completed the initial bundling
stage, one of the machines stopped operating. When Group Leader Wing inquired why,
JD(SF)36–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6
deputy group leader Kao told him that one of the operators, Hong Nian Gao (Hong Gao)
had left to go to the restroom. Group Leader Wing took the place of Hong Gao, until the
missing employee returned, whereupon he returned to his office. From his office, Group
Leader Wing saw Hong Gao arguing with Deputy Group Leader Kao and returned to the
bundling area where he learned that Hong Gao was upset with Deputy Group Leader Kao
because he believed the deputy group leader had reported his absence from the machine.
To resolve the problem, Group Leader Wing announced that henceforth packing
employees would be permitted a five-minute period to use the restroom between the two
bundling stages.
According to Mr. Wei, the following exchange occurred: Group Leader Wing said
employees would receive no other break opportunity during the bundling cycles. Mr. Wei
loudly protested, saying such a rule would deprive the workers of their born human rights.
Group Leader Wing in turn loudly accused Mr. Wei of scolding and cursing him. Mr. Wei
denied cursing Group Leader Wing or using foul language.
Group Leader Wing testified that Mr. Wei scolded him, saying Group Leader Wing
“did not want to keep [his] face”9 and accusing him of staying in his office and not helping
with the work. Group Leader Wing said Mr. Wei publicly humiliated him by saying “F___
your mother,” in front of the other workers, to which he responded in a loud voice, “You all
heard the profanity he yelled to me.” In his 25 years of employment, Group Leader Wing
said, he had never heard any other employee curse a supervisor. Deputy Group Leader
Kao in pertinent part corroborated Group Leader Wing’s testimony of the June 14, 2004
confrontation. Like Group Leader Wing, he had never before heard an employee speak to
a group leader in that manner.10
Later on the day of the confrontation, Group Leader Wing prepared a report of the
incident, which he furnished to the Respondent’s Human Resources Department:
Report of an argument
Time: June 14, 2004, 4:35 AM
Location: Inside the packing department
Description: On that day all retail newspapers was completed by 4:35 AM,
and the following procedure would be to insert postal newspapers. Some
employees went to the bathroom and didn’t return to the workstation when
other employees started to insert the newspaper. One of them was [Hong
Nian Gao] who started to argue with deputy group leader [Ching Hwa Kao]
when he came back from the bathroom…In handling the argument, for the

9 This idiom reflects the English equivalent of shame on you.
10 Deputy Group Leader Kao has been retired from the Respondent since January 1,
2007. As a retired employee, the former deputy group leader may reasonably be expected
to have little personal interest in the outcome of this hearing, which tends to make his
testimony inherently trustworthy, and I found him to be straightforward and sincere. I did
not find Mr. Wei to be as reliable. In a deposition given on July 26, 2005, Mr. Wei was
somewhat vague about what he said during his exchange with Group Leader Wing,
testifying that he did not remember whether he had used foul language or profanity,
although he denied using profanity to his supervisor. While his vagueness had
disappeared by the time of the hearing, the earlier tergiversation reflects on his credibility.
I credit former Deputy Group Leader Kao’s account, and by logical extension, that of
Group Leader Wing.
JD(SF)36–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
7
sake of fairness, I said that the policy from now would be that there is an
extra 5 minutes of rest time and one may do anything one wishes…Upon
that [Mr. Wei] shouted aloud saying that won’t work—what if I can’t go in
the time you specified? I said, “That is your business, not mine.” Then he
was very unwilling to be receptive and said, shame on you, why don’t you
come out to work on collecting newspapers, instead you are inside the
office. He repeated shame on you several times. Then he humiliated and
insulted me in public with [four-letter] word “[f___] your mother.” I had
given advice and warning to that employee because of his smoking during
the bundling time at work, he was also required to pay attention during
insert. Furthermore, at the book-giving campaign in January this year, the
same employee had major complaints and disobeyed the instructions when
I instructed all employees help to move the sorted and boxed books to the
big truck to be transported to the freight station at China Airlines to be
transported to Taiwan. This employee has already severely violated the
company policies. I hereby request the upper level apply the most severe
punishment that is to be put on the record one major strike of misconduct
and, in the event of repeating the same, there will be no leniency and
termination will be issued.
