Auto Spa Express, Inc. dba Carwash on Sunset

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 2010

355 N.L.R.B. 1259 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

CARWASH ON SUNSET
355 NLRB No. 205
1259
Autospa Express, Inc. d/b/a Carwash on Sunset and
S.G. Investments, Inc. d/b/a Bixby Knolls Car
Wash and Carwash Workers Organizing Com-
mittee, affiliated with United Steel, Paper and
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Al-
lied-Industrial and Service Workers Interna-
tional Union, AFL–CIO. Cases 31–CA–29000,
31–CA–29026, 31–CA–29027, 31–CA–29028, 31–
CA–29050, 31–CA–29072, and 31–CA–29081
September 30, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS PEARCE
AND HAYES
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment1 in this
case on the ground that the Respondents have failed to
file legally sufficient and timely answers to the com-
plaint. On a series of charges filed by the Union,2 the
General Counsel issued a consolidated complaint on July
31, 2009,3 alleging that Respondent Carwash violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, and
that both Respondents violated Section 8(a)(3). Copies
of the charges and the complaint were properly served on
the Respondents.4

1 The General Counsel’s motion requests summary judgment on the
ground that each Respondent has failed to file a legally sufficient and
timely answer to the complaint. Accordingly, we construe the General
Counsel’s motion as a motion for default judgment against each Re-
spondent. See Dunbinclipped, Inc., 339 NLRB 1104, 1104 fn. 1
(2003).
2 The Union filed charges against Respondent AutoSpa Express, Inc.
d/b/a Carwash on Sunset (Carwash) in Case 31–CA–29000 on Novem-
ber 17, 2008, and later amended on January 12, March 11, and July 31,
2009; Case 31–CA–29026 filed on December 9, 2008, and later
amended on May 22 and June 9, 2009; Case 31–CA–29027 filed on
December 9, 2008; Case 31–CA–29028 filed December 9, 2008; Case
31–CA–29050 filed on January 12, 2009, and later amended on May 22
and July 31, 2009; and Case 31–CA–29072 filed on January 28, 2009,
and later amended on April 8, 2009. On February 3, 2009, the Union
filed the charge in Case 31–CA–29081 against Respondent S.G. In-
vestments, Inc. d/b/a Bixby Knolls Car Wash (Bixby).
3 All dates are in 2009, unless otherwise indicated.
4 On August 17, the General Counsel received notice that the com-
plaint had been served upon the former landlord of Respondent Bixby,
Two Shells Enterprises, Inc. (Two Shells), and not Bixby. Two Shells
provided the General Counsel with the correct address and phone num-
ber for Bixby. The address and phone number given for Bixby were
the same as those for Respondent Carwash. On August 19, the General
Counsel sent, by facsimile and regular mail, an additional copy of the
complaint to that address. On August 25, the General Counsel con-
firmed via phone that the address and phone number provided by Two
Shells were correct and that Jonathan Kim was a principal of both
Respondents. Subsequently, as described below, Kim responded to the
complaint on behalf of both Respondents. Accordingly, regardless of
whether the complaint was properly served on Respondent Bixby, there
is no doubt that both Respondents received the complaint, and neither
Respondent has alleged improper service in any event.
By letter dated August 25, the Region advised both
Respondent Carwash and Respondent Bixby that it had
not received answers to the complaint by the August 14
deadline. The Region further advised the Respondents
that, unless answers and explanations of why untimely
answers should be accepted were filed by noon on Au-
gust 31, the Region would file a motion for default
judgment.5
On August 31, the Region received from Jonathan
Kim, a principal of both Respondents, a one-paragraph
letter purporting to be an “answer.” In the letter Kim
stated, “I am denying all this,” and asserted that he was
out of the country “during that time,” that employees
who had worked for him were not providing him with
information, that he needed more time, and that both
Respondents had filed for bankruptcy.
By facsimile and letter dated September 23, the Region
explained to Kim that his August 31 letter was not an
adequate answer to the complaint because it failed to
specifically respond to each factual and legal allegation.
The Region’s letter also explained that the August 31
letter did not establish good cause for the Region to ac-
cept untimely answers from the Respondents. The Re-
gion’s letter contained a detailed explanation of those
requirements, including relevant case authority and a
copy of the full text of Sections 102.20, 102.21, 102.22,
102.23, and 102.24 of the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions. The Region did not, however, immediately seek a
default judgment.
By letter dated September 24, the Region granted the
Respondents’ request for more time to file appropriate
answers and to explain why those answers should be
accepted. The Region notified both Respondents that
they had until October 1 to satisfy those requirements or
a Motion for Summary Judgment would be filed. The
Region’s September 24 letter once again explained in
detail the shortcomings of Kim’s August 31 letter and, in
addition, included a copy of the complaint and the full
text of the applicable Board Rules.
The Respondents failed to file any further answer.
On October 2, the General Counsel filed a Motion for
Default Judgment with the Board. On October 6, the
Board issued an order transferring the proceeding to the
Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion
should not be granted. Neither Respondent filed a re-
sponse to the motion or the Notice to Show Cause. 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.

