AWG Ambassador, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Oct 17, 2014

28-CA-118801 (N.L.R.B. Oct. 17, 2014)

JD(SF)–52–14
Las Vegas, NV
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
AWG AMBASSADOR, LLC
AND Case 28–CA–118801
STEVEN STROH, AN INDIVIDUAL
Larry A. Smith, Esq.
for the General Counsel.
Roger L. Grandgenett, Esq. and
Ethan D. Thomas, Esq.,
(Littler, Mendelson, P.C.),
for the Respondent.

DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ELEANOR LAWS, Administrative Law Judge. This is another case raising issues related to
D. R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184 (2012), enf. granted in part and denied in part 737 F.3d
433 (5th Cir. 2013). It was tried based on a joint motion and stipulation of facts I approved on
August 26, 2014.
Steven Stroh (the Charging Party or Stroh) filed the original charge on December 12,
2013, the first amended charge on March 31, 2014, and the second amended charge on April 29,
2014. The General Counsel issued the complaint on April 30, 2014, and the AWG Ambassador,
LLC (the Respondent or AWG) filed a timely answer on May 13, 2014, and an amended answer
on August 19, 2014.
The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor
Relations Act (the Act), by maintaining and enforcing an arbitration agreement that precludes
class or collective actions.
On the entire record and after considering the briefs filed by the Acting General Counsel
and the Respondent, I make the following
JD(SF)–52–14
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
5
At all material times, the Respondent, a limited liability company with an office and
place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada, has been engaged in providing limousine services,
private tours, corporate charters, airport shuttles, hotel transportation, and other car services. The
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. 10
Since October 2011, the Respondent has maintained an arbitration agreement (AA) for its
employees as part of its employee handbook.
The first section of the AA states:15
1. Agreement to Arbitrate All Disputes. This Agreement is governed by the Federal
Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and evidences a transaction involving interstate
commerce. This Agreement applies to any dispute arising out of or related to your
employment with AWG Ambassador, LLC, or one of its affiliates, subsidiaries or parent 20
companies (“Company”) or termination of employment and obligates both you and the
Company to submit such matters to arbitration. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
construed to prevent or excuse you from utilizing the Company's existing internal
procedures for resolution of complaints, and this Agreement is not intended to be a
substitute for the utilization of such procedures. This Agreement is intended to apply to 25
the resolution of past, present and future disputes that otherwise would be resolved in a
court of law and requires that all such disputes be resolved only by an arbitrator through
final and binding arbitration and not by way of court or jury trial, except as otherwise
stated in this Agreement.
30
This Agreement applies, without limitation, to disputes regarding the employment
relationship, trade secrets, unfair competition, compensation, breaks and rest periods,
termination, or harassment and claims arising under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Civil
Rights Act of 1964, Americans With Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, Family Medical Leave Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Employee 35
Retirement Income Security Act, Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, and state
statutes, if any, addressing the same or similar subject matters, and all other state
statutory and common law claims. This Agreement does not apply to disputes arising out
of or relating to the enforceability, revocability, or validity of the Agreement or any
portion of the Agreement.40
This Agreement does not prevent you from filing a charge with and obtaining remedies
from the National Labor Relations Board, the U.S. Department of Labor, or the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission. This Agreement also does not prevent you from
filing claims with similar state agencies if applicable law allows you to do so 45
notwithstanding an agreement to arbitrate those claims. Nothing in this Agreement shall
be deemed to preclude or excuse you or the Company from bringing an administrative
JD(SF)–52–14
3
claim before any agency in order to fulfill your/its obligation to exhaust administrative
remedies before making a claim in arbitration.
This Agreement does not cover disputes that may not be subject to predispute arbitration
agreements as provided by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 5
Act (Public Law 111-203). The Agreement also does not cover: claims for workers
compensation, state disability or unemployment insurance benefits; any criminal
complaint or proceeding filed by a governmental agency; claims for restitution or civil
penalties owed by an employee for an act for which the Company sought criminal
prosecution; and claims for benefits under any employee benefit plan sponsored by the 10
Company and covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, where
the plan documents provide for a method of dispute resolution. Private attorney general
representative actions are not covered within the scope of this Agreement and may be
maintained in a court of law, but an employee must seek in arbitration individual
remedies for him or herself under any applicable private attorney general representative 15
action statute, and the arbitrator shall decide whether an employee is an aggrieved person
under any private attorney general statute.
