Chinatown Planning Council, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 13, 1988

290 N.L.R.B. 1091 (N.L.R.B. 1988)

CHINATOWN PLANNING COUNCIL 1091
Chinatown Planning Council , Inc. and Young Shi
Lee. Case 2-CA-22244
September 13, 1988
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT
On April 7 , 1988 , Administrative Law Judge
Steven Davis issued the attached decision The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
and the General Counsel filed an answering brief
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings , findings, and
conclusions, to modify the remedy,' and to adopt
the recommended Order
WE WILL offer Young Shi Lee Immediate and
full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to his seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and WE
WILL make him whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against him, with interest
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to
the unlawful discharge of Young Shi Lee and
notify him in writing that this has been done and
that the discharge will not be used against him in
any way
CHINATOWN PLANNING COUNCIL,
INC
Leonard Grumbach, Esq, for the General Counsel
Henry C Woicik, Esq, of New York, New York, for the
Respondent
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Chinatown
Planning Council, Inc, New York, New York, its
officers , agents, successors, and assigns , shall take
the action set forth in the Order , except that the at-
tached notice is substituted for that of the adminis-
trative law judge
' The judge inadvertently failed to cite F W Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB
289 (1950), for the computation of backpay The recommended remedy is
modified accordingly
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 the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice
WE WILL NOT discharge our employees because
they make complaints to us on behalf of their co-
workers and themselves regarding working condi-
tions of our employees, or because they circulate
petitions among our employees which complain
about our employees' wages, hours, and working
conditions
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
STEVEN DAVIS, Administrative Law Judge Pursuant
to a charge filed on 13 May 1987' by Young Shi Lee
(Lee), a complaint was issued by Region 2 of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board on 26 June against Chinatown
Planning Council, Inc (Respondent)
The complaint alleges that Respondent unlawfully dis-
charged Lee because he (a) made complaints to Re-
spondent on behalf of his coworkers and himself regard-
ing working conditions of Respondent 's employees and
(b) circulated a petition among Respondent 's employees
that complained about Respondent 's wages, hours, and
working conditions
Respondent's answer denied the material allegations of
the complaint and raised certain affirmative defenses, and
on 30 September and 1 October a hearing was held
before me in Brooklyn , New York
On the entire case , including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses and after consideration of the
letter filed by the General Counsel and brief filed by Re-
spondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
Respondent , a not-for-profit corporation , having an
office and place of business at 456 Broadway, New York
City, is a contractor under a contract with the New
York City Department of Housing Preservation and De-
velopment (HPD) Pursuant to such contract, Respond-
ent provides personnel to rehabilitate , renovate, and
repair city-owned real estate Respondent admits and I
find that it is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act
' All dates hereafter are in 1987 unless otherwise stated
290 NLRB No 138
1092 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
Respondent is a "multi-social service, educational and
planning agency," serving the Chinatown community
with numerous programs, including adult education, day
care, youth, and senior citizens' activities and manpower
training programs in sewing, clerical careers , jewerly,
hotel service, and patternmaking.
The Intercity Remodeling and Apartment Repair
(IRAR) is another of Respondent's programs, and the
one involved herein. Its purpose is to tram the new Chi-
nese immigrant in repair and renovation of buildings
owned by the City of New York. The trainee learns the
skills necessary to rehabilitate the properties and utilizes
those skills to find jobs when he leaves IRAR. The work
performed by the trainees includes painting , plastering,
installation of walls and ceilings , general maintenance
and renovation work, and removal of garbage and
debris.
HPD pays Respondent $90 per day per trainee and
Respondent pays the trainee an hourly sum, from which
taxes and social security payments are deducted. Re-
spondent also provides workers compensation and dis-
ability insurance for the participants. The trainees, who
work 35 hours per week, work in crews of six people,
comprising a crew of five and one site supervisor, who
assigns work and teaches them how to do the job.
The contract with HPD, which began in September
1986, provides for training of certain "on-site" skills such
as proper use of tools, materials, and equipment; appro-
priate work attire; work techniques; fellow worker and
supervisor relations; meeting job (productivity) stand-
ards; and identifying site health and safety measures and
general job skills (punctual attendance).
The contract also requires Respondent to conduct cer-
tain "off-site" training, including "life skills" classes, the
purpose of which is to improve the trainee's self-aware-
ness, self-reliance, and job readiness. Specifically, the
classes are to teach the participants how to dress,
behave, and respond in job interviews; how to budget
and allocate their salaries; and general skills necessary to
function in society.