On the day following the incident, June 15, 2004, Mr. Wei gave Group Leader
Wing a letter written in Chinese, which Mr. Wei desired him to present to various
managers, including President Su. The English translation of the letter, in pertinent part, is
as follows:
On June 14, department leader [Group Leader Wing] of the Packing
Department made a public announcement at the workplace that the
employees of the Packing Department are only allowed to go to bathroom
after the retail newspapers are sent out, and the bathroom time is set for 5
minutes. If the bathroom break is not used, it is deemed to be waived. No
one is allowed to use bathroom at any other time during work.…It is an
abuse to limit the duration and set the specific time for bathroom. Even the
prisoners do not have this rule, why would the Newspaper allow it to
happen?11
After reviewing Group Leader Wing’s report, HR Manager Gao, who knew Mr. Wei
was a union supporter, instructed Group Leader Wing to get a report of the incident from
another witness. Group Leader Wing had already asked the Deputy Group Leader Kao to
provide a report, which Group Leader Wing thereafter submitted to HR Manager Gao.
The report, as translated in pertinent part into English, read:
Report of argument that occurred.
Time: 6/14/04 4:35 a.m.
Location: Packing Department.
Description of occurrence: On that day, when…the insertion of the retail
newspaper was complete…, one insert machine did not operate because
[employees Hong Gao and Zhou Lan] left the location without telling
anyone. At the time, the group leader did ask the whereabouts of the two
employees and to make the inserting machine to operate normally, he
came over to support. But unexpectedly, when [Hong Gao] came back, he

11 Mr. Wei received no response to this letter.
JD(SF)36–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
8
misunderstood that I reported something to the group leader and became
angry and ballistic…The group leader repeated that from that time on,
there is a five minute time for break, so that hoping no one will leave the
work station without notifying other people. However, at that time,
[Mr. Wei] used this reason to start an argument with the group leader and
started using words that is not proper and started scolding with insulting
words. With the handling of this situation: on 6/15/04, [Hong Gao]
voluntarily came to apologize
Group Leader Wing appended a disciplinary recommendation to Deputy Group
Leader Kao’s report: “The above is all true. I ask upper management to use most severe
written warning, so that if there’s any recurrence, the person will be terminated.”
After reviewing Group Leader Wing and Deputy Group Leader Kao’s reports, HR
Manager Gao sought permission from President Su to issue “severe” warnings to the two
employees involved. On August 17, 2004, the Respondent issued nearly identical written
warnings to Hong Gao and Mr. Wei.12 The warning to Mr. Wei, over the signature of
Group Leader Wing, read:
After reviewing the incident that took place on June 14, 2004, [y]ou are
being placed on disciplinary action effective August 11, 2004. The decision
to place you on disciplinary action is due to verbal misconduct and
insubordination towards your supervisor. If these type of similar verbal
misconduct and/or insubordination happen again, you may be consider[ed]
for termination.13
According to Mr. Wei, thereafter the Respondent no longer assigned him to begin
work at midnight rather than 2:50 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., effectively reducing his work hours.
Group Leader Wing denied reducing Mr. Wei’s hours. According to the group leader,
Mr. Wei was unwilling to come in early. On several occasions, Group Leader Wing
testified, Mr. Wei told him he could not handle the extra hours because he was unable to
sleep well. Mr. Wei also requested reduced work hours or days because of child care
issues. Mr. Wei denied requesting reduced hours, testifying that only prior to the year
2000, had he requested a Sunday off every two months so he could visit a handicapped
child. Mr. Wei asserted that the Respondent has continuously reduced his work hours
because of his union activity since the year 2000, but Mr. Wei also admitted he told Group
Leader Wing he preferred to work only two of the three weekend shifts (Friday, Saturday,
and Sunday), as they involved very heavy work. Mr. Wei agreed that since 2004 part-time
packing employees rarely began work at midnight and that employees who work the
weekend shifts generally have more work hours than those who do not, as the heavier
weekend work load generates longer shifts.
The parties introduced extensive payroll records into evidence, and both the
Respondent and the General Counsel argue that the records support their respective
positions. The records fail to demonstrate any clearly discernible pattern of inequality in
Mr. Wei’s weekly shifts as contrasted with those of other part-time packing employees that

12 HR Manager Gao explained that the two-month gap between the incident and the
warnings was a result of work distractions coupled with an overabundance of caution in
issuing warnings during a period of union organization.
13 The warning issued to Hong Gao was identical to that issued to Mr. Wei, except that
the words “verbal” and “and/or insubordination” were omitted from the second sentence.