5 The Region had sent a similar letter to the Respondents’ joint ad-
dress on August 19, setting an August 26 deadline, but that letter did
not list Respondent Bixby as an addressee.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1260
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 the date of service of the complaint, unless good
cause is shown. In addition, the complaint in this case
expressly stated that each Respondent was required to
file an answer and that those answers had to be received
by the Region by August 14 or postmarked by August
13. Neither Respondent filed an answer or requested an
extension of time within that period of time. Further, the
undisputed allegations in the motion disclose that the
Region, by letter dated August 25, informed the Respon-
dents that it had not received their answers by the com-
plaint’s August 14 deadline, and that, unless answers and
explanations of why untimely answers should be ac-
cepted were filed by noon on August 31, a motion for
default judgment would be filed.
As described above, on August 31, the Respondents’
principal, Jonathan Kim, submitted a one-paragraph let-
ter in “answer” to the complaint, stating:

I am denying all this because I was out of the country
during that time and the people than [sic] used to work
with me they are no cooperate [sic] with information
that I a [sic] need I just heard some different histories
about what happened and I want to cooperate with you
but I need some more time so I can find out all the in-
formation than you are regarding. I also filed bank-
ruptcy in both facilities.

The undisputed allegations in the motion for default
judgment show that the Region thereafter granted the
Respondents’ request for additional time, twice ex-
plained in detail why their “answer” was inadequate,
twice reminded the Respondents of the need to show
good cause why untimely answers should be accepted,
and provided them with additional copies of the com-
plaint and the full text of the applicable Board Rules.
Finally, the Region notified the Respondents that, unless
they filed appropriate answers and established good
cause why those untimely answers should be accepted by
October 1, a motion for default judgment would be filed.
The Region received no further response from the Re-
spondents. Similarly, neither Respondent answered the
Board’s Notice to Show Cause.
At the outset, we recognize that the Respondents do
not appear to have legal representation in this proceed-
ing. In determining whether to grant a motion for default
judgment on the basis of a respondent’s failure to file a
sufficient or timely answer, the Board typically shows
some leniency toward respondents who proceed without
the benefit of counsel. See, e.g., Clearwater Sprinkler
System, 340 NLRB 435 (2003). Indeed, the Board gen-
erally will not preclude a determination on the merits of a
complaint if it finds that a pro se respondent has filed a
timely answer that can reasonably be construed as deny-
ing the substance of the complaint. Id. at 435. The Re-
spondents’ lack of representation, however, does not
excuse them from their obligation to file appropriate an-
swers. See generally Newark Symphony Hall, 323
NLRB 1297 (1997).
We find that the Respondents’ August 31 letter does
not constitute an acceptable answer under Section 102.20
of the Board’s Rules because it fails to respond to the
factual or legal allegations of the complaint. The com-
plaint alleges that Respondent Carwash committed wide-
spread violations of the Act by, among other things: re-
ducing employees’ hours, transferring employees, de-
priving employees of tips, discharging and causing the
discharge of employees, threatening and interrogating
employees, creating the impression that employees’ un-
ion activity was under surveillance, and soliciting and
promising to remedy employees’ grievances. The com-
plaint alleges further that Respondent Bixby violated the
Act by transferring employees to Respondent Carwash’s
facility, thereby reducing available hours for Carwash’s
employees. The Respondents’ August 31 letter fails to
specifically address any of those allegations, despite the
Region’s clear instructions on what constitutes an appro-
priate answer. Therefore, even considering the Respon-
dents’ pro se status, the letter is legally insufficient. See
Jet Electric Co., 334 NLRB 1059, 1059 (2001) (finding
insufficient a pro se respondent’s letter stating “I deny all
