Search News
For the Media
For media inquiries, call CWA Communications at 202-434-1168 or email comms@cwa-union.org. To read about CWA Members, Leadership or Industries, visit our About page.
NLRB Rules for Chinese Daily News Workers
In a partial victory for the long-suffering workers at the Chinese Daily News, a National Labor Relations Board official has found the newspaper guilty of 14 counts of unfair labor practices in its relentless campaign against unionization for 150 employees.
The decision is separate from the still-pending case against the company for refusing to recognize the union in the four years since workers voted, March 19, 2001, to be represented by The Newspaper Guild-CWA. The company faces no penalties as a result of the ruling, other than the requirement to post the decision in English and Chinese.
The ULP charges date back more than four years, to when workers began their organizing campaign. Management at the Los Angeles-based Chinese-language daily responded with an abusive pattern of threats, intimidation, humiliation and firings against organizers and supporters. Despite the vicious backlash, which continues today, workers have stuck together and their struggle has gained national prominence in the labor movement.
The 79-page decision by Administrative Law Judge Clifford Andersen acquitted the company on 21 charges. The NLRB lawyer representing the workers, as well as the highly paid company attorneys, both plan appeals, TNG Representative Carrie Biggs-Adams said.
"Some justice is better than no justice," Biggs-Adams said with regard to the split decision. "But truly, because they don't have a certification of their election four years ago, they have no right to bargain, they have no right to exercise their power in the workplace. And that's exactly the way the company wants it."
The charges for which the paper was found guilty include:
*** Instructing workers to abandon support for the union and threatening unspecified reprisals for union activities.
*** Threatening workers with job losses "because of their support for or selection of the union as their bargaining representative."
*** Encouraging an employee to resign because of the employee's union activities and sympathies.
*** Telling employees that pro-union workers were to blame for smaller annual bonuses.
*** Banning workers from discussing the Guild and threatening to fire those who do, instructing workers not to sign letters or petitions.
The decision is separate from the still-pending case against the company for refusing to recognize the union in the four years since workers voted, March 19, 2001, to be represented by The Newspaper Guild-CWA. The company faces no penalties as a result of the ruling, other than the requirement to post the decision in English and Chinese.
The ULP charges date back more than four years, to when workers began their organizing campaign. Management at the Los Angeles-based Chinese-language daily responded with an abusive pattern of threats, intimidation, humiliation and firings against organizers and supporters. Despite the vicious backlash, which continues today, workers have stuck together and their struggle has gained national prominence in the labor movement.
The 79-page decision by Administrative Law Judge Clifford Andersen acquitted the company on 21 charges. The NLRB lawyer representing the workers, as well as the highly paid company attorneys, both plan appeals, TNG Representative Carrie Biggs-Adams said.
"Some justice is better than no justice," Biggs-Adams said with regard to the split decision. "But truly, because they don't have a certification of their election four years ago, they have no right to bargain, they have no right to exercise their power in the workplace. And that's exactly the way the company wants it."
The charges for which the paper was found guilty include:
*** Instructing workers to abandon support for the union and threatening unspecified reprisals for union activities.
*** Threatening workers with job losses "because of their support for or selection of the union as their bargaining representative."
*** Encouraging an employee to resign because of the employee's union activities and sympathies.
*** Telling employees that pro-union workers were to blame for smaller annual bonuses.
*** Banning workers from discussing the Guild and threatening to fire those who do, instructing workers not to sign letters or petitions.