JD(SF)36–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
9
would not be consistent with Mr. Wei’s preferring to work only two of each week’s three
longest shifts. The records do show that following August 17, 2004, Mr. Wei did not work
any midnight shifts.
C. Alleged Prohibition on Employee Discussion of Overtime
Mr. Sun, one of the Respondent’s drivers was an active union supporter, who wore
the union vest to work almost daily from December 2003 to the end of January 2004.14
Sometime prior to February 2004, the Respondent hired several part-time newspaper
delivery drivers, which limited the overtime hours available to the fulltime drivers. The
fulltime drivers, including Mr. Sun signed and submitted to management a letter
complaining about the reduced overtime.
In late January or early February 2004, a driver named Chen (driver Chen)
discussed an overtime concern with Mr. Sun, who encouraged him to report fully all of his
overtime. On February 9, 2004, Assistant Business Manager Mr. Li called Mr. Sun into
his office with the Director of the Circulation Department, Bobby Hsu (Mr. Hsu) present.
Mr. Li showed Mr. Sun a copy of driver Chen’s timecard, saying that driver Chen had
complained about overtime and had mentioned Mr. Sun’s name. According to Mr. Sun,
Mr. Li told him the company had to hire part-time drivers for the good of the newspaper
and that he hoped in future Mr. Sun would not talk to his coworkers about overtime and
rights, so that their work morale would not be affected.
Mr. Li did not testify about the conversation. Mr. Hsu denied that Mr. Li had told
Mr. Sun not to talk about overtime. According to Mr. Hsu, Mr. Li told Mr. Sun he had
heard rumors were circulating that the company did not pay overtime, which was untrue.
According to Mr. Hsu, Mr. Li told Mr. Sun the company must and did pay overtime if
overtime was worked and the Respondent did not want “these kinds of rumors just spread
out.” Mr. Li told Mr. Sun he could talk about anything to his coworkers but it must be
based on the truth, that he could not tell untruthful things—nonsense—to employees.15
C. Deposition of Employee/Plaintiffs
On March 5, 2004, employees Ms. Wang, Yu Fang Ines Kai, and Hui Jung Pao
(Employee/Plaintiffs) on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated filed a class
action complaint (Class Action Lawsuit) against the Respondent in the United States
District Court of the Central District of California, for, inter alia, violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act. Represented by Mark T. Palin, of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud &
Romo, the Respondent sought to disqualify the Employee/Plaintiffs on grounds that the
class action was a pretextual strategy for the true motivation of advancing the Union’s
organizational interest among Respondent’s employees and that the Employee/Plaintiffs
did not intend to act in the best interests of the class. The Respondent believed the union
activities of the Employee/Plaintiffs to be relevant and material to its defense positions
regarding the Employee/Plaintiffs’ conflicts of interest and other improprieties.

14 Although Mr. Sun’s Board affidavit stated that he wore the union vest about one day
per week, he credibly testified that he had weekly worn the vest nearly every day.
15 Given the manner and demeanor of the two witnesses who testified concerning the
conversation, and in light of the unexplained failure of Mr. Li to testify, I find Mr. Sun’s
account credible.
JD(SF)36–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
10
In the course of defending the Class Action Lawsuit, the Respondent deposed
Mr. Wei, Mr. Sun, and Ms. Wang. Although only Ms. Wang was a named plaintiff in the
Class Action Lawsuit, Mr. Wei and Mr. Sun were two of six employees whose declarations
the Employee/Plaintiffs submitted to District Court Judge Consuelo B. Marshall in support
of the
motion for class certification. See Wang et al. v. Chinese Daily News, Inc. et al., 231
F.R.D. 602, 608 and 615 (C.D. Cal. 2005), app den 159 Fed Appx 750 (9th Cir. 2005). The
three employees were deposed on the following dates:
June 14 and July 26, 2005 -- Mr. Wei
June 28, 2005 -- Mr. Sun
August 24, 2005 -- Ms. Wang
During the depositions of Mr. Wei, the Respondent questioned him about his role
and involvement in the Union, whether he voted for the Union in the election, whether and
how many union meetings he attended, and where the union meetings were held.
During the deposition of Mr. Sun, the Respondent questioned him about whether
he was involved in the union organizing campaign and whether he was or considered
himself to be a union shop steward.