(Jt. Exh. 2(a).) The second section discusses selection of the arbitrator, and the third section
covers how to make a demand for arbitration. Section 4 states:20
4. Arbitration Process And Procedures In arbitration, the parties will have the right to
conduct civil discovery, bring motions, and present witnesses and evidence as needed
to present their cases and defenses. Any disputes regarding discovery, motions,
witnesses and evidence shall be resolved by the arbitrator.25
You and the Company agree there will be no right or authority for any dispute to
be brought, heard or arbitrated as a class or collective action, or as a class member
in any purported class or collective proceeding (“Class Action Waiver”). Disputes
regarding the validity and enforceability of the Class Action Waiver may be resolved30
only by a civil court of competent jurisdiction and not by an arbitrator.
The Class Action Waiver shall not be severable from this Agreement in any case in
which (1) the dispute is filed as a class or collective and (2) there is an adjudication
by a civil court of competent jurisdiction (including appellate courts) that the Class 35
Action Waiver is unenforceable. In such instances, the class or collective action must be
litigated in a civil court of competent jurisdiction.
The Class Action Waiver, and any other provision of this Agreement, shall be severable
in any case in which the dispute is filed as an individual action and severance is40
necessary to ensure that the individual action proceeds in arbitration.
Although an employee will not be retaliated against, disciplined or threatened with
discipline as a result of his or her exercising his or her rights under Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act by the filing of or participation in a class or collective45
action in any forum, the Company may lawfully seek enforcement of this Agreement
and the Class Action Waiver under the Federal Arbitration Act and seek dismissal of
such class or collective action or claim.
JD(SF)–52–14
4
(Id., emphasis in original.) Sections 5, 6, and 7 respectively address payment of fees,
remedies, and the arbitrator’s written decision. Section 8 is an ant-retaliation provision,
stating:
5
8. No Retaliation Against Employees For Exercising Rights. It is against Company
policy for any employee to be subject to retaliation if he or she exercises his or her
right to assert claims under this Agreement. If any employee believes that he or she
has been retaliated against by anyone at the Company, the employee should
immediately report this to the Human Resources Department.10
The AA concludes with a provision stating that it is a full and complete agreement, and
specifically stating, “If the Class Action Waiver is deemed to be unenforceable, you and the
Company agree that this Agreement is otherwise silent as to any party’s ability to bring a class or
collective action in arbitration.” (Id.) 15
Upon receipt of AWG’s employee handbook, employees sign the following
acknowledgement and agreement, which states in pertinent part:
I have read and understand the foregoing mandatory and binding Arbitration Agreement. 20
I understand that the Arbitration Agreement will continue to apply even after my
separation from the Company. I also understand that the Arbitration Agreement cannot
be modified by any oral agreement or representation but can be modified only in writing.
I understand and agree that nothing in this Arbitration Agreement alters my at-will
employment relationship with the Company. Lastly, I understand the Arbitration 25
Agreement is a condition of employment with the Company and that by accepting
employment or continuing employment with the Company, the Company and I will be
bound by the Arbitration Agreement.
(Jt. Exh. 4.) Charging Party Stroh agreed to be bound by the Arbitration Agreement on 30
November 21, 2011. (Jt. Exh. 12, Exh. 30(cc).)
On October 26, 2011, Frank Cohn filed a class action lawsuit in the Eighth Judicial
District for the State of Nevada, alleging state and federal overtime violations under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), breach of contract and related tort claims arising from employment35
with the Respondent and other named defendants (“the defendants”). The case was removed to
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on November 15, and assigned Case
No. 2:11-cv-1832. Cohn filed a motion to circulate notice of the FLSA class action, which was
granted in February 2012. Approximately 66 individuals, 33 of whom had signed the AA,
subsequently filed opt-in consents to join the lawsuit. Cohn filed a motion to include a 40
retaliation claim on March 9, 2012, and this motion was granted on April 19, 2012.
The defendants filed an answer to the complaint on May 3, 2012, and asserted, inter alia,
that Cohn’s claims were barred by the AAs. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the class
claims of the 33 named plaintiffs who had signed the AAs, along with a motion to compel 45
individual arbitration of their claims. This District Court granted this request on April 17, 2014,
upon the recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe, who was fully
briefed on the issues.