Notwithstanding the "off-site" contract clauses, Lee
received no classroom training during his tenure with
Respondent. Deputy Executive Director John Wang tes-
tified that no such training was given because IRAR was
a new and large program and the emphasis in the begin-
ning of the program was to organize the work crews and
get the renovation work done.
Lee was hired in October 1986 at the beginning of the
IRAR-HPD program. His first assignment consisted of
repair and renovation work and removing garbage.
About 2 or 3 weeks after he began work, Lee began to
speak openly with his fellow employees concerning im-
proving their working conditions.
On 24 November 1986 he received at $2 raise to $7
per hour.
In December 1986 he was assigned as a driver to pick
up and deliver material and transport workers.2 Early
that month he continued to discuss working conditions
with coemployees, who he met while making deliveries.
They spoke about such issues as low wages, unfairness of
supervisors, poor lighting, and lack of gloves and dust
masks.
On 1 January 1987 Lee received a raise to $8 per
hour.
That month, on at least three occasions, Lee told
Jones Chow, the director of the IRAR program, of em-
ployee complaints concerning lack of masks and gloves
and poor lighting in the buildings. Jones responded that
Respondent had just purchased expensive masks and
gloves, and no more would be bought. Lee told him that
a worker was hurt due to insufficient lighting, and Chow
replied that the injury was caused by the trainee's care-
lessness.
Also in January a site supervisor was discharged. A
meeting of about six people, including Lee, was held at
the supervisor's home. Also in attendance was another
site supervisor. The participants spoke about the lack of
dust masks and other equipment, insufficient lights, and
poor treatment of the workers.
Two weeks later, another meeting was held, and the
same matters were discussed. Those present, including
Lee, considered contacting the Board or the media with
their grievance, but decided to give Respondent an op-
portunity to respond to their charges. Lee wrote a peti-
tion and, during his travels to various worksites in late
January, he secured signatures on the petition. Twenty
signatures, including three site supervisors, were ob-
tained by early February.3 The petition is as follows:4
Petition to the manager, Mr. Chow
We have been working for the CPC's IRAR for
more than three months. During this period, we
have given our best in fulfilling our responsibilities.
However, the fact that the IRAR being just estab-
lished, most things are just getting started from the
very beginning. Especially, about the assignment
and reassignments of personnel , it has been crucial.
And it has not been particularly ideal on getting us
benefits and the supply of tools and materials to the
job sites, which had led to a severe waste of time
and effort. In light of the IRAR's future, and to in-
crease the quality and efficiency of the work, we re-
spectfully request that you will invite the CPC's
Board of Directors to call an all-employees discus-
sion meeting and to send an observer to it; so that
the administrative staff and the job site co-workers
can frankly and mutually discuss (the matters), uni-
fying our aims and efforts to create better results. In
pursuance of getting CPC's IRAR to be one of the
' On 13 December Lee requested and received from IRAR Director
Jones Chow a letter, for visa purposes, which stated that Lee "is em-
ployed in [IRAR] on an hourly rate basis as a construction worker "
3 Lee obtained the last signature by traveling to another worksite
during his lunchbreak
'The letter is as it appears in the original "CPC" is reference to Re-
spondent, Chinatown Planning Council.
