E-Z Supply Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Dec 28, 2007

29-CA-027927 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 28, 2007)

JD(NY)-54-07
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
E-Z SUPPLY CORP. AND
SUNRISE PLUS CORP., Alter Egos
Case. No. 29-CA-27927
and 29-CA-28115
29-CA-28280
INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE
WORLD, NEW YORK CITY GENERAL
MEMBERSHIP BRANCH
Tara O’Rourke, Esq., and Annie Hsu, Esq.
for the General Counsel
Stuart Lichten, Esq., (Schwartz, Lichten &
Bright, P.C.), of New York, New York
for the Union
Anthony Emengo, Esq. and Joseph
Obiora, Esq., of Brooklyn, New York
for Respondent Sunrise Plus Corp.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
ELEANOR MACDONALD, Administrative Law Judge: This case was tried in
Brooklyn, New York, on July 5, 6, 9 and 10 and September 4, 2007. The Amended
Consolidated Complaint alleges that Respondents engaged in various violations of Section
8(a)(1),(3) and (5) of the Act. Respondent Sunrise Plus Corp. filed an Answer denying that it
had violated the Act. Respondent E-Z Supply Corp. did not file an Answer and no appearance
on its behalf was made herein.1
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the brief filed by Counsel for the General Counsel on October 17 and by
Respondent on October 19, 2007, I make the following2

1 Attorney Emengo stated that he did not represent E-Z Supply and he was adamant that he
and Sunrise were not obligated to produce any subpoenaed documents relating to E-Z Supply.
Attorney Emengo stated on the record his inability to contact principals of E-Z and he implied
that he was never in communication with E-Z. The record shows that on November 20, 2006 E-
Z supply issued a check for $3,500 to Mr. Emengo and this check was negotiated on November
27.
2 The date for filing briefs was October 17, 2007. Respondent’s brief was postmarked
October 18. Counsel for the General Counsel has filed a motion to strike the brief as untimely.
The motion is hereby denied.
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
Findings of Fact3
I. Jurisdiction
In Case No. 29 RC-11287 Respondent E-Z Supply Corp. stipulated that is a domestic
corporation with its office and principal place of business located at 48-01 Metropolitan Avenue,
Ridgewood, New York, where it is engaged in the nonretail distribution of paper products within
the food service industry and annually receives goods and supplies valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points located outside the State of New York. E-Z Supply stipulated that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that
Industrial Workers of the World is an organization is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act. The Complaint herein alleges that Respondent Sunrise Plus Corp. has
been engaged in the nonretail distribution of products within the food service industry since
December 2006 at its office and place of business at 48-01 Metropolitan Avenue, Ridgewood,
New York, and that it annually purchases and receives goods and supplies valued in excess of
$50,000 from points located outside the State of New York. At the instant hearing Sunrise
stipulated that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6)
and (7) of the Act. Based on the undisputed testimony of James Crutchfield and Billy Randel I
find that the Union conducts membership meetings and election campaigns and that it
represents employees in negotiations with employers concerning wages, hours and working
conditions. I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Background
The facts found herein will be based on evidence presented by Counsel for the General
Counsel. Respondent Sunrise Plus did not call any witnesses after the General Counsel rested.
Respondent E-Z Supply Corp. did not file an Answer herein and no representative appeared
separately on its behalf. 4 E-Z Supply did not respond to subpoenas issued by Counsel for the
General Counsel. Sunrise did not furnish many of the documents sought in a subpoena served
upon it by Counsel for the General Counsel even though testimony established that the
documents exist. In addition Lester Wen, an employee of Sunrise and a shareholder of E-Z
Supply, did not appear in response to the General Counsel’s subpoena. In accordance with
Board practice, the use of secondary evidence was permitted in the presentation of the General

3 The record is hereby corrected so that at page 153, line 8, the word “company” is replaced
by the word “employees”; at page 203, line 3, the phrase should read “there would not be loans
given to employees”; at page 361, line 16 the last phrase should read “Ramalis would be his
patronymic last name”; at page 380, line 2, Mr. Emengo stated the objection; at page 392, line
11 the phrase was said by Mr. Emengo; at page 392, line 18, the sixth word is “she”; at page
429, line 4, the line should read “evidence that the employees were not documented in
response to the employer’s request”; at page 496, line 11, the names of the restaurants are
“Ollie’s 84 and Ollie’s 116”; at page 505, line 7 and thereafter, Mr. Emengo was speaking and
Mr. Obiora did not voice objections or comments; at page 548, line 24, Counsel for the General
Counsel was speaking; at page 549, line 2, Counsel for the General Counsel was speaking; at
page 635, line 13, Mr. Emengo was speaking.
4 As will be seen below, I find that Sunrise Plus is the alter ego of E-Z Supply. Thus, service
on Sunrise Plus was effective for both entities and Sunrise Plus was bound to respond to
subpoenas served upon E-Z Supply at the warehouse.
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
Counsel’s case. It is not necessary to discuss this issue in detail as Respondent Sunrise did not
object to the admission of the General Counsel’s evidence at the instant hearing.
The facts in the case may be summarized as follows:
On February 23, 2006 the Union was certified as the collective bargaining representative
of the employees of E-Z Supply Corp. within the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time truck drivers, drivers’ helpers, hi-lo operators,
warehousemen and warehouse/cleaning employees employed by the Employer at its
facility located at 48-01 Metropolitan Avenue, Ridgewood, New York, excluding office
clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
E-Z Supply is a family owned and run business. One member of the family, Ellen Wen,
(Xue Fen Wen), was called by Counsel for the General Counsel and testified herein. The other
members of the family who are or were active in the management of the company are:
Raymond Wen, (Xue Chao Wen), husband of Ellen Wen
Lester Wen, brother of Raymond Wen
Florence Wen, sister of Raymond Wen
Eva Ma, (Hui Yan Ma), sister of Raymond Wen
Following the issuance of the certification the Union and E-Z Supply engaged in
bargaining for an initial contract. On November 30, 2006 the assets of E-Z Supply were
purchased by Sunrise Plus. The same family members, by and large, are involved in the
management of Sunrise.
In November 2005 a number of E-Z Supply employees attended a meeting at a
community organization known as “Make the Road by Walking.” The employees discussed
violations of the wage and hour laws and they were directed to Union agent Billy Randel for
assistance in pursuing their rights. In December 2005 Randel assisted them in providing
statements to the Department of Labor concerning unpaid wages.5 The record evidence shows
that in November 2006 a number of employees received checks for overtime owed to them by
E-Z Supply. This event is described below.
The Union also helped the employees file another case against E-Z Supply, Sunrise
Plus and Lester Wen in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in
Case No. 06 CV 6790. The summons and complaint in that case were filed on December 28,
2006 and were served at the company premises on December 28, 2006 at 11 am. The
complaint alleges that the employees were not paid the minimum wage and that they were not
paid overtime. The employees named as Plaintiffs in the complaint are Primitivo Aguilar,
Joaquin Almazan, Alberto Barranco, Ramiro Casa, Joaquin Corona, Hugo Flores, Javier Flores,
Voon Onn, Jorge Orea, Augustin Ramales, Angel Zambrano and Jun Zhao.
On the evening of December 28, 2006 Sunrise discharged a large number of unit
employees.