JD(SF)–52–14
5
III. DECISION AND ANALYSIS
The complaint asserts the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining
and enforcing the AA. Under Section 8(a)(1), it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to 5
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in
Section 7 of the Act. The rights guaranteed in Section 7 include the right “to form, join or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection . . .” 10
In D.R. Horton, slip op. at 1, the Board explained that an employer violates Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by imposing, as a condition of employment, a mandatory arbitration agreement
that precludes employees from “filing joint, class, or collective claims addressing their wages,
hours, or other working conditions against the employer in any forum, arbitral or judicial.” 15
Citing to Spandsco Oil & Royalty Co., 42 NLRB 942, 948–949 (1942), Salt River Valley Water
Users Assn., 99 NLRB 849, 853–854 (1952), enfd. 206 F.2d 325 (9th Cir. 1953), and a string of
other cases, the Board noted that concerted legal action addressing wages, hours, and working
conditions has consistently fallen within Section 7’s protections.
20
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the complaint allege that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
by maintaining the AA since October 2011, and enforcing it by its actions in U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada aimed at requiring the Charging Party to resolve his dispute through
individual arbitration since September 18, 2013.
25
There is no dispute the AAs have been a condition of employment for the Respondent’s
employees since implantation of the employee handbook in October 2011. Both the AA and the
acknowledgment expressly state this, and the Respondent does not argue otherwise. As a
mandatory condition of employment for these employees, the AA is evaluated in the same
manner as any other workplace rule. D.R. Horton, supra, slip op. at 5.30
When evaluating whether a rule, including a mandatory arbitration agreement, violates
Section 8(a)(1), the Board applies the test set forth in Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343
NLRB 646 (2004). See U-Haul Co. of California, 347 NLRB 375, 377 (2006), enfd. 255
Fed.Appx. 527 (D.C. Cir. 2007); D.R. Horton, supra. Under Lutheran Heritage, the first inquiry 35
is whether the rule explicitly restricts activities protected by Section 7. If it does, the rule is
unlawful. If it does not, “the violation is dependent upon a showing of one of the following: (1)
employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule
was promulgated in response to [Section 7] activity; or (3) the rule has been applied to restrict
the exercise of Section 7 rights.” Lutheran Heritage at 647. 40
In the instant case, the rule explicitly restricts activities protected by Section 7, stating, in
bold print:
You and the Company agree there will be no right or authority for any dispute to45
be brought, heard or arbitrated as a class or collective action, or as a class member
in any purported class or collective proceeding (“Class Action Waiver”).
JD(SF)–52–14
6
Accordingly, I find it violates the Act because it expressly precludes any class or collective
actions. Moreover, it is undisputed that the Respondent has enforced the agreement to preclude
the Charging Party from pursuing his class action lawsuit, thereby restricting the exercise of his
Section 7 rights.
5
The Respondent argues that the Board’s ruling in D.R. Horton interferes with the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et. seq., based on the Supreme Court precedent favoring
enforcement of arbitration agreements. The Board, however, considered this argument in D.R.
Horton to support a different conclusion by which I am bound. The Respondent points to Ninth
Circuit decisions handed down after D.R. Horton to support its argument. However, Davis v. 10
Nordstrom, 755 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2014), did not address protected concerted activity under the
Act, and Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2014), concerned an
optional agreement to arbitrate individual claims, unlike the AA.1 In any event, under Board
law, I am required to follow Board precedent, not court of appeals precedent, unless and until it
is overruled by the United States Supreme Court. See Gas Spring Co., 296 NLRB 84, 97 (1989) 15
(citing, inter alia, Insurance Agents (Prudential Insurance), 119 NLRB 768 (1957), revd. 260
F.2d 736 (D.C. Cir. 1958), affd. 361 U.S. 477 (1960)), enfd. 908 F.2d 966 (4th Cir. 1990), cert.
denied 498 U.S. 1084 (1991).
Next, the Respondent asserts that courts have found claims under the Fair Labor 20
Standards Act are arbitrable. Notwithstanding the fact that I am required to follow Board
precedent, I will address the post-D.R. Horton case cited to support this argument. The Ninth
Circuit in Richards v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 744 F.3d 1072 (2013), cert. denied 82 USLW 3661
(U.S. Oct 14, 2014), expressly declined to address whether the arbitration agreement at issue was
unenforceable under the Act, because it was argued for the first time on appeal. It is therefore 25
unpersuasive.