complaints directed against me . . . or my company”);
Eckert Fire Protection Co., 329 NLRB 920, 920–921
(1999) (rejecting pro se respondent’s memorandum stat-
ing “I deny any and all charges referenced above” and “I
have closed my business”).
Further, even assuming that the Respondents’ August
31 letter was otherwise adequate, the Respondents have
not established good cause to excuse their failure to file
timely answers. The August 31 letter asserted that Kim
was out of the country when the alleged unfair labor
practices occurred and that he was having difficulty
gathering relevant information from former employees.
Good cause, however, is not established by the absence
of a respondent’s agents or by the departure of key em-
ployees. See Dong-A Daily North America, Inc., 332
NLRB 15, 15 (2000); Ancorp National Services, 202
NLRB 513, 514 (1973). Nor is good cause established
by the Respondents’ assertion that they were in bank-
ruptcy. Id. Furthermore, we note that the Region
granted the Respondents’ request for additional time to
file appropriate answers, but they still made no further
CARWASH ON SUNSET 1261
filings. Last, the Respondents did not respond to the
Board’s October 6 Notice to Show Cause why the Gen-
eral Counsel’s motion should not be granted. Even in
pro se cases, a respondent must adequately explain why
its answer was not timely filed. See TNT Logistics North
America, Inc., 344 NLRB 489, 489 (2005). The Respon-
dents have not done so here.
In sum, the Respondents failed to file any document,
timely or untimely, that reasonably could be construed as
an answer to the complaint. Accordingly, and in the ab-
sence of good cause being shown for the failure to file a
timely answer, 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, the Respondents, corporations
with an office and place of business at 5080 Melrose
Ave, Los Angeles, California, each have been engaged in
the operation of a car wash.
During the 12-month period preceding the issuance of
the complaint, a representative period, Respondent Car-
wash, in conducting its business operations described
above, derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and
purchased and received products, goods, materials, and
services valued in excess of $5000 directly from points
outside the State of California.
During the past 12 months, Respondent Bixby, in con-
ducting its business operations described above, derived
gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchased and
received products, goods, materials, and services valued
in excess of $5000 directly from points outside of the
State of California.
We find that the Respondents are employers engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act and that the Carwash Workers Organizing
Committee, affiliated with United Steel, Paper and For-
estry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied-Industrial
and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO
(Union) is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, the following individuals held
the positions set forth opposite their names and have
been supervisors of Respondent Carwash within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and its agents within
the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:

Jonathan Kim Owner
Sergio _____ Manager
Robert Canul Manager
Jose Canul Manager
Seferino Chavez Assistant Manager

At all material times, the following individuals held
the positions set forth opposite their names and have
been supervisors of Respondent Bixby within the mean-
ing of Section 2(11) of the Act and its agents within the
meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:

Jonathan Kim Owner
Sergio _____ Manager
Robert Canul Manager

On about May 20, 2008,6 Respondent Carwash re-
quired employees Cerilo Noriega, Alfredo Pinzon, and
Juan Santos to temporarily transfer from its Sunset facil-
ity to Respondent Bixby’s Long Beach facility (ap-
proximately 20 miles away), causing the discharge of
employees Pinzon and Santos on May 20. From about
May 23 through June 15, Respondent Carwash temporar-
ily transferred employee Noriega to Bixby’s Long Beach
facility.
On about May 20, Respondent Carwash, by its agents
Sergio _____, Robert Canul, and/or Jose Canul, threat-
ened to blacklist employees.
On about the dates set forth below, Respondent Car-
wash moved the below-named employees to positions
that caused a reduction in their tips:

July 28—July 31 Eduardo Gonzalez
July 28—October 13 Cerilo Noriega

Respondent Carwash discontinued distributing tips to em-
ployee Custodio Camacho from about August 4 through
October 15.
On about the dates set forth below, Respondent Car-
wash reduced the hours of the below-named employees:

July 25—August 17 Domingo Romero
August 16—August 18 Eduardo Gonzalez
August 4—October 15 Custodio Camacho
August 18—October 13 Cerilo Noriega

By that action, Respondent Carwash caused the discharge of
employees Romero and Gonzalez in mid-August.
From about July 28 through October 13, Respondent
Carwash assigned less desirable duties to employee Cer-
ilo Noriega.
From about mid-August through October 31, Respon-
dent Bixby temporarily transferred employees from its
Long Beach facility to Respondent Carwash’s Sunset
facility, thereby reducing the hours of available work for
employees at the Sunset facility.

6 From this point forward, all dates are 2008, unless stated otherwise.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1262
On about August 23, Respondent Carwash discharged
a new female cashier employee whose name is not
known.
On about October 13, Respondent Carwash discharged
employee Cerilo Noriega.
On about October 15, Respondent Carwash discharged
employee Custodio Camacho.
Respondent Carwash, through its agent Seferino
Chavez, engaged in the following conduct in the yard at
the Sunset facility: on about July 21 and August 4, inter-
rogated employees about which employees were in-
volved in the Union; on about July 28, interrogated an
employee about his/her involvement in the Union and
about the involvement of other employees; on about Au-
gust 16, threatened to call a Government immigration
agency because of a belief that employees were involved
in the Union; and on about August 23, interrogated an
employee about the location of union meetings.
Respondent Carwash, through its agent Jose Canul,
engaged in the following conduct at the Sunset facility:
on about July 25, in the yard and in the parking lot, inter-
rogated employees about which employees were in-
volved in the Union; on about August 17, threatened an
employee with unspecified reprisals because of a belief
that the employee was involved in the Union; on about
August 6 and during the week of August 4 or 11, in the
office, interrogated employees about the union activities
of employees; on about August 6, in the office, created
an impression among its employees that their union ac-
tivities were under surveillance by Respondent Carwash;
and in about the third week of August, in the yard, inter-
rogated an employee about the union activities of em-
ployees.
Respondent Carwash, through its agent Robert Canul,
engaged in the following conduct on about July 25, in the
office: solicited employee complaints and grievances and
promised an employee increased benefits and improved
terms and conditions of employment if the employee
refrained from supporting the Union; interrogated an
employee about the union activities of employees;
threatened an employee with reduced work hours be-
cause of a belief that employees were involved in the
Union; and engaged in surveillance of employees by ask-
ing an employee to report to him the union activities of
employees.
Respondent Carwash, through its agent Sergio ____,
engaged in the following conduct: in about the last week
of August, in the reception area, interrogated an em-
ployee about the union activities of employees and en-
gaged in surveillance of employees by asking an em-
ployee to report to him the union activities of employees;
and, in about mid-October, in the reception area, interro-
gated an employee about the union activities of employ-
ees.
Respondent Carwash, by its agents Sergio ____, Jose
Canul, and/or Seferino Chavez, engaged in the following
conduct in the office at the Sunset facility: on about Au-
gust 23, interrogated an employee about the union activi-
ties of employees and threatened an employee with the
closure of the Sunset facility because of a belief that em-
ployees were involved in the Union.
Respondent Carwash engaged in the conduct described