5 The uncontradicted testimony establishes that the following employees provided
statements: Barranco, Jorge Orea, Joaquin Almazan Olmos, Fernando Corona, Hugo Flores
Perez, Javier Flores, Joaquin Corona Solis, Daniel Cazerez, Ramiro Casa and Raymundo
Tlaltepa.
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
B. The Sale of E-Z Supply Assets to Sunrise Plus
Ellen Wen testified that she is the president and sole shareholder of Sunrise Plus.
Sunrise purchased the assets of E-Z Supply with a check for $68,000 dated November 30,
2006.6 Ellen Wen stated that she borrowed money from friends and family to finance the
purchase of E-Z Supply. She borrowed sums from her relatives including $5000 from Florence
Wen, $5000 from Lester Wen, and $15,000 from Eva Ma, but there are no writings that
memorialize these loans. She borrowed $3000 from a friend in Hong Kong, again with no
accompanying documentation. Wen has not made any payments on these loans and there are
no repayment schedules. Ellen Wen took out a home equity loan but she could not recall the
exact amount of the loan; she thought it was about $40,000. Although the General Counsel
subpoenaed all of the documents relative the purchase by Sunrise Plus no documents relating
to loans taken by Ellen Wen in order to complete the purchase were ever produced.
The contract of sale for the assets of E-Z Supply is dated October 10, 2006 and signed
by Eva Ma as the seller and Ellen Wen as the buyer.7 The assets listed in the contract are
automobile trucks and the unexpired residue of a leasehold held by E-Z Supply for 48-01
Metropolitan Avenue. A schedule attached to the contract lists the vehicles included in the sale
including trucks, forklifts and other equipment. The original costs are listed and total somewhat
over $224,853. The closing on the sale took place on November 30, 2006. At the closing,
Sunrise Plus assumed the lease of the warehouse premises and paid the sum of $10 to E-Z
Supply for the assignment of the lease. The lease recites that the sum of $9072.00 is on
deposit with the landlord as security and is returnable to the tenant at the expiration of the lease.
E-Z Supply continued to maintain an active bank account and by the beginning of March
2006 it had a balance of $93,657.96. On March 7, 2006 four separate checks for identical
amounts of $23,186.49 were issued to Eva Ma, Ellen Wen (Xue Fen Wen), Florence Wen and
Lester Wen. There is no testimony in the record to explain this distribution of E-Z Supply cash.
C. The Business of E-Z Supply and Sunrise Plus
Counsel for the General Counsel called Ellen Wen to testify about the business of E-Z
Supply and Sunrise Plus. Ellen Wen testified that she has been the president of Sunrise since
December 2006 when she purchased the assets of E-Z Supply. Before that she worked at E-Z
Supply for at least two years taking telephone orders from customers. Ellen Wen confirmed that
the address of Sunrise Plus is the same as the E-Z Supply address. Sunrise Plus kept the E-Z
Supply telephone number so that it could maintain the same business and keep the E-Z Supply
customers. E-Z Supply gave Sunrise Plus a list of its customers so that Sunrise could solicit
business from these customers. Wen testified that both E-Z Supply and Sunrise delivered
goods and supplies to restaurants in New York City and its environs. I rely on the
uncontradicted testimony of the following witnesses who worked for both E-Z Supply and
Sunrise Plus: Angel Zambrano Orellana, Primitivo Aguilar Flores, Hugo Flores Perez and
Augustin Ramalis Flores. Based on the testimony of these witnesses, I find that both E-Z
Supply and Sunrise Plus purchased goods from suppliers such as Dart, New Yung, Amercino,
Oasis, HVA, New Spring and Handi. Based on the testimony of these witnesses, I find that
both E-Z Supply and Sunrise Plus supplied restaurants with oil, rice, sugar, paper plates,
canned goods, paper bags and vegetables. Based on the testimony of these witnesses I find

6 Sunrise has no debt outstanding to E-Z Supply.
7 Attorney Emengo represented Sunrise when the contract was signed on October 10, 2006.
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
that both E-Z Supply and Sunrise Plus had customers such as Ollie’s 84th Street and Ollie’s
116th Street, Ginger Restaurant, Marco Polo, China Chalet, Lemon Grass and various
restaurants with the word “Cottage” in their names.
I credit the uncontradicted testimony of unit employee Hugo Flores Perez that on
December 1, 2006 he noticed that invoices he was checking in the warehouse said “Sunrise”
instead of “E-Z Supply”. Perez stated that large letters saying “Sunrise Plus” appeared on the
side of one truck. On some trucks the name Sunrise was placed on the door but the name “E-Z
Supply” continued on the side of the trucks.8 Some trucks continued to say only “E-Z Supply.”
D. The Employees of E-Z Supply and Sunrise Plus
Ellen Wen testified that Sunrise hired all the warehouse employees of E-Z Supply. Wen
testified that a number of former non unit employees of E-Z Supply now work for Sunrise.
According to Ellen Wen these are:
Ai Lan Wu
Debbie Chen
Ping Gao
Xiang Yi Lang
“Danny”, Can Hong Liu, the warehouse supervisor9
Ellen Wen, president and owner of Sunrise
Lester Wen, sales manager
Florence Wen10
Ellen Wen also testified that a number of other family members are involved in or have
been involved in the business. These are:
Raymond Wen, a sales person for Sunrise
Eva Ma, former “boss” of E-Z Supply11
In addition to Ellen Wen, many witnesses testified about the supervisors and agents of
E-Z Supply and Sunrise Plus. The employee witnesses testified without contradiction that the
identities of the supervisors and their duties did not change when the company changed from E-
Z Supply to Sunrise Plus on December 1, 2006.
Lester Wen’s affidavit was received into evidence by agreement of the parties.12 It
establishes that Lester Wen is a shareholder of E-Z Supply and its “General Manager” since the
business opened in 2001. His responsibilities include the “daily business operation of the
Company.” I credit the uncontradicted testimony of Primitivo Aguilar Flores that Lester Wen
hired him to work for E-Z. Several employees identified Lester Wen as the “owner” of E-Z
Supply; these are Angel Zambrano Orellana, Primitivo Aguilar Flores, Augustin Ramalis Flores

8 This was the case as late as June 2007 when Perez saw a truck on the street.
9 Ellen Wen testified that Danny assigns work and grants time off
10 Ellen Wen testified that Florence has the authority to issue written warnings. Ellen Wen
did not identify Florence Wen’s job title or other duties.
11 Employee testimony establishes that she still worked at the warehouse on December 28,
2006.
12 Although Lester Wen, an employee of Sunrise, was under subpoena by the General
Counsel he failed to appear despite repeated efforts by the ALJ to secure his testimony.
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
and Hugo Flores Perez. I credit the uncontradicted testimony of Augustin Ramalis Flores that
Lester Wen hired him and subsequently suspended him for a day for failing to complete a
delivery. I credit the uncontradicted testimony of Jorge Orea that Lester Wen hired him and
subsequently suspended him for a day when he was late to work. I credit the uncontradicted
testimony of Joaquin Almazan Olmas that Lester Wen suspended him for overstaying a meal
break. All of the unit employees stated that Lester Wen’s duties and responsibilities continued
unchanged when the company was known as Sunrise Plus.
I credit the uncontradicted testimony of Primitivo Aguilar Flores that Danny was identified
as “the warehouse manager” and that Danny had the authority to assign work and make sure
that employees were performing their tasks. I credit the uncontradicted testimony of Augustin
Ramalis Flores that Danny issued him both oral and written discipline for various infractions.
I credit the uncontradicted testimony of Joaquin Corona that Florence Wen issued many
written warnings to him for tardiness. Lester Wen’s affidavit states that Florence Wen
suspended driver Sow Onn Voon, a/k/a Allen, and gave him written warnings.
I credit Ellen Wen than Eva Ma was the “boss” of E-Z Supply. I credit the uncontradicted
testimony of Primitivo Aguilar Flores that on December 28, 2006 Eva Ma was working in the
office of Sunrise Plus and directed him to keep working overtime until he finished his deliveries.
Lester Wen’s affidavit identifies “Wing” as the warehouse manager of E-Z Supply, with
the authority to assign work to employees and grant sick leave. Ellen Wen testified that Ah
Wing was the warehouse manager for E-Z Supply. At some point Wing was fired.
E. Collective Bargaining between the Union and E-Z Supply
Billy Randel, an organizer for the IWW, helped organize the E-Z Supply employees and
he attended negotiations with E-Z Supply after the Union was certified.13 Union treasurer
James Crutchfield attended many of the bargaining sessions.
The collective bargaining negotiations with E-Z Supply began on February 21 or 23,
2006 at the office of Lloyd Somer, Esq., attorney for E-Z Supply. Randel testified that Lester
Wen and Attorney Somer represented E-Z Supply. One of the subjects discussed by the parties
involved the employer’s practice of making loans to employees. Employees who were given
loans by the company often had large sums taken out of their paychecks. The employee
bargaining committee members present, Jorge Orea and Joaquin Corona, said the workers in
the shop wanted the employer to cease providing loans to unit employees. The Union asked
the company to stop making any loans. According to Randel the employer’s representatives
agreed that the loans would cease. Randel said the employer never asked the Union for
permission to resume the employee loans. Lester Wen’s affidavit places this agreement in April
or May 2006 and states that he agreed to cease giving loans to employees. Wen asserts that
“since the agreement … the employer has not issued any loans to employees.”
Randel testified that a number of bargaining sessions were conducted over the course of
the year on March 18, April 6, May 15 and July 5. Lester Wen was always present for the
employer.