CHINATOWN PLANNING COUNCIL
local contenders, and not letting down the good in-
tention of the government in delegating the oppor-
tunity to serve our fellow Chinese , therefore, we
pray that such a meeting be called immediately for
the benefit of all
Sincerely,
Job Site Workers
On 9 February , the following letter was distributed to
the staff and trainees by Manager Jones Chow a
The IRAR has been established for four months
It is time to make a summation
1 Our IRAR's situation
The CPC itself is a not-for-profit organization It
is not like other enterprises or social organizations
which have set capitals and foundations As some of
the workers and trainees have already known, at
the formation of our unit, the only assets was a con-
tract with the HPD, other than that, there was
nothing else Not to mention were the tools, proc-
essing-site, cars, warehouses and offices which were
necessities in the founding of a construction compa-
ny Even the paper for business purposes was bor-
rowed and printed by the Brooklyn Branch [of
CPC] The office was also on loan temporarily I
like to use here to thank the tremendous support of
the Brooklyn Branch
Through the combined efforts of all, one may say
that the ones with money provided the funds, the
ones who could work provided the labor, the ones
with tools provided the tools, the ones with cars
provided the transportation there was a tre-
mendous support in various ways Today, we can
say that we are on track, and completing the HPD's
contract according to specifications The HPD is
ever increasing its confident on our work At HPD,
our reputation is ever on the rise The CPC's Head-
quarters has expressed extreme satisfaction and the
importance of our works Our unit have also pro-
vided other CPC units with much inexpensive re-
furbishings Therefore, the results are firm, and
these results are due to the combined efforts of all
Here, I like to thank especially the staff, team lead-
ers and trainees who totally supported my work
during this period
2 Our IRAR Goals
Due to being newly established and lacking in ex-
perience, [we have] signed a contract this year,
within which there are things which are disavanta-
geous to us and have affected directly on our wel-
fare For example
a Particularly low hourly wages The workers,
who are satisfied in working with the unit can't
maintain the lowest living standards
b Trainees are without paid holidays , no medical
insurance, and having a lost sense of security and
belonging
5 The letter is as it appears m the original
1093
c The assigned construction items have not been
enough to completely train a trainee in skills for in-
dependent work
I know of all these and understand your feelings
But these are facts which I can only express my re-
grets I hope that, when signing the second contract
this September I will get them for us all Also hope
that all of us can be more patient , work arduously,
in creating for us the advantageous conditions for
the signing of the second contract with HPD I also
think that, at that time, my unit will have over 12
teams of workers It no longer will be just involved
in the removing of garbage , painting, types of
simple tasks It will be the renovation of the whole
building, including electrical, plumbing, and even
heating systems I like to see that the team leaders
then would come from today's trainees Whichever,
the future is very bright and prosperous, but it
awaits our combined efforts
3 The difficulties and problems we are now
having
Although our unit is on track, it's still far from a
enterpreneurial constructing firm For example
a Not having a good warehouse , and the ware-
house capacity is inadequate Our materials can't be
well protected, and a good warehouse managing
system can't be established
b Not enough cars lead to the discontinuities in
transporting the materials and created working
delays Tools which coundln't be removed and have
been stolen are common occurrence
c Pays not being on time Over-times was not
paid The increases of pay, being approved by me,
were not paid accordingly These need me to
activity and continuously to reflect to the Head-
quarters and requesting the headquarter's help to
solve them expeditiously However , as a unit, from
nothing to its existence , from small to big, it can't
be done in one step There must be a through
period, where [we are] not just waiting , nor should
we over hurried it And such is the proper attitude
to take
I know we all have many correct views and sug-
gestions I welcome you to bring them out We will
listen if these ideas will be beneficial toward the
unit's unity We will accept the reasonable sugges-
tions about work Things can be solved immediately
will be solved immediately For instance the work-
ers whose approved pay increases , I will positively
get them back for you The reasonable [ideas]
which can't be solved immediately will be solved
later However, what I don't want to see is that
when you have some opinions and reflect them on
[your] working attitudes Moreover, that due to the
differences in views , I don't want to see your ways
of disobedience to the work assignments
4 Conclusion
We should value this good opportunity in the es-
tablishment of such a construction unit , providing
our immigrants with the opportunity for employ-
ment and the learning of skills
1094 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I hope that the top and bottom of the unit will be
united in heart and purpose, exerting the most of
body and soul, to bring our work into a higher
level; to gain for the Chinese greater benefits
By the time the 9 February letter from Chow was dis-
tributed, Lee had not sent his petition to Respondent or
shown it to anyone from management.6 Lee asked the
trainees if he should submit the petition and some said he
should not, so he did not send it to Respondent.
On 17 February Lee did not work due to a toothache.
That was his only absence during his tenure with Re-
spondent. He stated that he called his site supervisor
twice that day, but the supervisor did not answer his
beeper and, consequently, did not speak to him that day.
The following day, 18 February, Lee reported to work
and was told by his supervisor to call IRAR Director
Chow. Lee worked that day, and called Chow and was
told to see him the next day.
At their meeting, Chow asked Lee why he did not
work on 17 February. Lee explained that he had a tooth-
ache, showed him the medicine he was taking, and of-
fered to produce a doctor's note.
Lee stated that Chow changed the topic and asked:
"How come you are still doing that thing?" Lee replied
that he did not. Chow added, "Somebody reported to
me that you are still doing this." Lee asked to confront
his accuser, but Chow said that that was not necessary.
