Chosun Daily News

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 29, 1991

303 N.L.R.B. 901 (N.L.R.B. 1991)

901
303 NLRB No. 142
CHOSUN DAILY NEWS
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings.
The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge’s
credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evi-
dence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully ex-
amined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.
2 In the absence of exceptions, we adopt pro forma the judge’s recommenda-
tion that Objection 6 be overruled.
3 We agree with the judge that the Respondent’s extensive and serious unfair
labor practices render the possibility of a fair rerun election slight and that
a Gissel bargaining order is warranted. The judge also noted that approxi-
mately three-quarters of the employees subjected to the Respondent’s unfair
labor practices are still employed and the management official responsible for
virtually all the unfair labor practices is still in charge of the office. Thus, even
assuming that these factors are relevant to the propriety of a Gissel bargaining
order, they do not militate against a bargaining order in this case. See Action
Auto Stores, 298 NLRB 875 (1990).
In finding that a bargaining order is warranted to remedy the Respondent’s
unfair labor practices, we find that its obligation to bargain commenced on
September 28, 1989, the date it embarked on its course of unlawful conduct.
Trading Port, Inc., 219 NLRB 298, 301 (1975). The judge’s decision is ac-
cordingly modified to the extent that it makes that obligation commence on
September 27, 1989.
4 The Charging Party has excepted to the judge’s recommended Order con-
tending that the Respondent should be required to post the notice to employees
in both Korean and English. The Charging Party notes that Korean is the lan-
guage used at the Respondent’s facility and that many of the employees do
not speak or read English. We find merit in this exception and we shall make
the appropriate modification to the judge’s recommended Order.
1 The one exception is Objection 6 which alleges that Respondent threatened
employees with discharge in retaliation for union support.
Chosun Il Bo America, Inc., d/b/a Chosun Daily
News and Professional & Clerical Employees of
the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’
Union, AFL–CIO. Cases 2–CA–23870 and 2–
RC–20783
July 29, 1991
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND RAUDABAUGH
On January 31, 1991, Administrative Law Judge El-
eanor MacDonald issued the attached decision. The
Respondent and the Charging Party filed exceptions
and briefs, and the General Counsel filed a brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
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 de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings,1 findings,2 and con-
clusions3 and to adopt the recommended Order4 as
modified.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent,
Chosun Il Bo America, Inc., d/b/a Chosun Daily News,
New York, New York, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order
as modified.
Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b).
‘‘(b) Post at its facility in New York, New York,
copies of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’13
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 2, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and main-
tained 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 al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.’’
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election in Case 2–
RC–20783 is set aside and the petition is dismissed.
Polly Chill, Esq., for the General Counsel.
J. Christopher Jung, Esq., of New York, New York, for the
Respondent.
Brent L. Garren, Esq., of New York, New York, for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ELEANOR MACDONALD, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried in New York, on July 2 and 3, 1990. The
complaint issued on November 16, 1989, and amended on
June 7, 1990, alleges certain violations of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act. An election was held in the unit of employees
on November 9, 1989, resulting in a tie vote and no majority
for the Union. The objections filed by the Charging Party on
November 14, 1989, raise substantially the same issues of
fact as the amended complaint.1
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs
filed by the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charg-
ing Party in September 1990, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a domestic corporation with an office in New
York, New York, is engaged in the publication, circulation,
and distribution of the Chosun Daily News. Respondent ad-
mits and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act
and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND OBJECTIONS
TO ELECTION
A. Background
The Chosun Daily News is a daily Korean language news-
paper. Many of its employees speak very little English. Al-
though the record is not complete on this point, Respondent
is apparently owned by an entity located in Korea. That enti-
ty has been referred to by various witnesses as headquarters.
902 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 Hermanson’s remarks were translated by the organizers.
3 Employee Kyung Sook Kim testified that her card was dated September
26, 1989, whereas it had actually been signed on September 28. However, this
testimony is clearly erroneous: the card had been given to union counsel on
September 27 and then filed along with the Union’s petition early on the
morning of September 28; it is date-stamped by the Regional Office to that
effect. Kim stated that she was told the purpose of the card was to get union
membership.
4 Although Hermanson was not sure whether the meeting took place on Sep-
tember 27 or 28, other evidence, both documentary and testimonial, establishes
that the meeting was held on September 27.
5 After Hermanson read the letter in English, Chang read it in Korean.
6 Kim did not testify in this proceeding.
7 The Union had 12 signed cards in its possession when it demanded rec-
ognition on the morning of September 27, 1989. One more was obtained be-
fore the petition was filed on September 28.
8 Editorial meetings are held on weekdays at 9 a.m.
The offices of Respondent are not large and most employ-
ees work in a space where they can observe what is going
on throughout the entire enterprise.
By a stipulated election agreement dated October 17,
1989, Respondent and the Union agreed that the appropriate
collective-bargaining unit of Respondent’s employees was as
follows:
INCLUDED: All full-time and regular part-time em-
ployees in the advertising, editorial, subscription and
typesetting departments employed by the Employer in
or out of its 2 West 32nd Street facility, New York,
New York.
EXCLUDED: All confidential employees and employ-
ees of Chosun Il Bo, Seoul, Korea, on temporary as-
signment, and guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
An election was held on November 9, 1989, in a unit
which consisted of 17 employees. Following the counting of
the challenged ballot, the vote was 7 for the Union and 7
against.
The complaint alleges that Respondent, through its presi-
dent, Kil Joong Kim:
(1) Changed the hours of work of its employees; (2) re-
quired an employee to work on Fridays; (3) threatened to
close the newspaper; (4) imposed a new disciplinary policy
for lateness; (5) increased the pay for Saturday work; (6) in-
formed certain employees that they were on probationary sta-
tus; (7) promised to hold a company picnic; (8) promised to
institute a health insurance plan; (9) interrogated employees;
and (10) solicited employees to abandon their support for the
Union.
The complaint alleges that the unfair labor practices com-
mitted by Respondent are so serious and substantial that the
possibility of erasing their effects and of conducting a fair
rerun election by the use of traditional remedies is slight.
The complaint seeks a bargaining order based on the author-
ization cards signed by unit employees.
In general, all the witnesses in this proceeding testified
truthfully to the best of their recollections. Thus, I have cred-
ited and relied on the testimony of all the witnesses except
in a few instances where the recollection of a particular wit-
ness is inexact and is controverted by documentary evidence.
B. The Evidence
1. The organizational campaign and demand
for recognition
Two Korean-speaking organizers employed by the Union
were responsible for organizing the employees of Respond-
ent. In addition, the director of organization of the Union,
Jeff Hermanson, met with a group of the employees in late
June or early July 1989, and discussed with the employees
their rights under the Act, the signing of authorization cards,
voluntary recognition, the holding of an election, and the
conduct of collective-bargaining negotiations.2 Hermanson
met with the employees again before the Union requested
recognition from Respondent when the Union had obtained
signed authorization cards from a majority of the employees
in the unit.
The testimony concerning the solicitation and signing of
the authorization cards is uncontroverted. Those employees
of Respondent who testified concerning their own authoriza-
tion cards made it clear that they understood that signing the
card gave the Union the right to represent them in collective
bargaining and that by signing the card they were expressing
an intention to join the Union. Certain witnesses testified that
they solicited cards from fellow employees. As to all the au-
thorization cards introduced herein, these witnesses testified
that they asked their coworkers to sign after having explained
that a signed authorization card gave the Union the ability
to represent the employees and bargain with the Company.
No evidence at all was presented which suggested any mis-
representation or impropriety in connection with the author-
ization cards. Further, all the employees who solicited cards
explained their meaning and purpose in the Korean lan-
guage.3
On September 27, 1989, Hermanson accompanied by orga-
nizer Francisco Chang and Union counsel Brent L. Garren,
Esq., went to offices of Respondent and met with Kil Joong
Kim, the president of Respondent.4 Hermanson read a letter
that had been prepared by the Union requesting recognition
and a meeting to negotiate a collective-bargaining agree-
ment.5 At the bottom of the letter were printed the names of
12 of Respondent’s employees who had signed authorization
cards for the Union. Apparently, the letter was both read and
handed to Kim.
Kim responded that the Chosun Daily News was sub-
sidized from Korea, that it was losing money and that it
would likely go out of business. He said that labor troubles
would be one more reason for Korean headquarters to con-
sider ending the business. Kim declined to recognize the
Union. He said he could not afford to pay the employees
more than they were earning and that he could not afford to
increase benefits.6
The Union filed its petition on the morning of September
28, 1989, together with 13 signed authorization cards.7
2. Respondent’s actions
On September 28, 1989, at the morning editorial meeting,
Kim told the employees that their working hours were being
shortened by one-half hour.8 Instead of working from 8:30
a.m. to 6 p.m., they would henceforth work from 8:30 a.m.
to 5:30 p.m. Kim said that anyone who reported late to work,
took too long for lunch, or left early without authorization
would receive a yellow slip; if an employee accumulated two
903CHOSUN DAILY NEWS
9 Certain employees worked on Saturdays from 8:30 or 9 a.m. until noon.
10 The names of the signatories had been printed at the bottom of the letter
given to Kim on September 27, 1989. The employees at the paper were gen-
erally aware of these names.
11 Kim did not testify about the financial troubles he kept referring to in
his conversations with union agents and employees. In the absence of credible
evidence about these financial difficulties, I cannot make any finding that they
did in fact exist.
yellow slips, automatic discharge would ensue. The evidence
shows that the employees had never been told about a system
of yellow slips before. Kim added that the paper was facing
financial problems and that the employees should work hard-
er.
On September 29 at the editorial meeting, Kim said that
employees who worked on Saturday would receive more
money for their work.9 Previously, employees who worked
on Saturday were given $10 cash; now they would receive
$20. Kim also informed the employees that new employees
would be on a 3-month probationary period during which
they would have to meet the expectations of the Company
or fail to be retained. This announcement had the effect of
placing three recently hired employees on probation. The evi-
dence shows that no mention of a probationary period had
been made to the employees before this day. Finally, Kim
told the employees that the paper was having financial prob-
lems and that headquarters might consider closing the Com-
pany for that reason.
The managing editor of Respondent, Yong Jong Chun, tes-
tified that ‘‘a long time ago’’ he had advised Kim to increase
the Saturday pay. There was no other testimony concerning
the decision to grant a Saturday pay increase.
On September 29, one of the advertising department em-
ployees held a small party at his home. Kim and most of Re-
spondent’s employees were present. Kim said he was plan-
ning to have a company picnic and asked everybody how
they felt about such an idea. The evidence shows that a pic-
nic had been held 2 or 3 years before. There is no other evi-
dence as to the Company’s practice concerning picnics.
On September 28 or 29, 1989, Kim called employees Sook
Lyol Park and Eun Hee Park into his office. Both of these
ladies had signed authorization cards for the Union; the first
had obtained the signatures of three of her fellow employees
on union cards and the latter had obtained five signatures.
Kim said he was sorry they had joined the Union without
consulting him. He said he had given them special consider-
ation but that now they would have to report to work one-
half hour earlier every day so that they could attend the edi-
torial meetings. Before this meeting, both employees had re-
ported to work at 9:30 a.m. Kim did not offer either em-
ployee more pay for the extra work. Kim said the Company
might have to close one day, but he said this had nothing
to do with the Union. The record shows that both employees
came to work at 9 a.m. for some time after Kim made this
request. A few days after this meeting, Kim asked Sook Lyol
Park to work extra hours on Fridays; she refused.
On October 5, 1989, Kim called all the employees who
had signed authorization cards for the Union into his of-
fice.10 He told them that the Company was having financial
problems and that ‘‘by joining the Union it can get worse.’’
Headquarters was planning to set up a branch in Chicago and
this might well lead to further support for the New York-
based paper, but joining the Union would not improve the
situation. If the New York paper had financial problems,
headquarters might close the New York paper. The head of-
fice might decide to close the paper if it heard that the em-
ployees had joined the Union. Kim said he would leave the
employees alone in his office for a while so that they could
consider canceling the union cards they had signed and re-
consider the whole process of unionization. He urged the em-
ployees to postpone their organizing efforts and give him
until June 30, 1990, when the Company would provide more
benefits for the employees and he mentioned particularly
medical benefits. After Kim left the employees alone they
had a discussion and one employee said she would give up
the Union while the others said they would stick to the
Union. The evidence shows that Kim had never mentioned
medical benefits to his employees before this occasion.
The next day, October 6, 1989, Kim called four or five of
the employees who had signed cards for the Union into his
office individually. The evidence shows that Kim held simi-
lar discussions with each such employee. Kim said that he
had asked each employee about the Union and that more
people had said they would give up the Union. Kim prom-
ised the employees that the Company could do something
such as providing medical benefits and improving other
working conditions, and he said he wanted the employees to
reconsider about the Union. He told one employee that he
was not pushing them to give up the Union but that, the
older employees had told him that they would give it up. In
one instance, Kim exchanged a written promise to give med-
ical benefits by June 30, 1990, for a written promise by an
employee that if he granted the benefits she would give up
the Union.
3. Employee turnover
Respondent did not introduce any evidence relating to em-
ployee turnover in the appropriate unit. However, the record
reveals that one employee quit after the election, two em-
ployees left in January 1990, and one employee went back
to Korea on assignment. There was no evidence that the su-
pervisory staff changed in any way.
C. Discussion and Conclusions
1. Discrimination, threats, and promises
The facts show that on September 28, 1989, the very day
after the Union informed President Kim that it claimed to
represent a majority of Respondent’s employees, Kim short-
ened the regular working hours of the employees by one-half
hour. Employees were now to leave work at 5:30 p.m. in-
stead of 6 p.m. Further, on September 28 or 29, Kim told
Sook Lyol Park and Eun Hee Park that they would now be
required to report to work one-half hour earlier than they
were accustomed to do without any extra pay. During this
meeting, Kim told the two employees that he was sorry that
they had joined the Union without consulting him. Finally,
Kim asked Sook Lyol Park to work extra hours on Fridays,
but she refused to do so. Respondent presented no witness
who established a business justification for changes in the
hours of the unit employees coming immediately after the
Union requested recognition.11 Respondent’s opposition to
the Union is well established in the record. Kim’s first reac-
tion when he heard of the employees’ organization effort was
904 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that labor troubles would be a reason for headquarters to
consider ending the business. This was said before any de-
mands were made or any ‘‘trouble’’ was on the horizon.
Moreover, Kim’s later statements shed light on his motiva-
tion. He told the employees that if they joined the Union the
Company’s financial troubles would get worse and that head-
quarters might decide to close the Company if it heard that
employees had joined a union. He urged the employees to
postpone their organizing efforts and tried to obtain promises
from the employees that they would reconsider joining the
Union. In the absence of any testimony from Respondent
giving any other reason for the changes in employees’ hours
of work, and in view of Respondent’s clear and consistent
opposition to the Union, I find that the changes were made
to discourage Respondent’s employees from supporting the
Union. Kim used a carrot and stick approach: he reduced the
hours of work generally so that employees would see that
they did not need the Union to obtain better hours and he
increased the hours of two union supporters to show what
would happen to those who supported the organizing efforts.
Respondent thus violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Further, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
asking Sook Lyol Park to work extra hours on Fridays.
As described above, Kim informed Respondent’s employ-
ees of a new disciplinary policy regarding lateness and early
departures at the first editorial meeting following the Union’s
demand for recognition. Kim said that any employee who
was late twice would be dismissed. Based on Respondent’s
demonstrated antiunion animus and the timing of the intro-
duction of the new policy, I find that the new disciplinary
policy was imposed in retaliation for the employees’ efforts
to be represented by the Union. Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) by informing its employees of the new disciplinary
policy.
Respondent continued its campaign against the Union at
the editorial meeting of September 29, 1989. At that meeting,
Kim announced that the payment for Saturday work would
be doubled. Although Managing Editor Chun testified that he
had suggested that Saturday pay should he increased ‘‘a long
time ago,’’ there was no further testimony about the cir-
cumstances of the increase nor any showing that Kim had
made the decision to grant the increase before he learned of
the Union on September 27. Based on the timing of the pay
increase and Respondent’s well-documented opposition to the
Union, I find that the increase was granted to discourage the
employees from supporting the Union. Respondent thus vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Also at the meeting of September 29, Kim announced the
imposition of a new probationary policy; employees would
now have a period of 3 months’ probation at the end of
which they could be discharged. By virtue of this announce-
ment, three employees were placed on probation. In view of
the timing of the announcement and Respondent’s dem-
onstrated opposition to the Union, I find that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by imposing the new pro-
bationary period.
During the party held on September 29, Kim told employ-
ees he was planning a company picnic. The last picnic had
been held 2 or 3 years before and there is no evidence that
Kim had planned the event before he learned of the Union.
Based on Respondent’s opposition to the Union and on the
timing of this announcement, I find that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by promising to hold a picnic.
Respondent continued its campaign against the Union on
October 5. On that day, Kim called all the union supporters
into his office and told them that the Company was having
financial troubles and that joining the Union made things
worse. If the paper had financial troubles, headquarters might
close the Company. In fact, headquarters might close the
paper if it heard that employees had joined the Union. Al-
though Kim also referred to certain unexplained financial
problems, he provided no facts to back up his reference; the
only part of his message that was clear was that the mere
fact that the New York employees had joined the Union
could cause a loss of financial assistance from headquarters
and closure of the New York paper. El Rancho Market, 235
NLRB 468 471 (1978), enfd. 603 F.2d 223 (9th Cir. 1979).
Urging the employees to reconsider their membership in the
Union, Kim promised that if the employees waited until June
30, 1990, the Company would provide more benefits includ-
ing medical benefits. Kim asked the employees repeatedly
whether they would give him more time and give up their
support for the union campaign then underway. The evidence
makes it clear that Kim threatened the employees that the
paper might close if they persisted in their support for the
Union, he asked them if they would give up the Union and
he promised them medical benefits if they abandoned their
organizing effort. Respondent thus violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. Kim’s unlawful threats, interrogations, and promises
were repeated on October 6 when he spoke to certain em-
ployees individually. Respondent also violated Section
8(a)(1) the Act by Kim’s action on October 6.
2. The election
The Union’s objections to the election are valid to the ex-
tent that I have found above that Respondent engaged in un-
fair labor practices during the critical period from the date
of the filing of the petition on September 28, 1989. I find
that the following objections are meritorious: (1) granting
wage increases; (2) promising improved benefits; (3) coer-
cively interrogatomg employees; (4) instituting a disciplinary
system; (5) ordering employees to work longer hours; and (7)
threatening to close the newspaper. I shall recommend that
Objection 6 be overruled for lack of evidence. Based on the
Board’s well-established standards, the election should be set
aside. ‘‘Conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) is, a fortiori,
conduct which interferes with the exercise of a free and
untrammeled choice in an election. Dal-Tex Optical Co., 137
NLRB 1782, 1786 (1962).
3. The Union’s majority status
As stated above, Respondent and the Union stipulated to
the appropriate unit herein and agreed that there were 17 unit
employees. The evidence detailed above shows that on Sep-
tember 27 when the Union demanded recognition from Re-
spondent, it was in possession of 12 valid authorization cards
signed by unit employees. This was a clear majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit.
4. Propriety of a bargaining order
The amended complaint herein alleges that on September
27, 1989, the Union represented a majority of Respondent’s
905CHOSUN DAILY NEWS
employees in the appropriate unit and it requests the issuance
of a bargaining order. No doubt through inadvertence, the
amended complaint fails to allege that the Union requested
recognition as the collective-bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit and the amended complaint
fails to allege that Respondent refused to recognize and bar-
gain with the Union. However, the undisputed facts set forth
above show that the Union requested recognition both orally
and in writing on September 27 and that Respondent refused
to recognize the Union. These facts were fully litigated here-
in. Respondent is aware that General Counsel is relying on
these facts because the complaint requests issuance of a bar-
gaining order based on the allegations that the Union was the
majority representative and that the employee sentiment
would be better protected by the issuance of a bargaining
order rather than the Board’s traditional remedies. I find that
Respondent has been placed fully on notice of the remedy
requested by General Counsel and that Respondent would
not be denied due process if I were to find that it violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the
Union on September 27, 1989, when the Union requested
recognition. NLRB v. Solboro Knitting Mills, 572 F.2d 936,
944 (2d Cir. 1978); Crown Zellerbach Corp., 225 NLRB
911, 912 (1976).
I have found above that Respondent threatened its employ-
ees that headquarters would close the paper if it heard that
the employees joined the Union. Respondent granted its em-
ployees reduced working hours and more pay and Respond-
ent promised its employees medical and other benefits in
order to induce them to abandon the Union. I have found
that Respondent placed new employees on probation, im-
posed a new disciplinary policy, and required union sup-
porters to work longer hours. Respondent interrogated its em-
ployees about their support for the Union and it overtly solic-
ited its employees to abandon the Union in return for prom-
ises of certain benefits. These are serious unfair labor prac-
tices which have a tendency to undermine majority strength
and impede the election processes. The unit herein consists
of only 17 employees who worked together in a small space.
None of the employees could fail to be aware of and directly
affected by Respondent’s efforts to undermine support for
the Union. All were subject to the new disciplinary system
of yellow cards and all were beneficiaries of the shortened
daily hours. President Kim, the highest management official
of Respondent, addressed the meetings of employees and
then called employees into his office and continued the
antiunion campaign. The probability of erasing the effects of
these thorough-going and pervasive efforts and of ensuring a
fair rerun election is slight. As the Board has emphasized,
‘‘the specter of job loss and of closing once conjured up is
not easily interred.’’ El Rancho Market, 235 NLRB 468, 476
(1978). Respondent’s employees, having been told by the
highest management official that headquarters might close
the paper because they joined the Union, will find it hard to
forget that warning. In addition to threats of plant closing,
Respondent committed other ‘‘hallmark’’ violations which
are generally found to support the issuance of a bargaining
order. These violations included the grant of a Saturday pay
increase, the grant of a shorter work day, and the require-
ment that two union adherents report to work one-half hour
earlier with no increase in pay. NLRB v. Jamaica Towing,
632 F.2d 208, 212–213 (2d Cir. 1980).
There has been neither proof of extensive employee turn-
over nor of any change in management personnel at the
newspaper such as would militate against the issuance of a
bargaining order. As far as the record shows, only 4 employ-
ees of the total unit membership of 17 are no longer em-
ployed by Respondent. Three-quarters of the employees who
were subject to Respondent’s unfair labor practices are still
in the work force. President Kim, the management official
who issued the threats of plant closing and personally pres-
sured the employees to abandon the Union, is still at the
head of the New York office. An order simply requiring that
Respondent refrain from future unlawful conduct will not
eradicate the effects of the serious violations committed in
the small unit of employees.
I conclude that in this case employee sentiment, expressed
by the signing of a majority of authorization cards for the
Union, would be better protected by the issuance of a bar-
gaining order. NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575
(1969).
I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with
the Union after September 27, 1989, as the exclusive rep-
resentative of its employees in the appropriate unit.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The following employees of Respondent constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
INCLUDED: All full-time and regular part-time em-
ployees in the advertising, editorial, subscription and
typesetting departments employed by the Employer in
or out of its 2 West 32nd Street facility, New York,
New York.
EXCLUDED: All confidential employees and employ-
ees of Chosun Il Bo, Seoul, Korea, on temporary as-
signment, and guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
2. Since September 27, 1989, the Union has been the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of Respondent’s
employees in the unit described above.
3. By reducing the regular hours of work of employees,
increasing Saturday pay, and by requiring employees to re-
port to work early without extra pay, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. By requesting an employee to work extra hours, Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By threatening that headquarters might close the paper
if its employees joined the Union, informing its employees
of a new disciplinary policy, informing its employees of a
new probationary policy, and promising to hold a picnic, Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. By coercively interrogating its employees concerning
their support for the Union, soliciting its employees to aban-
don their support for the Union, and promising increased
benefits, including medical benefits, if the employees aban-
doned the Union, Respondent violate Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
7. Union Objections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7, in Case. 2–CA–
20783 have been sustained by the evidence, and Respondent
906 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
12 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 objec-
tions to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
13 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of ap-
peals, 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.’’
thereby interfered with the Board election on November 9,
1989. Union Objection 6 is overruled.
8. By the conduct set forth in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6
above, Respondent interfered with the employees’ freedom of
choice in the election and precluded any reasonable possi-
bility of a fair and uncoerced rerun election.
9. By failing and refusing since September 27, 1989, to
recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of its employees, Respondent
has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act,
I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act. However, nothing herein is
to be construed as requiring Respondent to revoke any ben-
efit already granted to its employees.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended12
ORDER
The Respondent, Chosun Il Bo America, Inc., d/b/a
Chosun Daily News, New York, New York, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Reducing the regular hours of work of employees, in-
creasing Saturday pay and requiring employees to report to
work early without extra pay, provided that nothing herein
shall be construed as requiring the revocation of any benefit
already granted to employees.
(b) Requesting employees to work extra hours.
(c) Threatening that the newspaper might be closed if em-
ployees join the Union, informing employees of a new dis-
ciplinary policy, informing employees of a new probationary
policy, and promising to hold a picnic.
(d) Interrogating employees concerning their support for
the Union, soliciting employees to abandon their support for
the Union, and promising increased benefits, including med-
ical benefits, if employees abandon the Union.
(e) Refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate above.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit de-
scribed above concerning terms and conditions of employ-
ment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the under-
standing in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its facility in New York, New York, copies of
the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’13 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
2, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized rep-
resentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employ-
ees 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.
(c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date this Order what steps the Respondent has taken
to comply.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the election in Case 2–
RC–20783 be set aside and that the petition be dismissed.
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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT reduce your hours of work nor increase
your pay in order to discourage you from supporting the
Union.
WE WILL NOT require you to work extra hours in order to
discourage you from supporting the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten that the newspaper might be closed,
inform you of new disciplinary and probationary policies, ask
you to work extra hours, promise you benefits, solicit you to
abandon your support for the Union nor interrogate you con-
cerning your support for the Union.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize or bargain collectively
with Professional & Clerical Employees of the International
Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, AFL–CIO, as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of our employees in the fol-
lowing appropriate unit:
INCLUDED: All full-time and regular part-time em-
ployees in the advertising, editorial, subscription and
typesetting departments employed by us in or out of
our 2 West 32nd Street facility, New York, New York.
EXCLUDED: All confidential employees and employ-
ees of Chosun Il Bo, Seoul, Korea, on temporary as-
signment, and guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
907CHOSUN DAILY NEWS
WE WILL NOT in any like or relate manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed 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 condi-
tions of employment for our employees in the bargaining
unit.
CHOSUN IL BO AMERICA, INC. D/B/A CHOSUN
DAILY NEWS