13 I credit Randel’s testimony. He displayed an excellent recollection of the events about
which he was questioned and his demeanor impressed me as forthright and aware.
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
Randel testified that Attorney Somer discussed the immigration status problem of the
company’s employees. On November 20, 2006 the parties again met for collective bargaining
negotiations. The Union was represented by Randel and Crutchfield as well as a number of
employees.14 The sign in sheet for the meeting shows that E-Z Supply was represented by
Attorney Somer, Lester Wen, Chao X. Wen (Raymond Wen) and Zhao Jame Ma.15 The Union
and the company reached an agreement that the employer would not terminate the employees
based on their immigration status. Attorney Somer said the employer was apprehensive about
immigration raids in Chinatown.16
Randel testified that sometime during the week of November 27, 2006 a sign appeared
on the warehouse identifying the business as “Sunrise Plus Corp.” Randel spoke to Attorney
Somer about the name change. Somer stated that for business purposes E-Z Supply was now
known as Sunrise Plus but that the business had not been sold and it was not going to be sold.
Crutchfield testified that at the last meeting with E-Z Supply both Attorney Somer and Lester
Wen said they were changing the name of the company because the union had damaged E-Z
Supply’s reputation and they wanted a new name. They told Crutchfield there was no change in
the corporate entity. 17
On December 7, 2006 the Union and the employer met for a grievance session. The
company was represented by Attorney Somer, Lester Wen, Raymond Wen and Mr. Ma.18 In
addition to Randel, a number of employees were present.19 Primitivo Flores testified that the
employees asked about the name change and the employer said that he did not want a bad
reputation for his company. Hugo Flores Perez testified that when he was asked about the new
name for the company Lester Wen replied that because of Union publicity the company had a
bad reputation. Lester Wen told the Union not to worry that he would sign the contract with the
Union. Jorge Orea recalled that when the Union asked about the name change Lester said it
would not be a problem.
Randel testified that on December 8, 2006, Attorney Somer faxed him a sheet of
proposed work rules. The fax transmission was admitted into evidence. It bears a heading
entitled Lloyd Somer, Esq., and a date of December 8, 2006. The work rules are addressed to
“All Employees” and deal with working hours, procedures for signing in and out, and procedures
for securing receipts and payments from customers. The work rules are signed “Sunrise Plus
Corp.” Following receipt of the December 8 fax, Randel spoke to Attorney Somer concerning
the precise wording of the rules.

14 These employees included Jorge Orea, J. Alexander van Schaick, Jose Aguilar Flores,
Voon Sonn Onn, Hugo Flores Perez, Primitivo Aguilar Flores, Luis Alberto Barranco, Silvestre
Mungia and Javier Flores Perez.
15 Hugo Flores Perez called the husband of Eva Ma “Ah-lam” and he named that person as
a company representative at this meeting. In the absence of any testimony to the contrary I find
that this person signed the list of company representatives as Zhao Jame Ma.
16 Chinatown is on the island of Manhattan. The company premises in Ridgewood are on
Long Island on the border between the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens.
17 I credit Crutchfield’s uncontradicted testimony.
18 Primitivo Aguilar Flores identified an attendee for the company as someone called “Allen”
who was the husband of Eva Ma. This testimony is uncontradicted and I find that the Mr. Ma
mentioned by the witnesses is the husband of Eva Ma who was called “Ah-lam” by other
witnesses.
19 These were Jorge Orea, Joaquin Olmos, Hugo Flores, Javier Flores, Sow Onn Voon,
Jose Aguilar, Primitivo Aguilar Flores and employees not identified by a last name.
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
On December 12 or 13 Lester Wen telephoned Randel to discuss a problem with
employee “Acuan” who frequently asked to leave work early.
Randel testified he visited the shop several times in December 2006 to discuss
employee loan payments and cell phone bills with warehouse supervisor Danny. On one such
visit Randel was speaking to the Chinese workers and telling them to call the Union if they had
any problems when Danny appeared and said Florence Wen had instructed him that the Union
had no right to speak to the Chinese workers. On the day after Christmas there was a wildcat
strike at the company and Danny spoke to Randel in an effort to resolve the issue. Danny said
the attorney would come to the shop to settle the issue.
On April 25, 2007 Crutchfield wrote to Attorney Emengo requesting negotiations with E-Z
Supply Corp. and Sunrise Plus Corp. Crutchfield proposed four dates in April and May, but
stated that if he did not have a response by April 27 the Union would “take whatever actions are
necessary to protect its interests.” The employer did not respond to the Union’s request for
negotiations.
F. Union Activities of the Employees
The uncontradicted testimony shows that all of the Union supporters at the company
were from Mexico with the exception of Sow Onn Voon. The recitation of the employees’ Union
and concerted activities was similarly uncontradicted. The following employees engaged in a
strike against the company: Jorge Orea, “Tony” Angel Zambrano Orellena, Joaquin Almazan
Olmas, Joaquin Corona Solis, Fernando Corona, Hugo Flores Perez, Javier Flores Perez,
Christian Barroa, Luis Alberto Barranco, Daniel Munguia Munguia, Ramiro Cazarez and
Raymond Tlaltepa.
Primitivo Aguilar Flores went to the Union to get a better wage. He recalled that the
following co-workers also went to the Union: Hugo Flores Perez, Javier Flores Perez, Jorge
Orea, “Tony” Angel Zambrano Orellana, Joaquin Almazan Olmas and Jose Aguilar Flores.
Primitivo Flores participated in marches to show support for the Union. Other employees who
marched included Javier, Tony, Jose, Jorge Orea, Olmas and “Allen” Sow Onn Voon. Flores
attended a few negotiation sessions with the employer. He is named in the lawsuit filed on
December 28, 2006.
Augustin Ramalis Flores joined the Union and attended about five meetings before
December 28, 2006. He is named in the lawsuit filed on December 28, 2006.
Jorge Orea joined the Union and received Union assistance in collecting unpaid
overtime as a result of the wage and hour proceeding at the Department of Labor. Orea
attended most of the bargaining sessions between the company and the Union. He is named in
the lawsuit filed on December 28, 2006
Joaquin Almazan Olmas joined the union in December 2005. He is named in the lawsuit
filed on December 28, 2006.
Hugo Flores Perez received Union assistance in attempting to collect unpaid overtime as
a result of the wage and hour proceeding at the Department of Labor. He received a letter
stating that he would receive a check for $1400 in unpaid wages but at the time of the instant
hearing the check had not arrived. He joined the Union in November 2006. Perez attended two
bargaining sessions between the parties. He is named in the lawsuit filed on December 28,
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
2006.
Angel Zambrano Orellana testified that he joined with others in going to the union to file
a claim for unpaid wages. In November 2006 Orellana received a check for $3200 for unpaid
wages. Orellana recalled others who went to the Union for this purpose: Jorge, Carmero,
Fernando, Louis and Danny. Orellana is named in the lawsuit filed on December 28, 2006.
Sow Onn Voon joined the Union in January 2006. He is named in the lawsuit filed on
December 28, 2006.
G. Attempts to Decertify the Union
A number of employees testified that in April 2006 Lester Wen held a meeting in the
second floor office of the warehouse. Also in attendance were warehouse supervisor “Danny”
(Can Hong Liu), and another warehouse supervisor named “Wing”.20
A document introduced into evidence contains 23 employee signatures in two columns.
At the top of these columns is the following:
We, E-Z supply employees do not wish to have IWW (Industrial Workers of the World),
to represent us.
Angel Zambrano Orellana testified that Lester Wen asked the employees to sign a paper
stating that they did not want the Union any more.21 He promised the employees more pay and
less work if they signed. Wen said that he would resume paying the employees in cash and he
would conduct monthly meetings to fix problems in the warehouse. Wen said if the employees
remained in the union he would hire more people and give the employees less work. Lester
Wen had never before held a similar general meeting and he had never asked employees about
their problems before this occasion. Orellana stated that 45 minutes after the meeting ended
while he was performing his duties, Lester told him he had to sign a paper. Danny had the
paper in his possession and Orellana signed it in the presence of five other employees who also
signed. I credit Orellana’s testimony. Although his affidavit given to a Board agent states “no
management representative has ever said anything to me about my Union activities”, it also
contains a lengthy and detailed description of the meeting with Lester Wen. I observed that
Orellana answered the questions put to him readily and that his recollection was good.
Primitivo Aguilar Flores testified about the meeting on the second floor. Lester Wen
offered better wages if the employees would be on his side and “get away from the Union.” The
employees asked Wen to sign a paper with these promises but he refused saying that it would
be illegal. Testifying about the document repudiating Union representation, Flores stated that
the lines at the top of the letter, quoted above, were in his handwriting. Lester Wen wrote the
words and Flores copied them onto a piece of paper while the two men were in Wen’s office.22
Wen told Flores to go to the Hispanic workers and obtain their signatures. I credit Flores’