The Respondent further argues that D.R. Horton was wrongly decided and has been
widely rejected. Essentially, the Respondent argues it should be overruled. Any arguments
regarding the legal integrity of Board precedent, however, are properly addressed to the Board. 30
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant,
133 S.Ct. 2034 (2013), the Respondent argues that the Court has, since D.R Horton, provided
further instruction on regarding the breadth of the FAA. American Exp. Co. involved a group of
merchants who were unhappy with the rates American Express charged them to use their cards at
their respective businesses.2 At issue before the Court was whether the merchants were bound 35
by agreements mandating individual arbitration of these disputes and precluding a class action
suit for violation of antitrust law. The merchants argued that without the ability to proceed
collectively, it was not cost-effective to challenge American Express’ rates. The Court noted that
the laws at issue, the Sherman and Clayton Acts, fail to reference class actions, and found that

1 The Respondent also cites to a California state court opinion, which does not serve as binding
precedent in this forum.
2 It is a matter of common sense that the merchants could continue to operate their businesses without
offering customers the ability to pay with an American Express card. Other forms of currency are
available and using American Express was their choice. Likewise, it was the Charging Party’s choice to
work for AWG. Taken to its logical extreme, however, if waivers such as the AA are judicially sanctioned
and become the norm for employers, employees will increasingly be faced with the option of foregoing
class litigation for mutual aid and protection or not working.
JD(SF)–52–14
7
the “antitrust laws do not guarantee an affordable procedural path to the vindication of every
claim.” Id. at 2039. The Board in D.R. Horton distinguished the NLRA, however, and found
that Section 7 substantively guarantees employees the right to engage in collective action,
including collective legal action, for mutual aid and protection concerning wages, hours, and
working conditions. As the Board stated, “the intent of the FAA was to leave substantive rights 5
undisturbed.” D.R. Horton, 357 NLRB slip op. at 11. No such substantive statutory provision
was asserted in American Express Co., and therefore the decision is not sufficiently on point to
warrant straying from Board precedent. See Waco, Inc., 273 NLRB 746, 749 fn. 14 (1984); Los
Angeles New Hospital, 244 NLRB 960, 962 fn. 4 (1979), enfd. 640 F2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1981).
10
The next argument the Respondent asserts is that the AA is different from the agreement
in D.R. Horton because it expressly permits employees to file charges with the Board and other
administrative agencies. Because the General Counsel does not assert in the complaint nor argue
in his brief that the AA interferes with employees’ right to file Board charges, this issue is not
before me in the instant case. 15
Finally, the Respondent argues that the instant claim is untimely under Section 10(b) of
the Act, which states in pertinent part:
[N]o complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than six20
months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and the service of a copy thereof
upon the person against whom such charge is made[.]
29 U.S.C. § 160(b). Because Stroh executed the agreement on November 21, 2013, but did not
file a charge until December 12, 2013, the Respondent argues it was untimely. This argument is 25
without merit under controlling case law holding that a continuing violation exists as long as the
rule is still being enforced at the time of the charge. See American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 234
NLRB 1126 fn. 1 (1978); Alamo Cement Co., 277 NLRB 1031, 1036−1037 (1985) (no time bar
where enforcement allegation could not have been litigated sooner); The Guard Publishing Co.,
351 NLRB 1110, 1110 fn. 2 (2007)(“maintenance during the 10(b) period of a rule that 30
transgresses employee rights is itself a violation of Sec. 8(a)(1).”) In this case, the agreement
mandated that Stroh arbitrate employment-related claims pursuant to the AA even after
employment ended, so it was obviously in effect at the time of the charge. Moreover, the
Respondent was clearly enforcing the AA against Stroh while the charge was pending.
35
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
(1) The Respondent, AWG Ambassador, Inc., is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.40
(2) The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining and enforcing a
mandatory arbitration agreement and enforcing that agreement by moving to compel individual
arbitration of the Charging Party’s class-action lawsuit pertaining to wages.
45
JD(SF)–52–14
8
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate 5
the policies of the Act.