above because it believed its employees had formed,
joined, and/or assisted the Union and/or engaged in pro-
tected concerted activities, and to discourage employees
from engaging in those activities. Respondent Bixby
engaged in the conduct described above because it be-
lieved Respondent Carwash’s employees had formed,
joined, and/or assisted the Union and/or engaged in pro-
tected concerted activities, and to discourage employees
from engaging in those activities.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Carwash has been discriminating in re-
gard to hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employ-
ment of its employees, thereby discouraging membership
in a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act, by: moving employees Gonzalez and
Noriega to positions that caused a reduction in their tips,
discontinuing distributing tips to employee Camacho,
reducing the hours of employees Romero, Gonzalez,
Camacho, and Noriega, thereby causing the discharge of
employees Romero and Gonzalez, assigning less desir-
able duties to employee Noriega, temporarily transferring
employees to the Sunset facility from Respondent
Bixby’s Long Beach facility, and discharging a new fe-
male cashier employee and employees Noriega and
Camacho.
2. Further, Respondent Carwash has been interfering
with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by, in addition to
the conduct described above: requiring employees
Noriega, Pinzon, and Santos to temporarily transfer to
Respondent Bixby’s facility, thereby causing the dis-
charge of employees Pinzon and Santos; interrogating
employees about their union activities and the union ac-
tivities of other employees; threatening to blacklist em-
ployees, report employees to Government immigration
agencies, reduce employees’ hours, and close its Sunset
facility; engaging in surveillance of employees’ union
activities and creating the impression that those activities
were under surveillance; and soliciting employee griev-
ances and promising improved terms and conditions of
CARWASH ON SUNSET 1263
employment if employees refrained from supporting the
Union.
3. Respondent Bixby has been discriminating in regard
to hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment of
Respondent Carwash’s employees, thereby discouraging
membership in a labor organization in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, by temporarily transfer-
ring employees from its Long Beach facility to Respon-
dent Carwash’s Sunset facility, thereby reducing the
work hours of Respondent Carwash’s employees. By
that conduct, Respondent Bixby has also been interfering
with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. Both Respondents’ unfair labor practices affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, we shall order them to
cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Specifically, having found that Respondent Carwash
unlawfully discharged or caused the discharge of an un-
named female cashier employee and employees Romero,
Gonzalez, Noriega, Camacho, Santos, and Pinzon, we
shall order Respondent Carwash to offer those employ-
ees full reinstatement to their former positions or, if those
positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed. Further, we shall
order Respondent Carwash to make those employees
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered
as a result of its unlawful conduct. Backpay shall be
computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as prescribed in New
Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).7
Further, having found that Respondent Carwash
unlawfully moved employees Gonzalez and Noriega to
positions that caused a reduction in their tips, discontin-
ued distributing tips to employee Camacho, reduced the
hours of employees Romero, Gonzalez, Camacho, and
Noriega, and temporarily transferred Noriega to Respon-
dent Bixby’s Long Beach facility, we shall order Re-
spondent Carwash to make those employees whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a re-
sult of its unlawful conduct. In addition, having found