Chow also said that "you have to stop doing this." Lee
answered, "this matter is not merely my own opinion, it
involves many other people's opinion. I cannot just stop
it as I wish." Chow replied: "Then you don't have to
come to work." Lee asked why he was being fired and
Chow refused to give him a reason, but gave him a letter
that stated that he was terminated.
On 27 February, Respondent received a letter sent by
Lee. In the letter, Lee protested his dismissal , and men-
tioned that he had circulated a petition and enclosed a
copy, but without the signatories ' names. ' On receiving
the letter, Deputy Executive Director John Wang asked
Chow for an explanation. Wang testified that Chow told
him (Wang) that he heard that a petition, relating to im-
proving working conditions, was being circulated and
that the petition may be related to Lee. Chow, who
made the decision to fire Lee, told Wrang that Lee had a
poor attitude at work, and was absent on a number of
occasions, and in his last week he was out for a couple
of days and did not call in. In addition, Chow told Wang
that certain supervisors complained about Lee and asked
that he be transferred, and also that during worktime
Lee went to other worksites without permission.
On 3 June, after the filing of the charge and in re-
sponse to an inquiry from the Asian American Legal De-
fense Education Fund, Wang asked Chow for a written
report of the reasons for Lee's discharge. Chow's letter
e The site supervisors appear to have some supervisory authority They
assign work to the trainees , show them how the work is to be done, and
can order them to redo the work if it is unsatisfactory However, Lee
considered them to be employees, not part of management The evidence
is insufficient to make a determination whether the site supervisors are
statutory supervisors In view of the decision herein, I believe that, in
any event , such a determination is unnecessary
' In the letter Lee referred to himself and others as "students "
to Wang referred to complaints from supervisors about
Lee's work, attitude, and absence. The letter, which was
received in evidence, stated that Lee was a good trainee
from the time of his hire until 1 January when his atti-
tude "changed." As demonstrated by his (a) wasting time
by speaking with other trainees and disobeying orders,
(b) failure to return calls from the office, (c) visiting
worksites without authorization and causing dalays in the
work schedule, and (d) taking the company van without
informing the office and leaving it on the street for sev-
eral days causing the truck rental company to cancel Re-
spondent's rental contract.
The letter is hearsay and cannot be received as proof
of Lee's conduct. It was written by Chow, and refers to
reports of other supervisors on which, in part, Chow
based his decision to fire Lee. Neither Chow nor the
other supervisors testified and of course Chow's letter to
Wang cannot be cross-examined. In addition, Wang was
apparently unaware and did not have firsthand knowl-
edge of any of the alleged incidents mentioned in the
letter. He testified that he first learned of Lee's discharge
when he received Lee's letter 1 week after the firing,
and he then called Chow and received an oral report of
the reasons for the discharge. Moreover, Chow's letter
cannot qualify as a business record because it was pre-
pared after the charge was filed and in response to an in-
quiry from the attorney for Lee. In addition, Chow, al-
though no longer employed by Respondent, was not
shown to be unavailable to testify.8 I accordingly reject
as inadmissible hearsay the letter written by Chow to
Wang as proof of Lee's malfeasance. Cumberland Farms,
258 NLRB 900 fn. 1 (1981); Auto Workers Local 259
(Atherton Cadillac), 225 NLRB 421, 422, 427 (1976).
Even if that letter was not hearsay, Lee credibly denied
receiving any complaints from supervisors; and Respond-
ent could not produce, although they were subpoenaed,
any canceled van rental contracts.
III. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
A. Lee's Status as an Employee
Respondent argues that Lee is a student or trainee and
not covered by the Act. The General Counsel asserts
that Lee is an employee entitled to the protection of the
Act.
As set forth above , Lee worked in apartment renova-
tion 35 hours per week , and was paid an hourly wage,
which was more than the minimum wage , from which
taxes and social security payments were deducted. Re-
spondent provides workers compensation and disability
insurance for its trainees . Based on these facts, Lee
would appear to be a regular employee.