20 The testimony concerning Wing is confused and confusing. He was apparently fired at
some point and his real name is hard to determine, although some witnesses said his name was
Awen and some said it was AhWing.
21 Orellana identified the following employees as among those who were present: Jorge,
Javier, Carmero, Raymond and Luis; in all there were a total of 15 Spanish workers.
22 Flores is not able to write in English, but he understands some English and some Chinese
as a result of many years working in the warehouse.
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
testimony about the meeting and the subsequent creation and signing of the letter. Although he
was not able to recall specific dates it was clear that he recalled the actual events about which
he was asked. Furthermore, Flores truthfully stated when he could not recall the answer to a
question and he tried to answer accurately.
Jorge Orea testified about the second floor meeting with Lester Wen. Orea understood
some of what Wen said in English and the rest was translated by Primitivo Aguilar Flores and
Hugo Flores. Lester Wen told them employees that if they had complaints they should come to
his office. He said, “We are all a family.” Lester told the employees about signing a paper and
said he could give more than the Union was offering. Orea signed the document repudiating the
Union after Primitivo Aguilar Flores gave it to him for a signature. I credit Orea’s testimony.
Although Orea could not recall specific dates accurately I find that he testified truthfully about
the signing of the paper and the substance of the meeting with Lester Wen. Furthermore, his
affidavit introduced into evidence by Respondent offers a detailed and corroborating account of
the events.
Hugo Flores Perez recalled the second floor meeting with Lester Wen. Perez testified
that Wen spoke about the Union and said before the union he had not deducted taxes from
employees’ pay. Wen told the employees he would give them a paper to sign stating that they
did not want the Union. He said in a few weeks they would “do something” and he might be
able to return the payroll taxes. Perez signed the document repudiating the Union after the
meeting at the request of Primitivo Aguilar Flores and Jorge Orea. I credit Perez’ testimony. He
listened carefully to the questions posed to him, he understood the import of the questions, he
was cooperative on cross-examination and he made every attempt to answer fully and
accurately.
Joaquin Corona recalled the April meeting with Lester Wen on the second floor. Danny
and AhWing were there and about 12 or 14 employees attended. Lester Wen said that the
employees should get out of the union. He stated that he would give the employees twice what
the Union promised them but that they had to leave the Union. Wen said he would pay
employees half their taxes and try to give back the rest, or he would try to avoid having the
employees pay the taxes. This was a good deal for the employees because they did not have
social security. Lester Wen said that in two weeks he and his lawyer would try to get the union
out. After that they would pay the employees higher wages, or they would pay them by check
and would add a little on the side without the knowledge of the Union. Lester gave Corona the
document repudiating the Union to sign after the meeting while the two were in the unloading
area. I credit Corona’s testimony. He answered questions fully and was cooperative on cross-
examination.
Some of the employees testified that the lines repudiating the Union were not at the top
of the document when they signed. No explanation has been offered for this testimony and I do
not find it significant for two reasons: all the employees testified that they knew they were
signing a document to get rid of the Union at Lester Wen’s behest and all the employees
identified their own signatures on the document.
I note that Lester Wen’s affidavit denies that the April meeting described by the
employees took place and denies that he made promises and asked the employees to sign a
document repudiating the Union. As stated above, Lester Wen was under subpoena by the
General Counsel but he did not appear at the hearing despite Counsel for Respondent’s
repeated assurances that he would be present at the adjourned date of the hearing.
Respondent apparently decided that it did not require Lester Wen’s testimony. As a result, I
shall not rely on the denials in his affidavit as to this event or any other event. I find that the
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
witnesses present in the hearing room were credible and reliable and my findings shall be
based on their testimony.
Hugo Flores Perez testified that in August 2006 Lester Wen directed the employees to
go to the Labor Board and cancel the election because the union was not doing anything for the
workers. Lester Wen instructed Perez to inform the employees that they would be paid as if
they had been at work. Perez conveyed this information to five or six other employees. One
morning, after the employees had punched in for work, Danny took three employees to the
Labor Board in his car and Jorge Orea drove some employees to the Board in his car. The
employees met with a female Board agent. Danny had possession of the signed document in
which the employees repudiated the Union. However, the Board agent informed the men that
nothing could happen before one year was up. Perez testified that he was paid for the time he
spent at the Board’s office.
Angel Zambrano Orellana testified that in July 2006 Danny instructed him to drive
several employees to the Labor Board. Danny promised that he would be paid for his time, for
fuel and for the parking fee. Danny said they had to go because that was the only way to deal
with the problem between the warehouse and the Union. Orellana took Javier, Raymond,
Carmero and Danny in his car. At the Labor Board the employees met with an agent named
“Kate.” Danny gave Kate the document signed by employees repudiating the Union. But Kate
said nothing could be done until there was a trial. Orellana said he was not paid for his time.
On cross-examination Orellana stated that he went to the Labor Board voluntarily. Respondent
introduced Orellana’s affidavit into evidence. The affidavit, dated October 19, 2006, provides a
few more details. It states that one week before the employees went to the Labor Board Javier
Flores told Orellana that Lester Wen would pay for gas, parking and time if the employees went
to the Labor Board to “fix the problem” and dissolve the Union.23 Orellana agreed “if this was
the only way we could fix the problem.” On the day the employees went to the Board, according
to Orellana’s affidavit, Danny said Lester Wen would pay for gas, for parking and for all the time.
Danny said that if the men no longer belonged to the union all the problems would be over.
Jorge Orea testified that Lester Wen asked employees to bring their vehicles for the trip
to the NLRB. On the actual day of the Board visit Hugo Flores Perez told them to drive to the
Board office. Orea was among those who informed the Board agent that they did not want the
Union. Orea expected to be paid for the parking fee and his lost time; he asked Lester Wen
who promised to pay him later. However, Wen never paid Orea.
H. Other Alleged Violations
Joaquin Corona testified that in May 2006 Lester Wen held a meeting in his office with
Corona and employees Jorge Orea, Primitivo and David. Lester Wen told the employees that
he wanted them to leave the Union. He promised to give them back everything they had before
such as the payment of wages in cash and the granting of loans. Lester Wen told the
employees that if the Union came the employees should ignore it and if the Union called the
employees should not go. Wen stated that he would fire those who were not with him.
Joaquin Corona had received 10 or 15 loans from Lester Wen before the Union came in.
In May 2006, Lester Wen gave him a $300 or $400 loan and instructed Corona not to tell the
Union.24 Sometime later Lester Wen told Corona and Jorge Orea that someone had informed