7 The General Counsel seeks compound interest computed on a quar-
terly basis for any backpay or other monetary awards. Having duly
considered the matter, we are not prepared at this time to deviate from
our current practice of assessing simple interest. See, e.g., Rogers
Corp., 344 NLRB 504 (2005).
that Respondent Bixby unlawfully temporarily trans-
ferred employees from Bixby’s Long Beach facility to
Carwash’s Sunset facility, we shall order Bixby to make
Carwash’s employees whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of those unlawful trans-
fers. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with
Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd.
444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest as prescribed
in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987).
Finally, the General Counsel has requested two addi-
tional remedies: (1) the issuance of a broad cease-and-
desist order against each Respondent; and (2) that, at
Carwash and at Bixby, the appropriate notice be read
aloud to employees in English and Spanish by the Re-
spondents’ shared principal, Jonathan Kim, or by a Board
agent in Kim’s presence. We have decided to grant cer-
tain of those requests.
As to Respondent Carwash, we shall issue a broad
cease-and-desist order and require a reading of the notice
to its employees in English and Spanish by Kim or, at
Carwash’s option, by a Board agent in Kim’s presence.
We find that those measures are warranted by the egre-
gious and widespread nature of Carwash’s misconduct.
See generally Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357 (1979);
see also Homer D. Bronson Co., 349 NLRB 512, 515–
516 (2007), enfd. mem. 273 Fed.Appx. 32 (2d Cir. 2008)
(requiring notice reading), and United Super, 256 NLRB
1186, 1188 (1981) (imposing broad order in a summary
judgment proceeding where the employer, although be-
ing a first-time offender, threatened employees with clo-
sure and discharges, discharged employees, and dealt
directly with employees, among other things).
We find that those measures are not warranted with re-
spect to Respondent Bixby. Bixby engaged in only one
unlawful act—temporarily transferring employees to
Respondent Carwash’s facility in a manner that reduced
available hours for the latter’s employees. Although
serious, that violation, alone, does not warrant extraordi-
nary remedies under Hickmott. Rather, we find that the
Board’s traditional remedies will be sufficient to remedy
that violation. To ensure that those traditional remedies
are effective, we shall order Bixby to provide copies of
its signed notice to the Regional Director for posting by
Respondent Carwash, if it is willing. See, e.g., CDK
Contracting Co., 308 NLRB 1117, 1118 (1992) (ordering
similar measure where respondent’s violation affected
employees of another employer). If Respondent Car-
wash is unwilling to post Bixby’s notice, or in the event
that Respondent Carwash has gone out of business or
closed its Sunset facility, Bixby shall be required to mail
a copy of the notice to all current and former employees
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1264
employed by Respondent Carwash at any time since Au-
gust 2008.
ORDER
A. The National Labor Relations Board orders that Re-
spondent, AutoSpa Express, Inc. d/b/a Carwash on Sun-
set (Carwash), Los Angeles, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging, causing the discharge of, or otherwise
discriminating against employees because they engage in
protected union or other concerted activities.
(b) Temporarily transferring employees from or to its
Sunset facility because employees at that facility engage
in protected union or other concerted activities.
(c) Reducing employees’ working hours because they
engage in protected union or other concerted activities.
(d) Moving employees to positions that cause a reduc-
tion in their tips and withholding employees’ tips be-
cause they engage in protected union or other concerted
activities.
(e) Assigning less desirable duties to employees be-
cause they engage in protected union or other concerted
activities.
(f) Interrogating employees about the location of union
meetings and their union activities and sympathies, or the
union activities and sympathies of other employees.
(g) Threatening to blacklist employees who engage in
protected union or other concerted activities.
(h) Threatening to report to Government immigration
agencies employees who engage in protected union or
other concerted activities.
(i) Threatening to close its Sunset facility if employees
engage in protected union or other concerted activities.
(j) Engaging in surveillance of employees’ union ac-
tivities and creating the impression that those activities
are under surveillance.
(k) Soliciting employee grievances and promising im-
proved terms and conditions of employment if employ-
ees refrain from engaging in protected union activities.
(l) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
the unnamed female cashier discharged on about August
23, 2008, Domingo Romero, Eduardo Gonzalez, Cerilo
Noriega, Custodio Camacho, Juan Santos, and Alfredo
Pinzon immediate and full reinstatement to their former
jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges.
(b) Make the unnamed female cashier discharged on
about August 23, 2008, Domingo Romero, Eduardo
Gonzalez, Cerilo Noriega, Custodio Camacho, Juan San-
tos, and Alfredo Pinzon whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against them, in the manner set forth in the remedy
section of the decision.
(c) Make whole all employees for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of unlawful reduc-
tions in their working hours, unlawful moves to positions
that reduced their tips, unlawful withholdings of their
tips, and unlawful transfers to Respondent Bixby’s Long
Beach facility, in the manner set forth in the remedy sec-
tion of the decision.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files all references to the unlawful discharges of
the unnamed female cashier discharged on about August
23, 2008, Domingo Romero, Eduardo Gonzalez, Cerilo
Noriega, Custodio Camacho, Juan Santos, and Alfredo
Pinzon and, within 3 days thereafter, notify them in writ-
ing that this has been done and that the unlawful dis-
charges will not be used against them in any way.
(e) 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 re-
cords and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Los Angeles, California, copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix A.”8 Copies of the no-
tice, in English and Spanish, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 31, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 con-
secutive 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 altered, defaced, or cov-
ered 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 em-