During the deposition of Ms. Wang, the Respondent questioned her about the filing
and disposition of nine unfair labor practice charges filed with the Board that alleged the
Respondent’s unlawful conduct toward her because of her union activities, about an
employee letter presented to the chairman of the Respondent’s parent company, and
about a 2002 trip to Taiwan to educate Taiwanese people about the Union.
IV. Discussion
A. Alleged Independent 8(a)(1) Violations
1. Alleged Prohibition on Employee Discussion of Overtime
The General Counsel contends the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
on February 9, 2004 when its assistant business manager, Mr. Li, expressing concern for
employee work morale, told employee Mr. Sun not to talk to his coworkers about overtime
and rights.
Employees have a protected right to discuss among themselves the terms and
conditions of their employment of which overtime is one. Where, as here, the Respondent
has expressly prohibited employee discussion of overtime wages and other terms and
conditions of employment, the rule plainly infringes on Section 7 rights and violates the
Act. Double Eagle Hotel & Casino, 341 NLRB 112,115 (2004). Accordingly, I find that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when Mr. Li directed Mr. Sun not to talk to
coworkers about overtime and other employee rights.
2. Alleged Interrogation in the Course of Depositions
The General Counsel argues the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
unlawfully interrogating employees Mr. Wei, Mr. Sun, and Ms. Wang during the course of
depositions taken in connection with the Class Action Lawsuit.
JD(SF)36–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
11
In determining whether deposition inquiries about union activities violate the Act,
the Board looks at whether the questioning is relevant and if so, whether it has an illegal
objective. If the questioning is found to be “both relevant and lacking an illegal objective,
the analysis must then consider whether the Respondent’s need for the information
outweighs the employees’ rights under Section 7 of the Act.” Guess?, Inc., 339 NLRB 432,
434 (2003); see also Allied Mechanical, 349 NLRB No. 100, FN 1 (2007).
When the Respondent took their depositions, Mr. Wei, Mr. Sun, and Ms. Wang
were long-standing conspicuous union adherents who openly espoused the Class Action
Lawsuit, Ms. Wang as a plaintiff and Mr. Wei and Mr. Sun as supportive declarants. The
Respondent argued, albeit unsuccessfully, that the Employee/Plaintiffs should be
disqualified from bringing the Class Action Lawsuit because their true motivation was to
advance the Union’s organizational interests and because they did not intend to act in the
best interests of the class. In order to develop its position, the Respondent needed to
establish the union advocacy of the Employee/Plaintiffs and the supportive declarants.
Inquiry into the individuals’ union support was, therefore, relevant to the Respondent’s
defense. As to whether the Respondent had an illegal objective in asking the deponents
about their union activities, the General Counsel has presented no evidence aside from
the Respondent’s general union animus. The General Counsel has cited no authority for
the proposition that the existence of union animus alone demonstrates an illegal objective.
Where, as here, the interrogation was relevant and gave no impression that retaliatory
action might ensue, I cannot find an illegal objective. Therefore, as directed by the Board,
further analysis must balance the Respondent’s need for the information against the
employees’ rights under Section 7 of the Act.
In weighing employer need against employee rights, the Board’s decisional stance
on interrogation is instructive. In the Board’s view, an employer's questioning of
employees about their union sentiments is not a per se violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, particularly where employees are open and active union supporters. The test is
whether, under all the circumstances, the interrogation reasonably tends to restrain,
coerce or interfere with statutory rights. To support a finding of illegality, the words
themselves, or the context in which they are used, must suggest an element of coercion
or interference. Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176, 1177-1178 (1984), affd. 760 F.2d
1006 (9th Cir. 1985). The Board considers criteria referred to as the “Bourne factors,”16
which examine whether the interrogated employee is an open and active union supporter,
the background of the interrogation, the nature of the information sought, the identity of
the questioner, and the place and method of interrogation. The Board has not considered
employer interrogation to be coercive in the following circumstances: questioning of open
and active union supporter about prounion mailgram he sent to employer, Rossmore
House, supra; asking employee with a union-embossed hard hat if he supported the
union, Tradesmen International, Inc., 351 NLRB No. 37 (2007); asking about the union
membership of an applicant whose membership was already obvious, Boydston Electric,
331 NLRB 1450 FN 5 (2000); and inquiring into whether misconduct had occurred during
a discussion about the union, Bridgestone Firestone South Carolina, 350 NLRB No. 52
(2007). But see Allied Mechanical, supra, where deposition questions irrelevant to the
civil action inquired into confidential, protected conduct, and Guess? Inc., supra, slip op. 6,
where deposition questions about the identities of other employees who attended union
meetings violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

16 Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964).
