1. Professor Joshua Bienstock
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Stephen Cheng
Due: July 24, 2012
Broken Union, Stolen Wealth
Introduction: Starting by way of a conflict’s end
On August 18, 2011, a conflict between a restaurant supplier, originally called E-
Z Supply and currently named Pur Pac, and its former warehouse workers ended with a
settlement that both sides arrived at through legal means. However, litigation was merely
one tactic in this struggle which came to dominate the two disputing parties’ relationship.
This troubled relationship between the company and its former employees led to a
conflict that lasted for over five years, from early 2006 to mid-to-late 2011, and which
involved different tactics, strategies, and methods by both parties in dispute.
Aside from litigation, the method for resolving the conflict, actions associated
with a competitive approach to dispute resolution became evident, such as a mass firing
by the employer and strike actions, leafleting, and picketing by workers. Likewise,
methods associated with avoidance became evident as the company underwent name
changes and ownership transfers in order to evade its responsibility for wage theft.
After considerable pressure from the street, in which workers, student and volunteer
activists, and organizers picketed, distributed leaflets, and convinced various restaurant
establishments to stop purchasing supplies from the company, the company was forced to
return to negotiation.
These protest tactics limited the company’s customer base and revenue, thus
1

2. forcing it to negotiate rather than to continue evading or fighting. The parties in dispute
finally met at the bargaining table so as to reach an agreement via a legal settlement. As a
result the conflict reached its conclusion in the summer of last year, thus demonstrating
the power and ability of grassroots labor organizing in achieving a legal victory.
Additional economic, geographic, and historical background and organizing efforts by
the Industrial Workers of the World
The conflict between this company and its workers took place in a specific
geographic-economic context. That context consists of an industrial corridor on the
boundary between Brooklyn and Queens. This corridor is where food processing and
distribution facilities are located. These facilities, which are part of an important sector in
the economy of New York City, are under the ownership of firms that tend to employ
workers with immigrant backgrounds. These workers, like immigrant workers in the
nineteenth century United States, labor under sweatshop conditions. Consequently,
immigrant workers are subject to low or unpaid wages; abusive and disrespectful
behavior from employers; dangerous and unhealthy workplace environments, et cetera.
The tragic case of Juan Baten, an immigrant from Guatemala was and still is a stark
example. Baten was a young worker for Tortilleria Chinantla, a tortilla manufacturer,
who in January 2011 was crushed to death in a dough-mixing machine. He was twenty-
two years old and survived by his wife and daughter.1
Given these conditions, the New York City- based branch of the Industrial
Workers of the World (IWW) organizes workers in this area. It has done so since the
mid-2000s. It had success in unionization efforts vis-à-vis these companies that
specialize in food processing and distribution.2
Some, if not most or all of these
1
Daniel Gross, “Death in a New York Food Sweatshop,” CounterPunch, 3 February 2011.
2
Caitlin Esch, “Wobblies Organize Brooklyn Warehouses,” The Brooklyn Rail, April 2007.
2

3. companies, have notorious histories of wage theft, poor working conditions, and anti-
immigrant prejudice and discrimination. E-Z Supply was one such company.
The conflict’s prelude and beginning: The case of E-Z Supply (later known as Sunrise
Plus and then Pur Pac)
The success of the IWW in unionizing food processing and distribution
warehouses under the ownership of various private firms included the initially successful
effort to unionize thirteen of the original workers at the warehouse of E-Z Supply.3
E-Z
Supply, a company that operates in the restaurant industry of New York City, sells
supplies to Chinese restaurants throughout New York City, i.e. Chinatown, Flushing,
Sunset Park, and elsewhere. The supplies include eating utensils such as wooden
chopsticks, plastic spoons, knives and forks; containers made from styrofoam, plastic,
and tinfoil containers; condiments like soy sauce; and basic food staples like rice.
This company, originally named E-Z Supply, renamed Sunrise Plus, and currently
known as Pur Pac, was responsible for repressive actions against unionizing workers.
Since February 2006, when efforts to establish a union at E-Z Supply began and the
workers who decided to unionize won a NLRB election, the then- and original employer
and owner Lester Wen resisted and only relented after workers successfully encouraged a
boycott by E-Z Supply’s client restaurants.4
The conflict began in earnest in late
December 2006 after the company, by then called Sunrise Plus, reneged on its contractual
and legal commitments after the conclusion of a collective bargaining period which
3
“EZ Supply workers go IWW,” Industrial Workers of the World Web site, 3 February 2006 and “EZ
Supply workers in Queens NY vote to unionize with the IWW,” Industrial Workers of the World Web site,
9 February 2006.
4
“Warehouse bosses’ Christmas gift: illegal retaliation against immigrant union members,” Industrial
Workers of the World Web site, December 28, 2006 and “EZ-Supply and Amersino warehouse workers
fight back – IWW workers ring in the New Year with pickets,” Industrial Workers of the World Web site,
3 January 2007.
3