8 If 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
CARWASH ON SUNSET 1265
ployees and former employees employed by the Respon-
dent at any time since May 2008.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, hold a
meeting or meetings, scheduled to ensure the widest pos-
sible attendance, at which the attached notice, appendix
A, is to be read to the employees by the Respondent’s
principal, Jonathan Kim or, at the Respondent’s option,
by a Board agent in Kim’s presence, with translation
available for Spanish-speaking employees.
(h) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
B. The National Labor Relations Board orders that
Respondent, S.G. Investments, Inc. d/b/a Bixby Knolls
Car Wash, Long Beach, California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Temporarily transferring employees to Respondent
Carwash’s Sunset facility because employees at that fa-
cility engaged in protected union or other concerted ac-
tivities.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of 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 whole all of Respondent Carwash’s employ-
ees for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered
by reason of the unlawful temporary transfers of employ-
ees from Respondent Bixby’s Long Beach facility to
Respondent Carwash’s Sunset facility, in the manner set
forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Long Beach, California, copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix B.”9 Copies of the no-
tice, in English and Spanish, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 31, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 con-
secutive 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 altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone

9 If 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
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 em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respon-
dent at any time since August 2008.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, sign
and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies of
the notice for posting by Respondent Carwash, if it is
willing, at its Sunset facility in conspicuous places in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. If Respondent Carwash is unwilling to
post the notice, or in the event that it has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceed-
ings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own
expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees
and former employees employed by Respondent Car-
wash at any time since August 2008.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
APPENDIX A
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 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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT discharge, cause the discharge of, or oth-
erwise discriminate against employees because they en-
gage in protected union or other concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT temporarily transfer employees from our
Sunset facility to Respondent Bixby’s Long Beach facil-
ity, or from that facility to our Sunset facility, because
employees at our Sunset facility engage in protected un-
ion or other concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT reduce employees’ working hours be-
cause they engage in protected union or other concerted
activities.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1266
WE WILL NOT move employees to positions that cause a
reduction in their tips or withhold employees’ tips be-
cause they engage in protected union or other concerted
activities.
WE WILL NOT assign less desirable duties to employees
because they engage in protected union or other con-
certed activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees about the location
of union meetings and their union activities and sympa-
thies, or the union activities and sympathies of other em-
ployees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to blacklist employees who en-
gage in protected union or other concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to report to Government immi-
gration agencies employees who engage in protected
union or other concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our Sunset facility if
employees engage in protected union or other concerted
activities.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of employees’ un-
ion activities or create the impression that those activities
are under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT solicit employee grievances and promise
improved terms and conditions of employment if em-
ployees refrain from engaging in protected union activi-
ties
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer the unnamed female cashier discharged on
about August 23, 2008, Domingo Romero, Eduardo
Gonzalez, Cerilo Noriega, Custodio Camacho, Juan San-
tos, and Alfredo Pinzon immediate and full reinstatement
to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges.
WE WILL make the unnamed female cashier discharged
on about August 23, 2008, Domingo Romero, Eduardo
Gonzalez, Cerilo Noriega, Custodio Camacho, Juan San-
tos, and Alfredo Pinzon whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered by reason of the discrimina-
tion against them, with interest.
WE WILL make whole all employees for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of unlaw-
ful reductions in their working hours, unlawful moves to
positions that reduced their tips, unlawful withholdings
of their tips, and unlawful temporary transfers from our
Sunset facility to Respondent Bixby’s Long Beach facil-
ity, with interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files all references to the unlaw-
ful discharges of the unnamed female cashier discharged
on about August 23, 2008, Domingo Romero, Eduardo
Gonzalez, Cerilo Noriega, Custodio Camacho, Juan San-
tos, and Alfredo Pinzon, and WE WILL, within 3 days
thereafter, notify them in writing that this has been done
and that the unlawful discharges will not be used against
them in any way.
CARWASH EXPRESS, INC. D/B/A CARWASH ON
SUNSET
APPENDIX B
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 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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

WE WILL NOT temporarily transfer employees to Auto-
Spa Express, Inc. d/b/a Carwash on Sunset’s facility be-
cause employees at that facility engage in protected un-
ion or other concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole all employees for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered by reason of our
unlawful temporary transfers of employees from our
Long Beach facility to AutoSpa Express, Inc. d/b/a Car-
wash on Sunset’s facility, with interest.

S.G. INVESTMENTS, INC. D/B/A BIXBY KNOLLS
CARWASH