JD(SF)36–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
12
Here the union advocacy of the three deponents was open and longstanding; the
employees had confronted the Respondent in a class action lawsuit certain, if not
calculated, to attract intra-company attention. None of the deponents could reasonably
have expected that he/she could remain anonymous in the matter, and the deposition
questions posed by the Respondent’s attorney could not have been intended to expose
any unknown or confidential information. The Respondent’s questions focused on the
deponents’ union activities, not those of others.17 The questions were clearly intended to
create a legal record, and neither the deposition questions nor their context suggests any
element of coercion or interference with protected rights. Upon applying the Board’s
balancing test, I find the confidentiality interests of the three deponents were not
substantial inasmuch as they had, long prior to the depositions, overtly revealed their
union sentiments to the Respondent and fellow employees and signified, through their
previous union activities as well as their participation in the lawsuit, their intentions of
championing employee rights. On the other hand, I find the Respondent's interest in
obtaining the information was significant, as the union partisanship of the three employees
was a basic element of its preliminary defense to the lawsuit. The Respondent’s interest
therefore outweighed the employees' confidentiality interest under Section 7 of the Act.
Accordingly, I find the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when
Mr. Palin deposed Mr. Wei, Mr. Sun, and Ms. Wang in connection with the Class Action
Lawsuit.
B. Alleged 8(a)(1) and (3) Violations
1. Promulgation and Maintenance of
Overbroad Solicitation/Distribution Rule
and Discriminatory Dress Code
An employer has a right to impose some restrictions on employees' statutory right
to engage in union solicitation and distribution. Such restrictions, however, must be clearly
limited in scope so as not to interfere with employees' right to solicit their coworkers on
their own time or to distribute literature on their own time in non-work areas. Republic
Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793 (1945): Our Way, Inc., 268 NLRB 394 (1983).
In its Solicitation/Dress Code Rules, the Respondent informed its employees that
they were prohibited from engaging in any promotion unrelated to the Company or from
distributing “any paper advertisement at workplace or during work [time] (emphasis
added).” This phrase in the Solicitation/Dress Code Rules is susceptible to a reasonable
construction that solicitation on company premises, at any time, is prohibited.18 The

17 Although the Respondent’s counsel asked Mr. Wei where union meetings were
held, it is clear those questions were intended to elicit information as to whether the
meetings were held at the homes of two of the Employee/Plaintiffs, Mr. Pao and
Ms. Wang. As such the questions related to the union advocacy of the lawsuit
instigators.
18 Given the over breadth of the “workplace” restriction, it is unnecessary to address
the presumption the Board attaches to the words “work time.” See Our Way, Inc., 268
NLRB 394, 394-395 (1983). I note however, that in circumstances where nearly all
employees speak the Mandarin language and where the official translator struggled with
the meaning of the Chinese character ultimately translated as “time,” the juxtaposition of
the words “workplace or work time” was likely to restrain employees from engaging in
protected solicitation/distribution even during nonwork time. In this context, therefore, the
words “work time” cannot be presumptively valid.
JD(SF)36–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
13
Respondent’s rule relative to solicitation/distribution is, therefore, unlawful on its face.
Since the rule is presumptively unlawful, the Respondent has the burden of showing that it
communicated or applied the rule in such a way as to convey clearly its intent to permit
solicitation at the workplace during break times or other nonwork periods. Ichikoh Mfg.,
Inc., 312 NLRB 1022 (1993). The Respondent has not met that burden. The evidence
shows that following its solicitation/distribution ban, the Respondent neither explicated nor
retreated from its published rules. Since the Respondent’s ban was overbroad, I find the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by promulgating its Solicitation/Dress Code
Rules. There is, however, no evidence of discriminatory enforcement. See Federated
Logistics and Operations, 340 NLRB 255 (2003). I shall, therefore, dismiss the 8(a)(3)
allegations of Complaint paragraph 6(b).
The Respondent also implemented a dress code by its Solicitation/Dress Code
Rules. Employees have a right under Section 7 of the Act to wear and display union
insignia while at work. Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, 801-803 (1945).