4. resulted in a negotiated agreement.5
The workers protested by striking. Not long
afterward, the company fired all of the workers6
. The company was also guilty of wage
theft. According to one report, “On the morning of December 28, the IWW served
Sunrise Plus with a federal complaint regarding back wages and overtime and within
hours […]”7
Calculations of the total sum of stolen wages amount to at least one million
US dollars.8
These hostile actions by the company meant that no amicable relationship was
possible and therefore compromising and collaborative approaches were no longer viable.
The only possible approach left was the competitive one since no side intended to be
accommodating, either. However, the option of avoidance was also available for the
company since it could and did try to evade its legal responsibilities vis-à-vis the
recognition of union- related rights and the union’s authority to collectively bargain and
the payment of stolen wages. In the case of the former workers, refusing to give up, they
continued to fight.
Progression and conclusion of the conflict, 2006-2011
The workers decided to seek legal assistance and protest the company in order to
seek the payment of stolen wages and the recognition of union- related rights and the
union’s existence. They sought and received the assistance of a nonprofit organization
called Brandworkers International, a worker center founded in 2007 that has the aim of
5
“IWW in NYC retaliates against warehouse workers mass firings,” Industrial Workers of the World Web
site, 10 January 2007.
6
“EZ Supply update – boss fires the union – immediate action necessary!,” Industrial Workers of the
World Web site, 28 December 2006.
7
Diane Krauthamer and David Graeber, “NYC’s immigrant food warehouse workers unionize with IWW –
Not Without a Fight: NYC’s food warehouse workers unionize,” Industrial Workers of the World Web site,
28 January 2007.
8
This monetary amount appeared in my discussions with members of Brandworkers International and the
IWW.
4

5. defending and promoting the rights of workers in the food and retail sectors via legal
representation, member-led organizing within workplaces, and picketing. The IWW also
continued to be involved in cooperating with and reinforcing the workers in their
struggle.
Brandworkers International, working with the IWW on a food sector worker
organizing campaign called “Focus on the Food Chain,” provided legal representation
and assistance with applying street pressure so as to persuade and compel the company to
pay the stolen wages to its former, fired workers and acknowledge the legal rights of its
workers to a union and collective bargaining. Street pressure consisted of tactics such as
leafleting and boycotts (i.e. restaurants that usually purchase supplies from the company
were urged to stop buying). The conflict ended through litigation when the company
agreed in mid-to-late August 2011 to pay a fraction of the total stolen wages, $470,000,
as part of a negotiated settlement. The conclusion of this conflict was due to compromise
and collaboration after the application of street and legal pressure – tactics associated
with competition.
Conflict analysis – Relevant approaches and models
To summarize the above, for most of the 2006-2011 time period, the competitive
approach was dominant in the company’s relationship with its former workers. The
competitive status of the relationship and conflict turned into a compromising or
collaborative one when the company and former employees agreed to a settlement, thus
ending the conflict. Avoidance was also present as a specific tactic and a general
approach to the unfolding conflict at hand. The primary dispute resolution method was
litigation.
5

6. The conflict started when Lester Wen, the company’s original owner, refused to
follow through with the responsibilities that he agreed to in a negotiated agreement with
his workers – an agreement that was a product of collective bargaining. Two days later he
fired the workers, thus repressing the existence of the union. Already, these two actions
by the employer indicate the intention of competing. There was no other choice left for
the other side.
For the workers, then, competition was the remaining option. The employers
forced them into this situation. Initially, after the employer refused to comply with the
negotiated agreement, the workers struck. Furthermore, after the employer successfully
engaged in union-busting, the former workers, with the continuing assistance of the
IWW and the new involvement of Brandworkers International, began protesting on the
streets and calling upon restaurant clients to stop purchasing supplies from the company.
A breakdown of the competitive tactics by both sides is as follows,
Company/Employer: - Renege on obligations that it has already agreed to in a negotiated
agreement that originated from collective bargaining sessions with the workers.
- Fire the workers.
Workers: - Go on a wildcat strike after the company/employer’s refusal to honor
contractual responsibilities.
- After dismissal, continue protesting against the company via leafleting and
picketing in public and promoting a boycott of the company.
A hostile action by the company led to a competitive cycle within the relationship. Later,
in addition to the competition, the company engaged in avoidance so as to continue
evading its responsibilities vis-à-vis union recognition and wage theft.
6

7. The company utilized two tactics as means of avoidance. One tactic was through
name changes. As mentioned before, the company, originally named E-Z Supply,
changed its name to Sunrise Plus (in 2006) and finally altered its name to Pur Pac.
Another tactic was to formally transfer ownership to different members of Lester Wen’s
family so that Lester Wen himself would not be held accountable for his wrongdoings on
behalf of the company. The final name change from Sunrise Plus to Pur Pac and the final
transfer of ownership to an associate of the Wen family, Jamie Yu, represented yet
another effort by the company to paper over its hostile relationship with its former
workers and continue evading its responsibilities.
Ultimately, as the competitive phase ran its course and avoidance outlived its
usefulness, more cooperative approaches to conflict resolution became viable again.
These approaches were compromise and collaboration, both of which spoke to the
common interests of the company and the former workers. The compromising approach
became an attractive choice in efforts to resolve the conflict given that the street-level
protests were effective in forcing the employer to negotiate. The employer thus had to at
least compromise so as to stop the economic pressure tactics that the workers and their
supporters with the IWW and Brandworkers International applied. Furthermore, the
passage of time meant that people on both sides may want to move on with their lives – a
possible common interest for the disputing parties. The compromise came in the form of
the $470,000 settlement, in which the legal system of New York City awarded a fraction
of the total amount of wages stolen. Other results from the negotiation included the
employer’s adoption of a binding code of conduct which “protects workers who engage
in collective activity and compels compliance with workplace laws governing
7