However, the evidence establishes that the theoretical
goal of the IRAR program is to train the workers so that
they could graduate from the program and, with the
skills learned , seek employment elsewhere . The pro-
gram's contract also provides that Respondent shall con-
duct life skills classes for the trainees , with instruction in
8 I reaffirm my rulings excluding documents in the personnel file of
Lee, written by supervisors who did not testify, concerning his alleged
malfeasance
CHINATOWN PLANNING COUNCIL 1095
job interviewing , managing money, and functioning in
society, and shall provide counseling and assist the train-
ees in obtaining medical , legal, social , and educational
services However, no life skills classes were taught
during Lee's tenure because the program was new and,
according to official John Wang, Respondent was pn-
manly interested in getting the crews organized and the
renovation work done Lee credibly testified that he did
not receive job counseling , English lessons , or instruction
in anything not related to his work assignments
Respondent contends that these aspects of the IRAR
programs render the relationship between Respondent
and the trainee one of teacher -student, and not employer-
employee
I cannot agree Respondent's relationship to these
"trainees" is indicative of a commercial and business op-
eration The "trainees" work and terms and conditions of
employment are identical to that employed in other pri-
vate enterprises The only difference is the trainee aspect
of their work However , they are working at regular
trade occupations while receiving on-the -job training In
this respect they are "apprentices" who are being trained
in the trades covered by the Act and not students acquir-
ing an education 9 Beecher Ancillary Services , 225 NLRB
642 (1976)
The only other difference in the nature of the employ-
ment relationship is the theoretical social aspect of the
IRAR program However , no counseling or educational
programs were offered by Respondent and Lee received
none Indeed, Official John Wang testified that none
were given because the program was new and Respond-
ent wanted to get the work crews organized and the ren-
ovation work done Thus , the work aspect of the pro-
gram was deemed to be more important than the social
service aspect Even if the counseling and classroom
services were held, I would still find that Lee was an
employee within the meaning of the Act NLRB v Light-
house for the Blind, 696 F 2d 399 (5th Cir 1983), and 244
NLRB 1144 (1979), in which it was found that certain
handicapped workshop employees were statutory em-
ployees
B The Discharge
1 The General Counsel's pnma facie case
Lee testified without contradiction10 that from nearly
the start of his employment in October 1986 he engaged
in concerted activity by speaking about poor working
conditions He had these discussions with his fellow
workers at jobsites , and two meetings at a discharged site
supervisor's home He wrote a petition protesting poor
9 Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 223 NLRB 251 (1976), cited by Re-
spondent, is therefore inapposite Finnat Mfg Corp , 255 NLRB 1213
(1981), is also inapposite because the employee there was a full-time vo-
cational high school student who was employed under a cooperative
training program through the school He was paid at a lower rate than
regular employees and did not receive any of the benefits enjoyed by
other workers
10 I note that at times Lee was combative with Respondent 's counsel,
and Lee objected to certain appropriate questions and attempted to refuse
to answer them, but I do not believe that that these incidents caused his
testimony to be fatally flawed , especially where much of his version of
the facts was uncontradicted
benefits and lack of materials and requesting that a meet-
ing be held at which problems could be discussed He
obtained the signatures of 20 people, including 3 site su-
pervisors , on the petition
Although the petition was never submitted to manage-
ment, Respondent was apparently aware of employee
discontent Thus Lee told official Jones Chow several
times in January of employee complaints Shortly after
Lee obtained the last signature on the petition, Chow
distributed a conciliatory letter in which he praised the
workers, recognized that they received low wages and
few benefits, and had insufficient materials He told the
workers that the "proper attitude" is to be "more pa-
tient " He also invited them to make their views known
and promised to accept "reasonable suggestions" and im-
mediately resolve any problems that could be quickly
corrected However, he warned them that their work
should not sufer because of their attitudes or different
views
Eight days later, Lee was absent from work due to a
toothache The following day he was fired , during a con-
versation in which Jones Chow asked him why he was
"still doing that thing" Chow then told Lee that some-
one reported to him that Lee was "still doing this " Lee
asked who the accuser was and Chow refused to identify
him Chow then said that "you have to stop doing this "
Lee replied that what he did involved others, and he
could not stop it on his own Chow then fired Lee The
discharge conversation clearly related to Lee's activity
among the employees in seeking better working condi-
tions Chow must have been aware of his activity since
Lee told him, on three occasions, of employee com-
plaints that he received at the jobsites Chow's 9 Febru-
ary letter indicates an awareness of employee discontent
generally , and asks them to exhibit the proper attitude of
patience
In addition, 10 days after his discharge, Chow told of-
ficial Wang that he heard that a petiton relating to work-
ing conditions was being circulated and that the petition
may be related to Lee
Based on Lee's open conduct of concerted activities
by discussing working conditions with fellow employees
at jobsites and at a former site supervisor 's home, his
writing of a petition in protest of poor working condi-
tions, his securing of 20 signatures on a petition at van-
ous worksites , the letter of Jones Chow to employees
urging patience as the "proper attitude," and the dis-
charge interview in which Chow accused Lee of con-
tinuing his activities and Lee refused to abandon them,
all convince me that the General Counsel has made a
pnma facie showing that Lee's concerted activities were
a motivating factor in Respondent's decision to discharge
him Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980)
2 Respondent's defense
As set forth above, no one with firsthand knowledge
of the discharge and the reasons for it testified I have
rejected as hearsay Official Wang's testimony of what
Chow told him were the reasons for the firing , and letter
1096 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to that effect' 1 and supervisors' letters regarding Lee's
work record.