Absent "special circumstances," the promulgation or enforcement of a rule prohibiting the
wearing of such insignia violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. For purposes of proving an
8(a)(1) violation, the General Counsel need not show that Respondent’s insignia
prohibition was unlawfully motivated; “rather, the test is whether an employer's conduct
reasonably tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights under the Act.” St.
Luke's Hospital, 314 NLRB 434, Fn. 4 (1994). The burden of establishing the existence of
special circumstances rests with the employer. Pathmark Stores, 342 NLRB 378 (2004).
The special circumstances exception is narrow and “a rule that curtails an employee’s right
to wear union insignia at work is presumptively invalid.” E&L Transport Co., 331 NLRB
640, FN 3 (2000).
In its Solicitation/Dress Code Rules, the Respondent purports to direct that
employees with public contacts may not wear “jackets printed with non-Chinese
Daily News name or logo.” However, on its face, the dress restriction is ambiguous
as to whom, when, and where it would apply. Introductorily, the notice states,
“[S]ome employees during work time wear jackets not printed with ‘Chinese Daily
News’ name or logo instead with names or logos of other entities, including the
name or logo of Communications Workers of America (CWA).” This asserted
violation of company policy encompasses all employees in the workplace and can
be construed to apply to employees who have no public contact. In the next
paragraph, the notice explains, “[W]hen [employees wearing non-company
identifying clothing] have contacts with customers or public for business, they may
misrepresent their identities and cause unnecessary mistakes and fail to achieve
the missions at work,” but the brief explanation does not make it clear that only
employees with public contact are prohibited from coming to work wearing clothing
with non-company insignia. Finally, in repeating the rule in the penultimate
paragraph of the notice, the Respondent stresses that “during work, those
employees who have business contacts with customers or general public are not
allowed to wear CWA jackets to work (emphasis added).” Although this sentence
facially restricts employees with customer contact, it also specifically targets union
insignia for prohibition, which signals a discriminatory purpose having little to do
with avoiding identity confusion. The Respondent’s pointed bias against union
identifying clothing is likely to restrain all employees who are apt to infer that the
prohibition has more to do with union animus than with public image. Taken as a
whole, the dress code is so ambiguously worded that employees may reasonably
construe it as prohibiting all employees from wearing union-identifying clothing at
the workplace. The Solicitation/Dress Code Rules are therefore overbroad.
JD(SF)36–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
14
The Respondent has presented no evidence that it clearly communicated to
employees, by application of the rules or otherwise, its intent to apply the clothing
restrictions in a lawful manner. Moreover, the Respondent failed to establish any
special circumstances to justify the rule. The Respondent’s general concern about
potential misrepresentation of employee identity by the wearing of non-company
enscripted clothing fails to meet “the Respondent's burden of establishing the
presence of ‘special circumstances’ to justify the rule's broad proscriptions.”
Albertsons, Inc., 351 NLRB No. 21, slip op. 5 (2007). Accordingly, I find
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by issuing a dress code that over
broadly restricted employees’ wearing of union insignia.
In determining whether the Solicitation/Dress Code Rules also violate Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, as the General Counsel alleges, discriminatory intent must be shown.
Allegations that turn on employer motivation must be analyzed under Wright Line.19
Under that standard, the General Counsel must first show, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that protected conduct was a motivating factor in the employer's adverse
action. Once the General Counsel makes that showing by demonstrating protected
activity, employer knowledge of that activity, and animus against protected activity, the
burden of persuasion shifts to the employer to show that it would have taken the same
adverse action even in the absence of the protected activity. United Rentals, Inc., 350
NLRB No. 76, slip op. 1 (2007). As to the 8(a)(3) allegation relating to the Respondent’s
promulgation and maintenance of a dress-code rule prohibiting the wearing of clothing
bearing union insignia, the General Counsel has met his initial burden under Wright Line.
The Board’s decision in Chinese Daily News, supra, which found the Respondent had
committed multiple violations of the Act demonstrates the company’s union animus.
Moreover, in December 2003, the Respondent demonstrated its animosity toward its
employees’ wearing of union-supportive apparel when supervisor Ms. Lee twice criticized
Ms. Wang for wearing the union vest, saying, on the first occasion, “We don’t have a
union.” Further, the Solicitation/Dress Code Rules on their face reveal the underlying
union animus by specifically and selectively targeting “CWA jackets” in the penultimate
paragraph. The burden of proof therefore shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate a
nondiscriminatory basis for establishing a dress code that restricted the wearing of
clothing bearing union insignia. Respondent has failed to show that it would have issued
its dress code rules even in the absence of its employees' union activity. I therefore find
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by promulgating and maintaining a
discriminatory dress code in February 2004.