23 The affidavit does not describe the problem.
24 Corona knew the Union had secured an agreement that the company would no longer
Continued
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
the Union that he had given them loans. Wen said they should tell the Union that AhWing and a
salesman had lent the money to them.
Augustin Ramalis Flores testified that on May 15 Danny (Can Hong Liu), asked him why
he was not a member of the Union. Ramalis Flores replied that he did not want any problems.
Later that day Randel and another Union agent named Alberto were speaking with Primitivo,
Javier, Joaquin and Jorge in front of the gate. After this Danny asked Flores what they had
been talking about. Danny told Flores not to listen to the Union members because everything
they said was a lie and the Union would not be there by the following year.
Hugo Flores Perez testified that in June 2006 he asked Lester Wen what was happening
with the Union.25 Wen replied that everything was fine because Perez was not paying attention
to the Union. However, Wen said, some people were still speaking to the Union. Wen directed
Perez to tell those other employees not to speak to the Union. Wen told Perez that Randel had
made promises to the employees but he would not be able to provide anything because Wen
would never sign a collective bargaining agreement with the Union. Lester Wen promised
Perez that he would pay him more once the Union left the company. He asked Perez to tell him
anything that happened with the Union and the employees.
In July 2006 Primitivo Aguilar Flores asked Hugo Flores Perez to accompany him to
Lester Wen’s office. Perez testified that Wen asked the two men to tell their brothers and co-
workers to ignore the Union.26 He promised that he would pay the employees more in the
future. Later that day Lester Wen told Perez that he would pay him as much as he paid Flores
but that Perez should keep this a secret. One week later Perez received a 30 cent hourly rate
increase which raised his pay from $6.75 to $7.05 per hour.
After the men returned from the presenting the petition repudiating Union representation
at the Board’s office Lester Wen asked Hugo Flores Perez what had happened. When Perez
replied that nothing could be done because the Union had won the election, Wen responded
that this was not true. According to Perez Wen said he would speak to his lawyer and in a
couple of months he would get the Union out. At that time he would pay the employees more.
Sow Onn Voon testified that in July or August 2006 Lester Wen gathered four Chinese
workers together and told them that there was a Union and they had to pay more taxes.27
However, Wen continued, if there were no longer a Union then he would find some way to
compensate the employees so that they could pay less tax. Voon asked Wen what he meant by
this. Wen replied that he needed two weeks to find an attorney to get rid of the Union and then
it would be a different situation.
Hugo Flores Perez testified that at the end of September 2006 Florence Wen came up to
a group of employees that also included Ramiro, Raymundo and Joaquin and told them that
everything was fine without the Union. She urged them to keep working this way and the
company would get them work permits and social security next year. Perez stated that at the
end of October 2006 Lester Wen spoke to him in the warehouse. Wen said that people were
going back to the Union. Wen instructed Perez to tell the emoloyees that he would get them
work permits and social security. When Perez asked Wen if he was fooling the employees,
_________________________
make loans to employees but he asked for a loan because he needed the money.
25 Perez placed this conversation in the warehouse.
26 Perez’ brother is Javier Flores. Jose Aguilar is Primitivo Aguilar Flores’ brother.
27 In addition to Voon, the other employees were Ah-Dong, Ah-Guen and Ah-Yee.
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
Wen replied that it was not so difficult and he could help by paying for the documents.
I credit the testimony summarized above. I have found that the witnesses are credible
and, as noted above, Respondent presented no witnesses at the hearing to contradict the
employees’ testimony.
Joaquin Almazan Olmas testified to a number of incidents. However, on cross-
examination it became evident that his recollection was very limited and that he could not
recognize documents bearing his signature. Further it was unclear whether Olmas had a firm
understanding of the matters about which he was testifying. I shall not rely on the testimony of
Joaquin Almazan Olmas to find any violations of the Act.
I. Request for Employee Status Documentation
A number of witnesses herein testified that were not asked for proof of their right to work
in the United States when they were hired by E-Z Supply.
Augustin Ramalis Flores testified that he was hired by E-Z Supply in 2002 and that he
took a leave of absence in 2006. When he returned and asked for his job back, Lester Wen
said he could not take him because he was asking for papers to be able to work. Wen
eventually called Ramalis Flores back because he needed workers. However, he did not ask
for any papers when he rehired Ramalis Flores. Jorge Orea denied that he had been asked for
employment papers when he was hired by Lester Wen in 1997. Angel Zambrano Orellana, who
worked for E-Z Supply for 1 ½ years until September 2006, was not asked to show any
identification when he was hired. Primitivo Aguilar Flores was not asked to provide a social
security card or a green card at the time he was hired in the early 1990’s. Hugo Flores Perez
was hired by Eva Ma’s husband in 2002. Flores Perez was not asked for any documents
showing his eligibility to work in the United States. There is no record evidence that any
employees were asked for legally required documentation prior to being hired to work by E-Z
Supply.
On December 22, 2006 Sunrise Plus distributed a letter to certain of its employees
requesting them to furnish a social security card and proof of eligibility to work in the United
States. The letter stated that the documents must be presented by 10 am on December 28.
Employees who did not present the appropriate documents would be terminated immediately.
These letters were sent to all employees including Raymond Tlatelpa Camacho, Son Onn Voon,
Augustin Ramales Flores, Daniel Munguia Munguia, Hugo Flores Perez, Javier Flores Perez,
Joaquin Almazan Olmos, Jose Aguilar Flores, Luis Alberto Barranco, Jorge Orea Paez, Ramiro
Cazarez Rosas, Primitivo Aguilar Flores and Jun Zhao. These employees were all discharged
after work on the evening of December 28 with the exception of Jun Zhao who was discharged
during the first week of January.
The parties stipulated that none of the employees terminated on December 28, 2006
provided the immigration documents requested by the employer by the deadline set forth in the
letter of December 22, 2006 with the exception of employee Jun Zhao. The employees who
failed to provide the documents by December 28, 2006 did not provide these documents after
that date.28

28 Counsel for the General Counsel stated on the record that Jun Zhao did provide
documents showing that he was able to work in the United States. Counsel for Respondent
was unwilling to stipulate whether Jun Zhao provided the employment documents and stated
Continued
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
Respondent admits that it discharged the above-named employees on December 28,
2006 but asserts that the reason was their lack of employment documentation.
Primitivo Aguilar Flores recalled that on December 28 he was still working at 7:40 pm
and he called Eva Ma for permission to go home. Eva Ma told him to keep working. When he
returned to the warehouse at 8:30 pm Eva Ma asked, “Why have you done that?” General
Counsel asserts that the conversation amounts to a threat, basing the argument on details
contained in Flores’ affidavit. However, despite being asked to refresh his recollection, Flores
did not testify to all the matters contained in his affidavit and I shall not find any unfair labor
practice based on his actual testimony about the conversation with Eva Ma.
III. Discussion and Conclusions
A. Supervisors and Agents of E-Z Supply and Sunrise Plus.
As stated above, the company did not provide many items sought in the subpoenas
issued by the General Counsel. Among the documents that were not provided were payroll
documents, various forms of employee information, lists of job titles and descriptions of duties
and information concerning supervisors. These documents are generally used by Counsel for
the General Counsel to assist in the determination of supervisory and agency status of
employees. Thus, I shall rely on the testimony of Ellen Wen and the employee witnesses as to
the duties and status of those alleged to be supervisors and agents in the Complaint. Further, I
shall draw an adverse inference as a result of the failure of Respondent to produce the records
requested, and I shall find that the requested documents would have supported the General
Counsel’s position herein.
Ellen Wen is the president and sole shareholder of Sunrise Plus. She was employed by
E-Z Supply for two years.
Ellen Wen testified that Lester Wen is the sales manager of both E-Z Supply and
Sunrise Plus. Wen’s affidavit establishes that he is a shareholder of E-Z supply and its “General
Manager” with responsibility for the daily business operation of the company. Credited
testimony establishes that Lester Wen exercised the same duties and authority for Sunrise Plus.
Lester Wen hires employees and issues discipline. Lester Wen represented both E-Z Supply
and Sunrise Plus in negotiations and grievance discussions with the Union. I find that Lester
Wen is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
Ellen Wen testified that “Danny”, Can Hong Liu, is the warehouse supervisor of both E-Z
Supply and Sunrise Plus with authority to assign work and grant time off. Credited testimony
establishes that “Danny” oversees the work of employees and issues discipline to employees. I
find that “Danny” is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
Ellen Wen testified that Florence Wen has the authority to issue written warnings to
employees of both E-Z Supply and Sunrise Plus. Lester Wen’s affidavit shows that Florence
_________________________
that he would investigate the matter. No further mention was made on the record of this
employee. There is thus no evidence whether Jun Zhao did or did not provide the required
documents. Counsel for the General Counsel has apparently abandoned any claim on behalf of
this employee as he is not included in the discussion of Union adherents in the brief. I shall not
make any findings regarding this individual.
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
Wen suspended employees and credited testimony establishes that Florence Wen issued
discipline for various infractions. Joint Exhibit 1 contains documents signed by Florence Wen as
“Personnel Administrator.” I find that Florence Wen is a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act.
Ellen Wen testified that Eva Ma was the boss of E-Z Supply. The documentary evidence
shows that Eva Ma signed the contract selling the assets of E-Z Supply to Sunrise Plus.
Credited testimony establishes that Eva Ma was still working at Sunrise Plus in December 2006
and that she had the authority to order employees to keep working overtime until they
completed their tasks. I find that Eva Ma is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
B. Alter Ego and Successor Status of Sunrise Plus
The Board has very recently summarized the criteria for finding alter ego status. In
Summit Express, Inc., 350 NLRB No. 51, slip opinion page 3, (2007), the Board said:
[T]he Board will find alter ego status where two entities have “substantially
identical” management, business purpose, operations, equipment, customers,
supervision and ownership. Crawford Door Sales, 226 NLRB 1144 (1976). The Board
also looks to “whether the purpose behind the creation of the alleged alter ego was
legitimate or whether, instead, its purpose was to evade responsibilities under the Act.”
Fugazy Continental Corp., 265 NLRB 1301 (1982), enfd. 725 F.2d 1416 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
No single factor is determinative of alter ego status, and not all the indicia need be
present to conclude that a finding of alter ego status is appropriate. See, e.g., Fugazy.
Nevertheless the Board generally has not found an alter ego relationship in the absence
of common or related ownership between the two entities. Superior Export Packing co.,
284 NLRB 1169, 1170, enfd. Mem. 845 F.2d 1013 (3d Cir. 1988).
Significantly, although the Board has on occasion found that two entities are alter
egos despite the lack of common ownership, on those occasions, “either the businesses
in question were wholly owned by members of the same family or nearly entirely owned
by the same individual, or the older business exerted substantial control over the
business supposedly sold to the new company.” Hill Industries, 320 NLRB 1116 fn. 1
(1996).
The factors set forth above are present in the relationship between E-Z Supply and
Sunrise Plus. The management and supervision of Sunrise Plus is substantially identical with
that of E-Z Supply. Lester Wen is identified as the general manager and sales manager of both
companies with the responsibility for the day to day operation of the warehouse. Lester Wen
was the chief management representative at negotiations with the Union for E-Z Supply and he
continued in that role after the name of the company was changed to Sunrise Plus. Eva Ma, the
boss of E-Z Supply continued to work for Sunrise Plus in a supervisory capacity. Florence Wen
is a supervisor of both E-Z Supply and Sunrise Plus. “Danny” Can Hong Liu is the warehouse
supervisor for Sunrise Plus, continuing the job position and duties he exercised at E-Z Supply.
The uncontradicted testimony of the employees shows that their supervisors remained the same
after the warehouse changed its name to Sunrise Plus.
The business purpose, operations, equipment and customers of E-Z Supply and Sunrise
Plus are identical. Both deliver food and restaurant supplies to restaurants from the same
warehouse location. Sunrise Plus purchased the equipment of E-Z Supply and began using it
the day after the closing on the sale. Sunrise Plus uses the customer lists of E-Z Supply and
kept the same telephone number so that customers could continue to call the warehouse
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
without interruption to place their orders. The employees testified that they continued to deliver
to the same restaurants after the company became Sunrise Plus. The uncontradicted testimony
shows that E-Z Supply and Sunrise Plus used the same suppliers from which to obtain the
goods they sold to restaurants.
Further, the record shows that the ownership of E-Z Supply and Sunrise Plus is
substantially identical. Although Eva Ma was identified as the boss of E-Z Supply, Lester Wen’s
affidavit states that there are four shareholders of E-Z Supply. The E-Z Supply bank statement
reveals that after the sale of its assets to Sunrise Plus it had a balance of $93,657.96 and that
this total sum was paid in equal parts to Lester Wen, Eva Ma, Ellen Wen and Florence Wen.
Despite Counsel for the General Counsel’s subpoena to Lester Wen he did not appear at the
instant hearing. The bank records of E-Z supply were obtained by General Counsel pursuant to
a subpoena issued during a break in the instant hearing after which Lester Wen was to appear
and testify. He did not appear. Further, Ellen Wen testified for the General Counsel as an
adverse witness but she was not called by Respondent to testify on its behalf. Thus, I am
justified in coming to the obvious conclusion, in the absence of any other explanation, that the
four-way liquidation of the remaining assets of E-Z Supply was a distribution to the four
shareholders of E-Z supply. I find that Lester Wen, Eva Ma, Ellen Wen and Florence Wen were
the four shareholders of E-Z Supply. Ellen Wen testified that she is the sole shareholder of
Sunrise Plus. However, her testimony shows that she borrowed money from Lester Wen, Eva
Ma and Florence Wen to finance her purchase of the E-Z Supply assets for Sunrise Plus.
According to Ellen Wen there are no documents showing the existence or amount of these
loans nor requiring any repayment. Ellen Wen has not made any payments on these loans. In
the absence of any documentation or further explanation it would seem that the so-called loans
are a sham and that Lester Wen, Eva Ma and Florence Wen have an ownership interest in
Sunrise Plus.29 The conclusion that Lester Wen, Eva Ma and Florence Wen retain an interest in
Sunrise Plus is strengthened by the fact that the sum of $68,000 was paid for assets that had a
much higher original value, that this price included a going business with customer lists and that
only $10 was paid for the assignment of a lease with many times that amount on deposit for
security.
There are other indications that the purported sale of E-Z Supply assets to Sunrise Plus
was a sham and that the two companies share a common ownership. Attorney Emengo
represented Sunrise Plus on October 10, 2006 when the contract of sale was signed. Attorney
Emengo stated on the record that he had never represented E-Z supply and that he was
ignorant of its affairs and not in contact with its principals. However, on November 20, 2006 E-Z
Supply issued a check to Attorney Emengo. In the absence of any explanation it is reasonable
to assume that E-Z Supply was making a payment for legal services which purportedly had
been rendered to Sunrise Plus. This lends further support to the conclusion that the true
owners of both companies are the same.
Thus, the two businesses at issue in this case are wholly owned by members of the
same family, thereby satisfying another criterion used to find alter ego status. J.M. Tanaka
Const., 675 F.2d 1029, 1035 (9th Cir. 1982).