As I have concluded that the arbitration agreement is unlawful, the recommended Order
requires that the Respondent revise or rescind it, and advise its employees in writing that said
rule has been so revised or rescinded. The Respondent shall post a notice at all locations where 10
the arbitration agreement, or any portion of it requiring all employment-related disputes to be
submitted to individual binding arbitration, was in effect. See, e.g., U-Haul Co. of California,
347 NLRB 375, fn. 2 (2006), enfd. 255 Fed.Appx. 527 (D.C. Cir. 2007); D.R. Horton, supra, slip
op. at 17.
15
I recommend the Company be required to reimburse Charging Party Stroh for any
litigation and related expenses, with interest, to date and in the future, directly related to the
Company’s filing its motion to compel arbitration in Case No. BC491186 in the Superior Court
of California. Determining the applicable rate of interest on the reimbursement will be as
outlined in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), (adopting the Internal 20
Revenue Service rate for underpayment of Federal taxes). Interest on all amounts due to Stroh
shall be computed on a daily basis as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 8
(2010).
The General Counsel requests an order requiring the Respondent to move the United 25
States District Court of the District of Nevada to vacate its order compelling individual
arbitration or striking class or collective claims pursuant to the unlawful agreements, making
such motions jointly with Stroh if he so requests and if a motion to vacate can still be timely
filed. The law does not require the employer to permit both class action lawsuits and
arbitrations. Instead, D.R. Horton states that a forum for class or collective claims must be 30
available. It is therefore beyond my authority to require the Respondent to take steps to permit
the class claims in any specific forum. Instead, the Respondent is take to whatever steps are
necessary to ensure employees are permitted to proceed with class action claims regarding
wages, hours and/or working conditions in some forum, whether arbitral or judicial.
35
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended3
ORDER
40
The Respondent, AWG Ambassador, LLC, Las Vegas, Nevada, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from

3 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 purposes.
JD(SF)–52–14
9
(a) Maintaining an arbitration agreement precluding employees from maintaining class or
collective actions;
(b) Enforcing the arbitration agreement to prohibit class actions;5
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Rescind or revise the arbitration agreement to make it clear to employees that the
agreement does not constitute a waiver in all forums of their right to maintain class or collective 10
actions related to wages, hours, or other working conditions.
(b) Notify the employees of the rescinded or revised agreements to include providing
them copies of the revised agreements or specific notification that the agreements have been
rescinded.15
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Las Vegas, Nevada,
and in all facilities where it has maintained and/or enforced the arbitration agreement, copies of
the attached notice marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 28, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized 20
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. In
addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such
as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the
Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps 25
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent
has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent
shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since October 1, 2011.30
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.
35
Dated, Washington, D.C. October 17, 2014
____________________
Eleanor Laws40
Administrative Law Judge

4If 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 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.”
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 Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post 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 benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT maintain or enforce an arbitration agreement that requires disputes related to
wages, hours, or other working conditions to be submitted to individual binding arbitration.
WE WILL NOT enforce an arbitration agreement by conditioning employees’ employment on
signing the arbitration agreement.
WE WILL NOT enforce a mandatory arbitration program by asserting it in class-action litigation
regarding wages the Charging Party Steven Stroh brought against us.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Federal labor law.
WE WILL rescind or revise the arbitration agreement to make it clear to employees that the
agreement does not constitute a waiver of their right in all forums to maintain class or collective
actions about wages, hours, or other working conditions.
WE WILL notify employees of the rescinded or revised arbitration agreement, including
providing them with a copy of any revised agreements, acknowledgement forms or other related
documents, or specific notification that the agreement has been rescinded.
WE WILL reimburse Charging Party Steven Stroh for any litigation expenses: (i) directly related
to opposing the Respondent’s motion to compel arbitration; and/or (ii) resulting from any other
legal action taken in response to Respondent’s efforts to enforce the arbitration agreement to
require individual arbitration of his claims regarding wages, hours, or other working conditions.
WE WILL ensure the Charging Party Steven Stroh has a forum to litigate his class complaint.
AWG Ambassador, LLC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
2600 North Central Avenue, Suite 1800, Phoenix, AZ 85004-3099
(602) 640-2160, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/28-CA-118801 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board, 1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (602) 640-2146.