Even if I were to accept those rejected items of evi-
dence, I would find that Respondent has not proven that
Lee would have been discharged in the absence of his
concerted activities. Wright Line, supra. Thus, certain
reasons for the discharge are not credible:
(a) Absences-Lee was absent only once, on 17 Febru-
ary, during his 4-month tenure. He tried to call his site
supervisor that day but could not reach him. When asked
for the reason for his absence, Lee told Chow he had a
toothache, showed him the medicine he was taking, and
offered to supply a doctor's note. Chow did not respond
to this offer. Although Chow allegedly told Wang that
Lee was absent several times, and a couple of days in his
last week, it appears that the 17 February absence was
the only time he was out.
(b) Van-It was alleged that the van rental company
canceled Respondent's lease with it because Lee left the
van on the street for several days without notifying the
rental company. Lee credibly denied any impropriety
and, although subpoenaed, no cancellation notices were
produced by Respondent.
(c) Attitude change-It was alleged that Lee's attitude
changed beginning on 1 January at which time he visited
worksites without authorization and spoke with other
workers. This coincides with Lee's receipt of employee
complaints and transmittal of them to Chow and his so-
licitation of signatures on the petition he wrote. Lee's un-
dertaking of these activities was not welcome by Re-
spondent-the proper attitude, as announced in Chow's
letter, was one of patience. Further, the discharge inter-
view in which Chow discharged Lee on Lee's refusal to
be patient, and unwillingness to stop his concerted activi-
ty, demonstrated that the "attitude" problem referred to
related to his protected, concerted activity.
I therefore find and conclude that Lee was discharged
for his protected, concerted activities. Wright Line,
supra.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Chinatown Planning Council is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. By discharging Young Shi Lee because he made
complaints to Respondent on behalf of his coworkers
and himself regarding working conditions of Respond-
ent's employees, and because he complained about Re-
spondent's wages, hours, and working conditions, Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary to order it
to cease an desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
11 Chow's 9 February letter to the employees is admissible Both par-
ties agreed to its receipt in evidence
Having found that Respondent unlawfully discharged
Young Shi Lee, I recommend that Respondent be or-
dered to reinstate him and make him whole for any loss
of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against him. The amount of backpay shall be
computed in the manner set forth in New Horizons for the
Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).12
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I make the following recommend-
ed13
ORDER
The Respondent, Chinatown Planning Council, Inc.,
New York, New York, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
any employee because he makes complaints to it on
behalf of his coworkers and himself regarding working
conditions of Respondent's employees, or because he cir-
culates petitions among Respondent's employees that
complained about Respondent's wages, hours, and work-
ing conditions.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, 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) Offer Young Shi Lee immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to
a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
his seniority or any rights or privileges previously en-
joyed, and make him whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him in the manner set forth in the remedy section
of the decision.
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
discharge of Young Shi Lee and notify him in writing
that this has been done and that the discharge will not be
used against him in any way.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order
(d) Post at its New York City facility copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix 1114 Copies of the
12 Under New Horizons, interest is computed at the "short-term Federal
rate" for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to
26 US C § 6621 Interest accrued before 1 January 1987 (the effective
date of the amendment) shall be computed as in Florida Steel Corp, 231
NLRB 651 (1977)
13 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 put-
Poses14 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 Nation-
al 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 "
CHINATOWN PLANNING COUNCIL 1097
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 2 , after being signed by the Respondent 's author-
ized representative , shall be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu-
tive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by
any other material
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply