JOY LUCK PALACE INC. D/B/A JOY LUCK PALACE RESTAURANT

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 30, 2019

368 NLRB No. 108 (N.L.R.B. 2019)

368 NLRB No. 108
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Joy Luck Palace Inc. d/b/a Joy Luck Palace Restau-
rant and 318 Restaurant Workers Union. Cases
02–CA–213541, 02–CA–216489, and 02–CA–
221921
October 30, 2019
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS MCFERRAN
AND KAPLAN
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this
case on the ground that Joy Luck Palace Inc. d/b/a Joy
Luck Palace Restaurant (the Respondent) has failed to
file an answer to the complaint or the amended com-
plaint. Upon charges and amended charges filed by 318
Restaurant Workers Union (the Union) on January 23,
March 12, April 16, June 11, and July 31, 2018, the Gen-
eral Counsel issued a complaint on September 28, 2018,
and an amended complaint on January 18, 2019, against
the Respondent, alleging that it has violated Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act.
The Respondent failed to file an answer to either the
complaint or the amended complaint.1

1 The motion for default judgment and related exhibits indicate that
the Region served the charges and amended charges by regular mail on
the Respondent at its place of business. The Region served the com-
plaint by certified mail on the Respondent at its last known address, and
tracking information provided by the United States Postal Service
(USPS or Postal Service) confirmed delivery; it also sent the complaint
by electronic mail to the Respondent’s president/owner and its manager
via email addresses that those officials had previously used to corre-
spond with the Region. The Region sent a letter, reminding the Re-
spondent of its obligation to answer the complaint, by regular mail to
the Respondent’s last known address and emailed the letter to the Re-
spondent’s president/owner and its manager. The Region served the
amended complaint by certified mail on the Respondent at its last
known address (although the zip code in the address on the letter was
incorrect, USPS tracking information confirmed that it was delivered
but “refused”) and on the Respondent’s president/owner at his home
address (no one was present to receive the letter and USPS left a notice
requesting that the addressee reschedule delivery, but he did not). The
Region also emailed the amended complaint to the Respondent’s presi-
dent/owner and its manager. The Region then sent another reminder
letter by regular mail to the Respondent’s last known address and to the
Respondent’s president/owner, its manager, and its former presi-
dent/part owner.
It is well settled that a respondent’s failure or refusal to accept certi-
fied mail or to provide for receiving appropriate service cannot serve to
defeat the purposes of the Act. See Cray Construction Group, LLC,
341 NLRB 944, 944 fn. 5 (2004); I.C.E. Electric, Inc., 339 NLRB 247,
247 fn. 2 (2003). Further, the failure of the Postal Service to return
documents served by regular mail indicates actual receipt of those
documents by the Respondent. Id.; Lite Flight, Inc., 285 NLRB 649,
650 (1987), enfd. sub nom. NLRB v. Sherman, 843 F.2d 1392 (6th Cir.
On March 1, 2019, the General Counsel filed a Motion
for Default Judgment with the Board. On March 6,
2019, the Board issued an order transferring the proceed-
ing to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the
motion should not be granted. The Respondent filed no
response. The allegations in the motion are therefore
undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations
provides that the allegations in a complaint shall be
deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14 days
from service of the complaint, unless good cause is
shown. In addition, the complaint and amended com-
plaint affirmatively state that an answer must be received
on or before October 12, 2018, and February 1, 2019,
respectively, and that if no answer is filed, the Board
may find, pursuant to a motion for default judgment, that
the allegations in the complaint and amended complaint
are true. Further, the undisputed allegations in the Gen-
eral Counsel’s motion disclose that the Region, by letter
dated February 6, 2019, notified the Respondent that
unless an answer was received by February 12, 2019, a
motion for default judgment would be filed. Neverthe-
less, the Respondent failed to file an answer.
In the absence of good cause being shown for the fail-
ure to file an answer, we deem the allegations in the
amended complaint to be admitted as true, and we grant
the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times until about August 2018, the Re-
spondent was a corporation with a place of business lo-
cated at 98 Mott Street in New York, New York, and was
engaged in the business of operating a restaurant.
In conducting its operations until about August 2018,
the Respondent annually derived gross revenue in excess
of $500,000 and purchased goods valued in excess of
$5000 directly from suppliers located outside the State of
New York.
We find that the Respondent 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.

1988). There is also no indication that the Region’s emails to the Re-
spondent’s officials were undeliverable.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1. At all material times, the following individuals held
the positions set forth opposite their names and have
been supervisors of the Respondent within the meaning
of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the Respondent
within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:
Yong Jin Chan – part-owner and president from about
January 18, 2016, through about January 31, 2018
Patrick Mock – part-owner since about January 2016
and president since about February 1, 2018
Tony Chen – manager
2. (a) The following employees of the Respondent
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All full-time and regular part-time dining room em-
ployees including waiters, busboys, and dim sum
sellers, and excluding all kitchen employees, office
clerical employees, managers, guards and supervisors
as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
(b) About March 5, 2017, a majority of the unit desig-
nated the Union as their exclusive collective-bargaining
representative.
(c) Since about March 5, 2017, and at all material
times, the Respondent has recognized the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit.
(d) At all times since March 5, 2017, the Union has
been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the unit employees within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act.
3. In September 2017, the Respondent, by Tony Chen,
at the restaurant, threatened to deny employees the ability
to switch days off with other employees because of their
support for or activities on behalf of the Union.
4. (a) At various times from about March 5 to Decem-
ber 21, 2017, the Respondent and the Union met for the
purpose of negotiating an initial collective-bargaining
agreement with respect to wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment.
(b) About December 21, 2017, the Union and the Re-
spondent reached complete agreement on the unit’s terms
and conditions of employment to be incorporated in a
collective-bargaining agreement.
(c) Since about December 21, 2017, the Union re-
quested that the Respondent execute a written contract
containing the agreement described above in subpara-
graph 4(b).
(d) Since about January 1, 2018, the Respondent, by
Yong Jin Chan, has failed and refused to execute the
agreement described above in subparagraph 4(b).
(e) Since about February 1, 2018, the Respondent, by
Patrick Mock, has failed and refused to execute the
agreement described above in subparagraph 4(b).
5. (a) From February 1 to 26, 2018, the Respondent
partially shut down its operation by ceasing its dim sum
and dinner service.
(b) The subjects set forth above in subparagraph 5(a)
relate to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment of the unit and are mandatory subjects for
the purpose of collective bargaining.
(c) The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
above in subparagraph 5(a) without prior notice to the
Union, and without affording the Union an opportunity
to bargain with the Respondent with respect to the effects
of this conduct.
(d) The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
above in subparagraph 5(a) because its employees assist-
ed the Union and engaged in concerted activities, and to
discourage employees from engaging in these activities.
6. (a) On or about May 22, 2018, the Respondent, by
Patrick Mock, stated that the restaurant would fully shut
down its business operation for financial reasons on an
unspecified date.
(b) By letter dated May 24, 2018, the Union requested
that the Respondent bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the unit over the effects of the planned closing.
(c) The subjects set forth above in subparagraph 6(a)
relate to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment of the unit and are mandatory subjects for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
(d) Since about May 24, 2018, the Respondent has
failed and refused to meet and bargain with the Union
regarding the effects of its planned closure as described
above in subparagraph 6(a).
7. (a) Since about May 24, 2018, the Union has re-
quested in writing that the Respondent furnish it with the
following information:
(1) All documents that support the letter stating the
restaurant is in arrears regarding the rent for the restau-
rant;
(2) All documents including information contained
electronically/digitally regarding the monthly income
statements for the restaurant from January 2017 to pre-
sent;
(3) All documents that contain information about the
monthly expenditures for the restaurant from January
2017 to present;
(4) All documents that contain information about the
debts currently owed by the restaurant;
JOY LUCK PALACE INC. D/B/A JOY LUCK PALACE RESTAURANT
(5) All documents including information contained
electronically/digitally regarding the assets of the res-
taurant;
(6) All documents including information contained
electronically/digitally identifying the owners of the
restaurant;
(7) All documents including information contained
electronically/digitally identifying the ownership shares
of the restaurant; and
(8) All documents that contain information about the
lease of the restaurant at 98 Mott Street.
(b) By the letter described above in subparagraph 7(a),
the Union demonstrated to the Respondent the relevance
of the information described above in subparagraph 7(a).
(c) The information requested by the Union and de-
scribed above in subparagraph 7(a) is necessary for, and
relevant to, the Union’s performance of its duties as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit.
(d) Since about May 24, 2018, the Respondent, by Pat-
rick Mock, has failed and refused to furnish the Union
with the information requested by it as described above
in subparagraph 7(a).
8. (a) On August 23, 2018, the Respondent closed its
restaurant.
(b) As a result of the closing described above in sub-
paragraph 8(a), the unit employees were terminated from
their positions.
(c) The effects of the closing described above in sub-
paragraph 8(a) on the unit employees relate to wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of
the unit and are mandatory subjects for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
(d) The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
above in subparagraph 8(a) without prior notice to the
Union and without affording the Union an opportunity to
bargain with respect to the effects of this conduct.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By the conduct described above in paragraph 3, the
Respondent has been interfering with, restraining, and
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By the conduct described above in paragraph 5, the
Respondent has been discriminating in regard to the hire
or tenure or terms and conditions of employment of its
employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor
organization in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act.2

2 The amended complaint additionally alleges that the conduct in
paragraph 5 violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. We find it unnec-
3. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 4, 7,
and 8, the Respondent has been failing and refusing to
bargain collectively and in good faith with the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of its employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.3
4. The unfair labor practices of the Respondent de-
scribed above affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent unlawfully partially shut
down its operation by temporarily shutting down its dim
sum and dinner service, we shall order the Respondent to
make the unit employees whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits attributable to its unlawful conduct.4
The make-whole remedy shall be computed in accord-
ance with Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682
(1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest
at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky
River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010).
In addition, having found that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing
to execute and implement the agreement it reached with
the Union on December 21, 2017, we shall order the Re-
spondent to execute and implement the agreement and
give retroactive effect to its terms. We shall also order
the Respondent to make the unit employees whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits attributable to its
failure to execute the agreement, as set forth in Ogle Pro-

essary to pass on whether the Respondent’s conduct in this regard also
violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1), because finding this additional violation
would not materially affect the remedy.
3 The general financial information sought by the Union in its May
24 information request is not presumptively relevant. However, the
amended complaint alleges that the Union demonstrated its relevance,
and by failing to file an answer, the Respondent admitted that allega-
tion. Moreover, by failing to file an answer, the Respondent also ad-
mitted that the requested financial information “is necessary for, and
relevant to, the Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the unit,” as the amended com-
plaint also alleges. See, e.g., UNY LLC d/b/a General Super Plating,
367 NLRB No. 113, slip op. at 2 (2019).
The amended complaint additionally alleges that the conduct in par-
agraph 6 violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. In light of our finding
that the Respondent failed to bargain over the effects of its decision to
close the restaurant on August 23, 2018, we find it unnecessary to pass
on this allegation because it would not materially affect the remedy.
4 Neither the complaint nor the motion has specified the impact, if
any, on the unit employees of the unlawful partial shutdown. In these
circumstances, we shall permit the Respondent to contest the appropri-
ateness of a make-whole remedy for this violation.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
tection Service, supra, and Kraft Plumbing & Heating,
252 NLRB 891, 891 fn. 2 (1980), enfd. mem. 661 F.2d
940 (9th Cir. 1981), with interest at the rate prescribed in
New Horizons, supra, compounded daily as prescribed
in Kentucky River Medical Center, supra.
Having found that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to furnish the Un-
ion with requested information that is relevant and neces-
sary to the Union’s performance of its duties as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit
employees, we shall order the Respondent to furnish the
Union with the information it requested on about May
24, 2018.
To remedy the Respondent’s unlawful failure and re-
fusal to bargain with the Union about the effects of the
closing of the Respondent’s facility, we shall order the
Respondent to bargain with the Union, on request, about
the effects of the closing. As a result of the Respond-
ent’s unlawful conduct, however, the unit employees
have been denied an opportunity to bargain through their
collective-bargaining representative at a time when the
Respondent might still have been in need of their ser-
vices and a measure of balanced bargaining power exist-
ed. Meaningful bargaining cannot be assured until some
measure of economic strength is restored to the Union.
A bargaining order alone, therefore, cannot serve as an
adequate remedy for the unfair labor practices commit-
ted.
Accordingly, we deem it necessary, in order to ensure
that meaningful bargaining occurs and to effectuate the
policies of the Act, to accompany our bargaining order
with a limited backpay requirement designed both to
make whole the employees for losses suffered as a result
of the violation and to recreate in some practicable man-
ner a situation in which the parties’ bargaining position is
not entirely devoid of economic consequences for the
Respondent. We shall do so by ordering the Respondent
to pay backpay to the unit employees in a manner similar
to that required in Transmarine Navigation Corp., 170
NLRB 389 (1968), as clarified by Melody Toyota, 325
NLRB 846 (1998).5
Thus, the Respondent shall pay its unit employees
backpay at the rate of their normal wages when last in the
Respondent’s employ from 5 days after the date of this
Decision and Order until occurrence of the earliest of the
following conditions: (1) the Respondent bargains to
agreement with the Union on those subjects pertaining to
the effects of the closure on the unit employees; (2) the
parties reach a bona fide impasse in bargaining; (3) the
Union fails to request bargaining within 5 business days

5 See also Live Oak Skilled Care & Manor, 300 NLRB 1040 (1990).
after receipt of this Decision and Order or to commence
negotiations within 5 business days after receipt of the
Respondent’s notice of its desire to bargain with the Un-
ion; or (4) the Union subsequently fails to bargain in
good faith.
In no event shall the sum paid to these employees ex-
ceed the amount they would have earned as wages from
the date on which the Respondent ceased operations to
the time they secured equivalent employment elsewhere,
or the date on which the Respondent shall have offered to
bargain in good faith, whichever occurs sooner. Howev-
er, in no event shall this sum be less than the employees
would have earned for a 2-week period at the rate of their
normal wages when last in the Respondent’s employ.6
Backpay shall be based on earnings that the unit employ-
ees normally would have received during the applicable
period and shall be computed in accordance with Ogle
Protection Service, supra, with interest at the rate pre-
scribed in New Horizons, supra, compounded daily as
prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, supra.
Additionally, we shall order the Respondent to com-
pensate the unit employees for any ad-
verse tax consequences of receiving a lump-sum backpay
award in accordance with Don Chavas, LLC d/b/a Tortil-
las Don Chavas, 361 NLRB 101 (2014), and to file a
report with the Regional Director for Region 2 allocating
the backpay award to the appropriate calendar years for
each employee in accordance with AdvoServ of New Jer-
sey, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016).
Finally, because the Respondent’s facility is currently
closed, we shall order the Respondent to mail a copy of
the attached notice, in English and simplified Chinese, to
the Union and to the last known addresses of its former
unit employees in order to inform them of the outcome of
this proceeding.

6 Chairman Ring and Member Kaplan note that some Board mem-
bers have disagreed with Transmarine’s two-week-minimum backpay
requirement, beginning in Transmarine itself. See 170 NLRB at 391
(Member Jenkins, dissenting in part) (“Since I am unable to perceive
any principle upon which my colleagues establish the minimum amount
of backpay to be ‘not less than’ 2 weeks’ pay, I would delete that por-
tion of the remedy.”); IHS at West Broward, 338 NLRB 239, 246
(2002) (Member Bartlett, concurring) (criticizing two week minimum
as based on speculative rather than actual consequences of failure to
engage in effects bargaining); Kadouri International Foods, 356 NLRB
1201, 1201 fn. 1 (2011) (Member Hayes would delete portion of reme-
dy requiring minimum of two weeks’ pay “without regard to actual
losses incurred”). They also observe that the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has expressed “concern[]”
that the Transmarine remedy “may in some respects be punitive rather
than remedial.” Sea Jet Trucking Corp. v. NLRB, 221 F.3d 196, 196
(D.C. Cir. 2000) (unpublished per curiam). Chairman Ring and Mem-
ber Kaplan would be willing to reconsider the two-week-minimum
backpay aspect of the Transmarine remedy in a future appropriate case.
JOY LUCK PALACE INC. D/B/A JOY LUCK PALACE RESTAURANT
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Joy Luck Palace Inc. d/b/a Joy Luck Palace
Restaurant, New York, New York, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees with more onerous work-
ing conditions if they engage in activities on behalf of
318 Restaurant Workers Union (the Union).
(b) Temporarily shutting down its dim sum and dinner
service because of employees’ support for and activities
on behalf of the Union.
(c) Failing and refusing to execute, as requested by the
Union since about January 1, 2018, a collective-
bargaining agreement containing the terms and condi-
tions of employment agreed to on December 21, 2017,
for employees in the following bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time dining room em-
ployees including waiters, busboys, and dim sum
sellers, and excluding all kitchen employees, office
clerical employees, managers, guards and supervisors
as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
(d) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union by
failing and refusing to furnish it with requested infor-
mation that is relevant to and necessary for the Union’s
performance of its functions as the collective-bargaining
representative of the Respondent’s unit employees.
(e) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in
good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit employees by fail-
ing and refusing to bargain over the effects of its decision
to close its restaurant.
(f) 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) Make employees whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy
section of the decision.
(b) Execute the collective-bargaining agreement on
which the parties reached complete agreement on about
December 21, 2017, and give retroactive effect to the
terms of that agreement.
(c) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the infor-
mation it requested on about May 24, 2018.
(d) On request, bargain collectively and in good faith
with the Union concerning the effects of the Respond-
ent’s decision to close its restaurant and reduce to writing
and sign any agreement reached as a result of such bar-
gaining.
(e) Pay the unit employees their normal wages for the
period set forth in the remedy section of the decision,
with interest.
(f) Compensate employees who receive backpay un-
der this Order for the adverse tax consequences, if any,
of receiving a lump-sum backpay award, and file with
the Regional Director for Region 2, within 21 days of the
date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement
or Board order, a report allocating the backpay awards to
the appropriate calendar years for each employee.
(g) 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 desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records, including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(h) Within 14 days after service by the Region, dupli-
cate and mail, at its own expense and after being signed
by the Respondent’s authorized representative, copies of
the attached notice marked “Appendix,”7 in English and
simplified Chinese, to the Union and to all unit employ-
ees who were employed by the Respondent at any time
since September 2017.
(i) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 2 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. October 30, 2019
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Mailed by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Mailed Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
MAILED 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 mail 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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with more onerous working
conditions if you engage in activities on behalf of 318
Restaurant Workers Union (the Union).
WE WILL NOT temporarily shut down our dim sum and
dinner service because of your support for and activities
on behalf of the Union.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to execute, as requested
by the Union since about January 1, 2018, a collective-
bargaining agreement containing the terms and condi-
tions of employment agreed to on December 21, 2017,
for employees in the following bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time dining room em-
ployees including waiters, busboys, and dim sum
sellers, and excluding all kitchen employees, office
clerical employees, managers, guards and supervisors
as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the
Union by failing and refusing to furnish it with requested
information that is relevant to and necessary for the Un-
ion’s performance of its functions as the collective-
bargaining representative of our unit employees.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively
and in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of our unit employees by
failing and refusing to bargain over the effects of our
decision to close the restaurant.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL make employees whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of our unlaw-
ful temporary shutdown of our dim sum and dinner ser-
vice, plus interest.
WE WILL execute the collective-bargaining agreement
on which we reached complete agreement with the Union
on about December 21, 2017, and give retroactive effect
to the terms of that agreement.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the
information it requested on about May 24, 2018.
WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively and in good
faith with the Union concerning the effects of our deci-
sion to close the restaurant, and WE WILL reduce to writ-
ing and sign any agreement reached as a result of such
bargaining.
WE WILL pay the unit employees their normal wages
for the period set forth in the Decision and Order of the
National Labor Relations Board, with interest.
WE WILL compensate affected employees for the ad-
verse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum
backpay awards, and WE WILL file with the Regional Di-
rector for Region 2, within 21 days of the date the
amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or
Board order, a report allocating the backpay awards to
the appropriate calendar years for each employee.
JOY LUCK PALACE INC. D/B/A JOY LUCK
PALACE RESTAURANT
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/02-CA-213541 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor
Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington,
D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.