8. discrimination and health and safety.”9
Conclusions
From early to late 2006, after the workers decided to establish a union and
collectively bargain, they succeeded in developing a negotiated agreement with the
employer. However, just a few days before the end of 2006, the company reneged and
fired the workers who opted to unionize and negotiate.
As a result, and since the company also committed wage theft, the workers
continued to struggle with the support of the IWW and Brandworkers International. Also,
the company had already performed a second name change and a transfer of ownership.
But in December 2010, the company, already identified as Pur Pac, acknowledged its
own past incarnations as E-Z Supply and Sunrise Plus.10
In August 2011, the company
finally relented and reached a settlement with the workers. The company agreed to pay
$470,000 in the wages that it owed to its former workers, workers that it fired for trying
to unionize in the first place. A half decade of conflict ended with a brief moment of
cooperation.
This period of conflict and cooperation between the company and the workers
encompassed approaches such as competition, avoidance, compromise, and collaboration.
Initially, when the workers organized themselves into a union, they were able to
cooperate (presumably through compromise and collaboration) with the company in
order to develop a negotiated agreement. However, after the company refused to honor
the agreement (thus demonstrating that it acted in bad faith and engaged in deception)
9
Daniel Massey, “Queens biz settles wage-theft suit for $470K,” Crain’s New York Business.com, 18
August 2011.
10
“Focus campaign wings biggest victory yet at Pur Pac!” Brandworkers International Web site, 18 August
2011.
8

9. and fired the workers who unionized (an act of ant-union repression), the relationship
between the parties became competitive. A return to cooperation was possible as the
conflict came to its end when both sides agreed to the settlement. The settlement itself
was probably a product of collaboration, although the $470,000 award was perhaps a
product of compromise. Overall, the conflict’s conclusion meant that the workers and
their advocates finally achieved justice and that the company was able to continue with
its business activities.
More generally, the causes, beginning, occurrence, and conclusion of this conflict
express the sometimes hostile and sometimes cooperative relationship between capital
and labor. The hostile aspect is exemplified by tactics such as mass firing, lockouts, and
strikes. The cooperative part of the relationship is evident in the efforts to negotiate so as
to develop and ratify collectively bargained contracts. Additionally, this relationship is
fundamental and universal in a society that is dependent on the use of money and
commodities. The conflict between the company and its former workers, then, as outlined
above, can just as well be the story of any other conflict that has occurred in labor
history.
References
9

10. Esch, Caitlin. “Wobblies Organize Brooklyn Warehouses.” The Brooklyn Rail, April
2007. < http://brooklynrail.org/2007/04/local/wobblies-organize-brooklyn-
warehouses>
“EZ-Supply and Amersino warehouse workers fight back – IWW workers ring in the
New Year with pickets.” Industrial Workers of the World Web site, 3 January
2007. <http://www.iww.org/en/node/3131>
“EZ Supply update – boss fires the union – immediate action necessary!” Industrial
Workers of the World Web site, 28 December 2006. <
http://www.iww.org/en/node/3121>
“EZ Supply workers go IWW.” Industrial Workers of the World Web site, 3 February
2006. <http://www.iww.org/en/node/2005 >
“EZ Supply workers in Queens NY vote to unionize with the IWW.” Industrial Workers
of the World Web site, 9 February 2006. <http://www.iww.org/en/node/2105 >
“Focus campaign wings biggest victory yet at Pur Pac!” Brandworkers International Web
site, 18 August 2011. < http://www.brandworkers.org/node/121653>
Gross, Daniel. “Death in a New York Food Sweatshop.” CounterPunch, 3 February
2011. < http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/02/03/death-in-a-new-york-food-
sweatshop/>
“IWW in NYC retaliates against warehouse workers mass firings.” Industrial Workers of
the World Web site, 10 January 2007. < http://www.iww.org/en/node/3147>
Krauthamer, Diane and David Graeber. “NYC’s immigrant food warehouse workers
unionize with IWW – Not Without a Fight: NYC’s food warehouse workers
unionize.” Industrial Workers of the World Web site, 28 January 2007. <
http://www.iww.org/en/node/3195>
Massey, Daniel. “Queens biz settles wage-theft suit for $470K.” Crain’s New York
Business.com, 18 August 2011. <
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20110818/smallbiz/110819887>
“Warehouse bosses’ Christmas gift: illegal retaliation against immigrant union
members.” Industrial Workers of the World Web site, 28 December 2006. <
http://www.iww.org/en/node/3120>
Note: Although I included a list of sources, I also based the paper on my personal
recollection of this case.
10