2. Shieh-Sheng Wei: Written Warning
and Alleged Work Assignment Change
Paragraph 8 of the Complaint alleges the Respondent unlawfully issued a written
warning to Mr. Wei on August 17, 2004. The question of whether Respondent violated
Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act by issuing Mr. Wei a written warning rests on its
motivation. Therefore, the analytical framework of Wright Line, supra, must be applied.20

19 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F. 2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. Denied 455 U.S.
989 (1982).
20 The General Counsel also proffers the and/or argument that Mr. Wei’s protest of the
five-minute limitation constituted protected concerted activity and that retaliatory discipline
for his protest violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. While agreeing with both of the General
Counsel’s legal propositions, I find it unnecessary to make an analytical distinction.
JD(SF)36–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
15
The General Counsel must first persuade, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
Mr. Wei’s protected conduct was a motivating factor in any reduction of work hours and in
the issuance of the warning. If the General Counsel is able to make such a showing, the
burden of persuasion shifts "to the employer to demonstrate that the same action would
have taken place even in the absence of the protected conduct." Wright Line, supra at
1089; Donaldson Bros, Ready Mix, Inc., 341 NLRB 958, 961 (2004).
The elements of discriminatory motivation are union activity, employer knowledge,
and employer animus. Verizon and Its Subsidiary Telesector Resources, 350 NLRB No.
53, 2007; Group Farmer Bros. Co., 303 NLRB 638, 649 (1991). Here, the elements are
clearly met as to Mr. Wei, of whose open union support the Respondent was aware and
toward which, as noted above, the Respondent had general animus. Accordingly, I find
the General Counsel has met his initial burden by “making a showing sufficient to support
the inference”21 that Mr. Wei’s protected activity was a motivating factor in the
Respondent’s post June 14, 2004 alteration of Mr. Wei’s work hours22 and its decision to
issue him a warning notice on August 17, 2004. The burden therefore shifts to the
Respondent to demonstrate that it would have issued the August 17 warning notice to
Mr. Wei even in the absence of his union activity.
The Respondent contends that on June 14, 2004 Mr. Wei engaged in verbal
misconduct and insubordination toward his supervisor, Group Leader Wing, for which the
Respondent issued him a warning notice dated August 17, 2004. Credited testimony
establishes that on June 14, 2004, in the course of a dispute over restroom breaks,
Mr. Wei scolded Group Leader Wing in front of the other employees, saying Group Leader
Wing should be ashamed, and profanely insulting the group leader’s mother. Employers
may discipline employees for profane language, provided such discipline is administered
in a nondiscriminatory fashion. Bridgestone Firestone South Carolina, 350 NLRB No. 52,
slip op 7 (2007) [citations omitted].
The Respondent maintains Mr. Wei’s behavior was so egregious that his discipline
was justified. The issue, however, is not whether the Respondent acted reasonably in
issuing Mr. Wei a written warning, but whether the Respondent would have taken the same
action, even if Mr. Wei were not an active union supporter and/or had not engaged in the
protected activity of protesting the restroom break. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 351 NLRB No.
17 (2007). “An employer cannot simply present a legitimate reason for its action but must
persuade by a preponderance of the evidence that the same action would have taken
place even in the absence of protected activity.” Weldon, Williams & Lick, Inc., 348 NLRB
No. 45, slip op. at 5 (2006).23 In the managerial communications regarding the discipline,
no discriminatory motive can be discerned. No evidence was adduced of disparate
treatment, as no evidence was presented that any employee had ever before used
profanity to a supervisor. Counsel for the General Counsel argues that the delay between
incident and discipline warrants an inference of unlawful intent. While it is true that two

21 Wright Line, supra at 1089.
22 The General Counsel alleges in the Complaint that sometime after the June 14,
2004 incident that gave rise to Mr. Wei’s written warning, the Respondent refused to give
Mr. Wei shift rotations and assignments, resulting in loss of overtime pay. A complicated
dispute exists as to whether the Respondent manipulated Mr. Wei’s work hours to his
disadvantage or merely complied with his scheduling requests. In light of my findings
regarding the discipline imposed on Mr. Wei, it is unnecessary to resolve those issues.
23 Quoting W. F. Bolin Co., 311 NLRB 1118, 1119 (1993), pet rev den 70 F.3d 863
(6th Cir. 1995), enfd. mem. 99 F.3d 1139 (6th Cir. 1996).
JD(SF)36–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
16
months elapsed before Mr. Wei received a written warning for his misconduct, the
Respondent explained the lag time as resulting from press of business and hyper-caution,
a not-unreasonable response to the Respondent’s ongoing labor problems. I cannot
therefore infer improper motive from the timing of the warning. Counsel for the General
Counsel further argues that HR Manager Gao’s failure to interview Mr. Wei before
imposing discipline reveals the Respondent’s unlawful motive. Although HR Manager
Gao did not ask for a statement from any employee witness to the incident except deputy
group leader Kao, there is no evidence that Respondent sought to shape or distort the
investigation or that there was not genuine fact gathering.24 The Board declines to tell an
employer how to investigate allegations of employee misconduct, and failure to investigate
in a particular manner before imposing discipline does not establish an unlawful motive.
Chartwells, Compass Group, USA, Inc., 342 NLRB 1155, 1158 (2004). I find the Respondent has
met its shifted burden of proof as to the discipline imposed on Mr. Wei.
Paragraph 7 of the Complaint alleges that since late June or early July 2004 the
Respondent discriminatorily refused to give Mr. Wei shift rotations and shift assignments,
which resulted in loss of overtime pay. Even assuming the Respondent disregarded
Mr. Wei’s shift preferences and assigned him work hours that resulted in lost overtime
pay, the evidence does not establish that the Respondent had an improper motive in
doing so. If involuntary alteration in Mr. Wei’s hours occurred, any change would
presumably be linked, as Counsel for the General Counsel argues, to his restroom-break
confrontation with Group Leader Wing. I have determined that the Respondent did not
unlawfully discipline Mr. Wei for his conduct during that confrontation, and it follows that
the Respondent did not unlawfully alter Mr. Wei’s hours or refuse him shift assignments.
Accordingly, I find the Respondent did not violate Sections 8(a)(1) and/or (3) of the Act by
its discipline of or shift assignments to Mr. Wei. I shall, therefore, dismiss the complaint
allegations of paragraphs 7 and 8.
Conclusions of Law
1. The Respondent, Chinese Daily News is an employer engaged in commerce and in a
business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Beginning on January 29, 2004, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act by promulgating and maintaining a dress code rule prohibiting the wearing of
union insignia.
4. Beginning on January 29, 2004, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
promulgating and maintaining a rule prohibiting employees from engaging in protected
solicitation/distribution during nonwork time and in nonwork areas.
5. In February 2004, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by directing an
employee to stop talking about terms and conditions of employment.
6. The unfair labor practices set forth above affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

24 Though unsolicited, Mr. Wei provided management with his statement of what had
occurred.
JD(SF)36–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
17
Remedy
Having found the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue
the following recommended25
ORDER
The Respondent, Chinese Daily News, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Promulgating and maintaining a dress code rule unlawfully prohibiting the
wearing of union insignia.
(b) Promulgating and maintaining a rule prohibiting employees from engaging in
protected solicitation/distribution during nonwork time and in nonwork areas.
(c) Directing any employee to stop talking about terms and conditions of
employment.
(d) 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 effectuate the policies of the
Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities in Monterey
Park, California, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”26 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21 after being signed by
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted.27 Reasonable steps shall be
taken by 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,
Respondent has

25 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.
26 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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.”
27 The notices are to be posted in the following languages: English and Mandarin.
JD(SF)36–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
18
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, Respondent
shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees
and former employees employed by Respondent at any time since February 2004.
(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 Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated: Washington, D.C. December 26, 2007
Lana H. Parke
Administrative Law Judge
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 do anything that interferes with these rights. More particularly,
WE WILL NOT announce and/or maintain a dress code rule that unlawfully prohibits the
wearing of union insignia.
WE WILL NOT announce and/or maintain a rule prohibiting employees from engaging in union
or other protected solicitation or distribution during nonwork time and in nonwork areas.
WE WILL NOT tell any employee not to talk with other employees about terms and conditions of
employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL rescind our January 29, 2004 dress-code and no-solicitation/no-distribution rules.
Chinese Daily News
(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.
888 South Figueroa Street, 9th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017-5449
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
213-894-5200.
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, 213-894-5229.