29 Further, Ellen Wen’s testimony about a purported home equity loan of $40,000 raises
some questions. Although the document was subpoenaed, there is no proof of the existence of
the loan. Ellen Wen testified that she “thought” the loan was for about $40,000. I have serious
doubts about the veracity of the testimony concerning the home equity loan. A business person
taking out a loan on a major asset such as a personal residence is not generally ignorant of the
amount of the loan.
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
Finally, I find that Sunrise Plus was established to evade the responsibilities of E-Z
Supply under the Act. As described above E-Z Supply had been negotiating with the Union for
an initial contract. In addition, the union had successfully obtained overtime payments for the
employees and it was preparing a wage and hour suit. While the negotiations were going on,
managers of E-Z Supply were seeking to undermine support for the Union. The credited
testimony establishes that in April 2006 Lester Wen instigated a movement to decertify the
Union and obtained the signatures of many employees on a petition repudiating the Union.
Lester Wen promised the employees more money, payments in cash to avoid taxes and help in
obtaining social security and work permits. Lester Wen told the employees to ignore the Union
and threatened to fire those employees “who were not with him.” Florence Wen promised the
employees legal employment documents if they would work without the Union. Lester Wen told
the employees that he and his lawyer would get rid of the Union. Lester Wen instructed Hugo
Flores Perez to take employees to the Labor Board and cancel the election. Warehouse
supervisor Danny also instructed employees to go to the Labor Board for this purpose. These
actions by managers and supervisors of E-Z Supply demonstrate that the company wished to
operate without the Union and that Respondent harbored anti-Union animus. Moreover, Lester
Wen and his then attorney, Lloyd Somer, assured the Union that the company was changing its
name but that the company had not been sold and would not be sold, thus hiding the facts from
the employees’ representative until they could be presented with a fait accompli. As late as
December 7, 2006, Lester Wen was assuring his employees that he would sign the contract
with the Union. I conclude that when the efforts to decertify the Union failed, the shareholders
of E-Z Supply determined to enter into a sham sale to a disguised continuance of the company
in order to avoid dealing with the Union.
Even if I had not found that Sunrise Plus was the alter ego of E-Z Supply, I would find
that Sunrise Plus is the successor to E-Z Supply and that, in fact, it recognized and bargained
with the Union. The sale of the E-Z Supply assets was final on November 30, 2006 and by then
the name of Sunrise Plus had appeared on the warehouse. On December 1 the new name
appeared on customer invoices and on some of the delivery trucks. On December 7, 2006
Attorney Somer, Lester Wen and other company representatives met with the Union for a
grievance session. On this occasion Lester Wen assured the Union that he would sign the
contract. On December 8, 2006 Attorney Somer faxed proposed Sunrise Plus work rules to the
Union and the parties later bargained concerning the wording of the work rules. On December
12 Lester Wen telephoned Union agent Randel to discuss a problem employee. Thus, Sunrise
Plus recognized the Union as the representative of its employees, bargained with the Union and
dealt with it concerning employee problems and grievances.
C. Violations of Section 8 (a)(1), (3) and (5) of the Act
The credited testimony set forth above shows that in April 2006 Lester Wen held a
meeting at which he promised the employees more pay and less work if they signed a paper
stating that they no longer wanted the Union. Lester Wen promised the employees that he
would not deduct taxes from their pay and would return the taxes they had already paid and that
he would pay the employees in cash. Lester Wen wrote out the language repudiating Union
representation and he gave it to an employee to copy in his own handwriting. Lester Wen
brought the document repudiating the Union to several employees so that they could sign it.
Lester Wen instructed employees to obtain signatures on the document. Lester Wen directed
employees to go to the Labor Board to decertify the Union and promised to pay employees for
their time. Eventually, Respondent paid at least one employee for his time spent at the Labor
Board. In either July or August 2006 warehouse supervisor “Danny” Can Hong Liu, instructed
employees to go to the Labor Board and he drove employees to present the petition repudiating
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18
the Union. When the employees returned from the Labor Board Lester Wen told Hugo Flores
Perez that in a few months he would get the Union out and he would pay the employees more
money. By instigating a movement to decertify the Union, obtaining employee signatures on a
petition repudiating Union representation, promising higher wages, payment in cash and help in
obtaining employment documents in return for decertifying the Union and by instructing
employees to go to the Labor Board and promising to pay them time and expenses for the
decertification effort, Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. St. George Warehouse,
Inc., 349 NLRB No. 84 (2007).
The credited testimony shows that in April 2006, in connection with initiating the attempt
to decertify the Union, Lester Wen promised the employees more pay and less work if they
signed a petition. He promised cash payment of wages, the return of payroll taxes already paid
and monthly meetings to deal with employee problems. He threatened the employees with less
work if they refused to repudiate the Union. By promising higher wages for less work and other
benefits to employees if they repudiated the Union and by threatening employees with less work
if they failed to repudiate the Union, Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
The credited testimony shows that in May 2006 Lester Wen told the employees to leave
the Union and threatened to fire those “who were not with him.” Wen told the employees to
ignore the Union and he promised them payment of wages in cash and resumption of loans to
employees. By threatening employees with discharge if the employees did not ignore the Union
and by promising benefits if the employees did ignore the Union Respondent violated Section 8
(a)(1) of the Act.
The credited testimony shows that on May 15, 2006 warehouse supervisor “Danny” Can
Hong Liu questioned Augustin Ramalis Flores about his status with respect to Union
membership and asked what he spoke about with a Union agent and other employees. Danny
instructed Flores not to listen to the Union because the Union would not be there next year. By
interrogating an employee about his support for the Union activities and by giving the
impression that it was futile to support the Union Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the
Act.
The credited testimony shows that in June 2006 Lester Wen directed Hugo Flores Perez
to tell other employees not to speak to the Union and promised to pay Perez higher wages once
the Union left the company. Lester Wen asked Perez to inform him what was happening with
the Union and the employees. Lester Wen said that he would never sign a contract with the
Union. By instructing employees not to speak to the Union, by promising higher wages if the
Union was ousted, by interrogating an employee about the employees’ Union activities and by
stating that the company would never sign a contract with the Union Respondent violated
Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
The credited testimony shows that in July 2006 Lester Wen instructed Primitivo Aguilar
Flores and Hugo Flores Perez to tell employees to ignore the Union in return for a promise of
higher wages. One week later Perez received a wage increase. By promising higher wages to
employees if they ignored the Union Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. By
granting a wage increase to an employee in return for his help in soliciting employees to ignore
the Union Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of the Act. As described above, Hugo
Flores Perez was paid for non-work time when he went to the Labor Board in an attempt to
decertify the Union pursuant to the instructions of Lester Wen. By paying an employee for time
spent trying to decertify the Union Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
The credited testimony shows that in July or August 2006 Lester Wen spoke to four
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
19
Chinese employees and promised them lower taxes if they got rid of the Union and Lester Wen
informed the employees that he would find an attorney to get rid of the Union. By promising
employees benefits if they did not support the Union and informing employees that the company
would get rid of the Union Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
The credited testimony shows that at the end of September 2006 Florence told the
employees that everything was fine without the Union and she urged them to keep working “this
way” and promised that the company would get them work permits and social security next
year. By promising employees that if they worked without the Union the company would get
them employment documents Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
The credited testimony shows that at the end of October 2006 Lester Wen instructed an
employee to inform other employees who were going back to the Union that he would get them
work permits and social security and would help pay for these. By implying that if employees
stopped going back to the Union the company would pay for employment documents
Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
The credited testimony shows that in negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement
the company agreed that it would cease making loans to employees. Lester Wen’s affidavit
states that he agreed to stop giving loans and it asserts, “[S]ince the agreement … the employer
has not issued any loans to employees.” I find that the parties agreed that the employer would
immediately implement the agreement and cease granting loans to employees. Joaquin
Corona’s credited testimony shows that in May 2006 Lester Wen told a number of employees
that he wanted them to leave the Union and he promised them certain benefits in return
including resumption of loans to employees. Also in May 2006 Corona asked Lester Wen for a
loan. Wen gave Corona $300 or $400 and instructed him not to inform the Union. I conclude
that Lester Wen granted a loan to Corona to induce him to abandon the Union. The granting of
the loan constituted a breach of the agreement with the Union. Respondent thus violated
section 8 (a)(3) and (5) of the Act.
It is undisputed that on April 25, 2007 the Union requested negotiations with
Respondent. Respondent has not replied to this request and no negotiations have taken place.
Sunrise Plus has an obligation to bargain with the Union as the alter ego of E-Z Supply and as
its successor. Further, as I have found above, Sunrise Plus did recognize and bargain with the
Union briefly in December 2006. By failing to negotiate with the Union since April 25, 2007,
Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
D. Request for Employment Documentation and Discharge of Employees
The Respondent’s knowledge of its employees’ Union activities is well established.
Employees selected the Union as their representative, marched with the Union, engaged in a
strike and attended bargaining sessions. The Respondent’s knowledge of its employees’
protected concerted activities is also well established. As a result of the information given to the
Labor Department in 2005 with Union assistance many employees collected substantial
amounts for overtime that had not been paid them by E-Z Supply. Further, on December 28,
2006 at 11 am, just hours before the employees were fired en masse, Sunrise Plus had been
served with a Summons and Complaint alleging that named Plaintiff employees were seeking to
collect for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime and seeking attorney’s fees. The
Summons bore the name of the Union’s attorney.
The Respondent’s anti-Union animus is also well established. Respondent unlawfully
initiated an effort to decertify the Union, and Respondent engaged in the unlawful interrogations,
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20
threats, promises and other violations found above. The Union assisted the employees in their
protected concerted activities and it is reasonable to conclude that the Respondent’s hostility
was directed not only at the Union activities but also at the employees’ concerted activities
which had already proved costly to Respondent and were likely to prove more costly in the
future. Further, the credited testimony shows that Lester Wen told employees that he was
planning to get rid of the Union and that he would have an attorney assist him in this goal.
I have found above that Respondent established Sunrise Plus on December 1, 2006 as
a disguised continuance of E-Z Supply in order to evade its obligations under the Act.
Respondent had recently learned that it could not obtain decertification of the Union.
Respondent had continued its efforts to make the employees leave the Union and ignore the
Union. It is reasonable to conclude, given the circumstances, that Respondent determined to
discharge the unit employees in furtherance of its object to rid itself of the obligation to
recognize and bargain with the Union. The discharges came at a time when the Union was
pressing the employer to sign a collective bargaining agreement. Indeed, the testimony shows
that Lester Wen was at pains to reassure the Union and the employees that despite the name
change he would sign the contract.
The employees’ testimony shows that many of them had worked for years at the
warehouse without having been required to show a social security card or green card. Augustin
Ramalis Flores was put to work in 2002 and again in 2006 without producing any employment
documentation. Jorge Orea was hired in 1997 without being asked for documents. Primitivo
Aguilar Flores was not asked for documentation when he began work in the early 1990’s. Hugo
Flores Perez was not asked for any documents when he was hired in 2002. Further, it is clear
that the company knew many employees could not produce the documents proving their right to
work in the U.S. For example, in September 2006 Florence Wen promised a group of
employees that if they continued to work without the Union the company would get them work
permits and social security in the next year. In October 2006 Lester Wen instructed Hugo
Flores Perez to tell employees he would help pay for work permits and social security.
Thus, it is clear that on December 22, when Respondent asked the employees to
provide identity and employment documents it had very good reason to believe that the
employees would not be able to provide these items. It is reasonable to conclude based on the
anti-union animus of Respondent, the knowledge of its employees’ Union and concerted
activities and the timing of the request that employees were requested to provide employment
documents as part of a plan to discharge them because they engaged in Union and concerted
activities. It follows that Respondent requested employment documents from the employees
and discharged the employees on December 28, 2006 because they engaged in Union and
protected concerted activities. Respondent thus violated Section 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
The Answer submitted by Sunrise Plus asserts that the employees were terminated
because they did not possess valid documentation to be employed in the United States.
However, no witness testified to this effect. There is no testimony on behalf of Respondent to
explain the reason for the request for employee documents on December 22 and the
subsequent discharge of the employees. Assertions in the Answer signed by Counsel for
Respondent and statements made by Counsel at the hearing do not take the place of testimony
by the managers of Respondent concerning their motivation for requesting employment
documents and for terminating employees. Respondent did not explain why, after many years
of hiring employees whom it did not ask for documents, it suddenly requested these documents.
It would be entirely improper for a fact finder to manufacture a rationale for Respondent when
the Respondent itself has not come forward to explain its actions. This is especially so when
Lester Wen did not respond either to a subpoena or to numerous on the record requests to be
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
21
present and testify in this proceeding. Further, Ellen Wen, the sole shareholder of Sunrise Plus,
was called herein by Counsel for the General Counsel and testified on the record but
Respondent did not question her on this issue.
Thus I find that the Answer of Respondent, to the extent that it asserts a reason for
requesting the employment documents and terminating the employees, is a pretext.
Even if I performed the analysis required by Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd.
662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), the record herein would require
me to find a violation. Thus, the abundant facts recited above indicate that Respondent would
not have established Sunrise Plus and would not have requested a green card and social
security card but for the employees’ Union and concerted activities. Respondent was content to
employ the workers for many years without requiring proof of their right to work in the United
States and Respondent only asked for documentation when its attempts to rid itself of the Union
failed of execution. Indeed, the credited testimony shows that Respondent told the employees it
would continue to employ them if they repudiated the Union and that it would help them get the
proper employment documentation “next year.”
The instant case is remarkably similar to Concrete Form Walls, Inc., 346 NLRB 831, 835
(2006). In that case the employer had discharged four purportedly undocumented workers
because they voted in a Board election. The Board said that “an employer may violate Section
8(a) (3) even where the employer claims that the discharge was required under another
statutory provision. … That an employer can proffer a legitimate reason for a discharge is not a
defense where that legitimate reason was ‘not a moving cause of the discharge.’” The Board
commented that the employer was aware that the employees were potentially undocumented
well before they voted in the election but it “was content to violate the IRCA and employ workers
whom its owner believed were illegal aliens until those workers decided to vote in a Board-
conducted election.”
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent Sunrise Plus Corp. was established as the alter ego of Respondent E-Z
Supply Corp.
2. Industrial Workers of the World, New York City General Membership Branch, is the
exclusive collective bargaining representative of the employees of Respondent in the following
appropriate unit
All full-time and regular part-time truck drivers, drivers’ helpers, hi-lo operators,
warehousemen and warehouse/cleaning employees employed by the Employer at its
facility located at 48-01 Metropolitan Avenue, Ridgewood, New York, excluding office
clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
3. By instigating a movement to decertify the Union, obtaining employee signatures on a
petition repudiating Union representation, promising higher wages for less work, payment in
cash, return of payroll taxes already paid, monthly meetings to deal with employee problems,
help in obtaining employment documents in return for decertifying the Union and by instructing
employees to go to the Labor Board and promising to pay them time and expenses for the
decertification effort, Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
4. By instructing employees to leave the Union, instructing employees to ignore the
Union, threatening to discharge employees who continued to support the Union, and by
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
22
promising to resume making loans to employees if they ignored the Union, Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. By interrogating employees about their Union activities, Respondent violated Section
8 (a)(1) of the Act.
6. By giving employees the impression that it was futile to support the Union, informing
employees that Respondent would get rid of the Union, and stating that Respondent would
never sign a collective bargaining agreement with the Union, Respondent violated Section 8
(a)(1) of the Act.
7. By promising employees higher wages if they ignored the Union, Respondent
violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
8. By promising employees green cards and social security in return for abandoning the
Union, and by promising to pay for employees’ work documents if they refrained from supporting
the Union, Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
9. By granting loans to employees to induce them to abandon the Union, Respondent
violated Section 8 (a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act.
10. By granting wage increases to employees in return for his help in soliciting
employees to ignore the Union, Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act.
11. By paying employees for time spent trying to decertify the Union, Respondent
violated Section 8 (a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
12. By requesting employment documents from its employees and discharging Augustin
Ramales Flores, Daniel Mungia, Hugo Flores Perez, Javier Flores Perez, Joaquin Almazan
Olmos, Jose Aguilar Flores, Luis Alberto Barranco, Primitivo Aguilar Flores, Ramiro Casa,
Raymundo Tlaltepa, Jorge Orea and Son Onn Voon because they engaged in Union and
protected concerted activities, Respondent violated Section 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
13. By failing to bargain with the Union since April 25, 2007 Respondent violated
Section 8 (a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
14. The General Counsel has not shown that Respondent engaged in any other
violations of the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged employees, it must offer them
reinstatement and make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, computed on a
quarterly basis from date of discharge to date of proper offer of reinstatement, less any net
interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as
computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
The Respondent may raise any arguments it wishes to present as the eligibility of the
JD(NY)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
23
individual discriminatees to reinstatement and back pay based on their possession of
employment documents at the compliance stage of this proceeding. See Tuv Taam Corp., 340
NLRB 756 (2003).
The General Counsel has requested an extension of the certification for one year and
Union access to Respondent’s bulletin boards. These special remedies were not litigated
herein and may be raised during the compliance stage of this proceeding.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended30
ORDER
The Respondent, E-Z Supply corp. and its alter ego Sunrise Plus Corp., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Instigating a movement to decertify the Union by obtaining employee signatures on a
petition repudiating Union representation, promising higher wages and benefits in return for
decertifying the Union and promising to pay to employees for time and expenses in the
decertification effort.
(b) Paying employees for time spent in trying to decertify the Union.
(c) Instructing employees to abandon the Union and to ignore the Union.
(d) Threatening to discharge employees who continue to support the Union.
(e) Promising loans and higher wages to employees if they ignore the Union.
(f) Granting loans and wage increases to employees in return for abandoning the
Union.
(g) Interrogating employees about their Union activities.
(h) Giving employees the impression that it is futile to support the Union, stating that the
company would get rid of the Union and stating that the company would never sign a contract
with the Union.
(i) Promising employees green cards and social security, at the Respondent’s expense,
if they abandon the Union.
(j) Requesting employment documents from employees and discharging employees
because they engage in Union and protected concerted activities.

30 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)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
24
(k) 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) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the appropriate unit found above concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an
understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Augustin Ramales Flores,
Daniel Mungia, Hugo Flores Perez, Javier Flores Perez, Joaquin Almazan Olmos, Jose Aguilar
Flores, Luis Alberto Barranco, Primitivo Aguilar Flores, Ramiro Casa, Raymundo Tlaltepa, Jorge
Orea and Son Onn Voon 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.
(c) Make Augustin Ramales Flores, Daniel Mungia, Hugo Flores Perez, Javier Flores
Perez, Joaquin Almazan Olmos, Jose Aguilar Flores, Luis Alberto Barranco, Primitivo Aguilar
Flores, Ramiro Casa, Raymundo Tlaltepa, Jorge Orea and Son Onn Voon 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.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from its files any
reference to the unlawful discharges, and within 3 days thereafter notify the employees in
writing that this has been done and that the discharges will not be used against them in any
way.
(e) 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.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Ridgewood, New
York, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix”31 in English, Spanish and Chinese.
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 2006.

31 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)-54-07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
25
(g) 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.
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 28, 2007.
____________________
Eleanor MacDonald
Administrative Law Judge
JD(NY)-54-07
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 discharge or otherwise discriminate against any of you for supporting Industrial
Workers of the World or any other union.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any of you for engaging in concerted
activities with your co-workers.
WE WILL NOT instigate a movement to decertify the Union, and we will not promise higher
wages and benefits or promise to pay employees for their time spent in return for decertifying
the Union.
WE WILL NOT pay employees for their time spent trying to decertify the Union.
WE WILL NOT instruct employees to abandon the Union and ignore the Union, and WE WILL
NOT proise to give employees higher wages and loans if they ignore the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees because they support the Union.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees about their Union activities.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that the company will get rid of the Union and WE WILL NOT
state that the company would never sign a contract with the Union.
WE WILL NOT promise to pay for green cards and social security if employees abandon the
Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union and put in writing and sign any agreement
reached on terms and conditions of employment for our employees in the bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time truck drivers, drivers’ helpers, hi-lo operators,
warehousemen and warehouse/cleaning employees employed by the Employer at its
JD(NY)-54-07
facility located at 48-01 Metropolitan Avenue, Ridgewood, New York, excluding office
clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Augustin Ramales Flores, Daniel
Mungia, Hugo Flores Perez, Javier Flores Perez, Joaquin Almazan Olmos, Jose Aguilar Flores,
Luis Alberto Barranco, Primitivo Aguilar Flores, Ramiro Casa, Raymundo Tlaltepa, Jorge Orea
and Son Onn Voon 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.
WE WILL make Augustin Ramales Flores, Daniel Mungia, Hugo Flores Perez, Javier Flores
Perez, Joaquin Almazan Olmos, Jose Aguilar Flores, Luis Alberto Barranco, Primitivo Aguilar
Flores, Ramiro Casa, Raymundo Tlaltepa, Jorge Orea and Son Onn Voon whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits resulting from their discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus
interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from our files any reference to the
unlawful discharges of Augustin Ramales Flores, Daniel Mungia, Hugo Flores Perez, Javier
Flores Perez, Joaquin Almazan Olmos, Jose Aguilar Flores, Luis Alberto Barranco, Primitivo
Aguilar Flores, Ramiro Casa, Raymundo Tlaltepa, Jorge Orea and Son Onn Voon, and WE
WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify them in writing that this has been done and that the
discharges will not be used against them in any way.
E-Z Supply Corp. and Sunrise Plus Corp.
(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 (North), Jay Street and Myrtle Avenue, 10th Floor
Brooklyn, New York 11201-4201
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.