CBRE, INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 2019

368 N.L.R.B. 152 (N.L.R.B. 2019)

368 NLRB No. 152
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
CBRE, Inc. and Steve Thomas. Case 21–CA–182368
December 16, 2019
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS MCFERRAN
AND KAPLAN
On November 24, 2017, Administrative Law Judge
John T. Giannopoulos issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The
General Counsel filed an answering brief, and the Re-
spondent filed a reply brief.
On December 17, 2018, the Board issued a Notice to
Show Cause why the issue of whether the Respondent’s
arbitration agreement violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act because it allegedly interferes
with employees’ access to the Board and its processes
should not be remanded to the judge for further proceed-
ings in light of the Board’s decision in Boeing Co., 365
NLRB No. 154 (2017). The Respondent and the General
Counsel each filed a response opposing remand. Because
the only issue in this case is the facial lawfulness of the
arbitration agreement, which is already part of the record
before us, we agree with the parties and find that a remand
is unnecessary.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.1
The Board has considered the decision and the record in
light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm
the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions, as modified
herein, and to adopt his recommended Order as modified.2
I. FACTS
The Respondent is a corporation with an office and
place of business in Los Angeles, California, and is en-
gaged in commercial real estate and investment services.3
Since at least March 17, 2016, the Respondent has main-
tained an arbitration agreement that applies to all of its em-
ployees. The pertinent language in the arbitration agree-
ment reads as follows:
In the event of any dispute or claim between you and CBRE
(including all of its employees, agents, subsidiary and affiliated

1 Member Emanuel took no part in the consideration of this case.
2 We will modify the judge’s order language and substitute a new
notice to conform to the customary remedial notice language for the vi-
olation found.
3 The parties stipulated that the Respondent, in conducting its opera-
tions described above, annually furnishes services directly to employers
outside the State of California and, at all material times, has been an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(2), (6), and
entities, benefit plans, benefit plans’ sponsors, fiduciaries, ad-
ministrators, affiliates, and all successors and assigns of any of
them), we jointly agree to submit all such disputes or claims to
confidential binding arbitration and waive any right to a jury
trial.
The claims and disputes subject to arbitration include all claims
arising from or related to your employment or the termination
of your employment including, but not limited to, claims for
wages or other compensation due; claims for breach of any
contract or covenant (express or implied); tort claims; claims
for discrimination (including but not limited to, race, sex, reli-
gion, national origin, age, marital status, or medical condition
or disability); claims for benefits (except where an employee
benefit or pension plan specifies that its claims procedure shall
culminate in an arbitration procedure different from this one);
and claims for violation[s] of any federal, state, or governmen-
tal law, statute, regulation, or ordinance. All claims or dis-
putes subject to arbitration, other than claims seeking to en-
force rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations
Act, must be brought in the party’s individual capacity, and not
as a plaintiff or class member in any class, collective, or repre-
sentative action. [Emphasis added.] The arbitration (i) shall be
conducted pursuant to the provisions of the arbitration rules of
the Federal Arbitration Act; (ii) shall be heard before a retired
State or Federal judge in the county containing the Company’s
office in which you were last employed. The Company shall
pay for all fees and costs of the Arbitrator; however, each party
shall pay for its own costs and attorneys’ fees, if any, except as
otherwise required by law.
II. DISCUSSION
Applying the Board’s decision in U-Haul Co. of Cali-
fornia, 347 NLRB 375, 377–378 (2006), enfd. 255 Fed.
Appx. 527 (D.C. Cir. 2007), which relied on the “reason-
ably construe” prong of Lutheran Heritage Village-Livo-
nia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004), the judge found that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) because employees
would reasonably read the agreement as requiring arbitra-
tion of all employment-related claims, including claims al-
leging violations of the Act.
Thereafter, in Boeing, the Board overruled the “reason-
ably construe” prong of Lutheran Heritage and announced
a new standard, which applies retroactively, for evaluating
the lawfulness of a facially neutral policy. 365 NLRB No.
154, slip op. at 3.4 Under the new standard, the Board first
determines whether a challenged rule or policy, when rea-
sonably interpreted from the employee’s perspective,
would potentially interfere with employees’ rights under
(7) of the Act. We therefore find it unnecessary to rely on the judge’s
finding that the Respondent is a Delaware corporation, which is not sup-
ported by the stipulated record.
4 Boeing replaced only the “reasonably construe” prong of Lutheran
Heritage. Other aspects of Lutheran Heritage remain intact, including
the question of whether a challenged rule or policy explicitly restricts
activities protected by Sec. 7. 343 NLRB at 646.
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Section 7 of the Act. If not, the policy is lawful. If so, the
Board evaluates two things: “(i) the nature and extent of
the potential impact on NLRA rights, and (ii) legitimate
justifications associated with the rule” to determine the
lawfulness of the rule. Id.
Subsequently, in Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley,
LLC, 368 NLRB No. 10 (2019), the Board held that the
maintenance and enforcement of arbitration agreements
that interfere with employees’ rights to file charges with
the Board remain unlawful following the Supreme Court’s
decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. __, 138
S.Ct. 1612 (2018) (holding that employee-employer
agreements that contain class- and collective-action waiv-
ers and require individualized arbitration do not violate
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act). Consistent with Lutheran
Heritage, 343 NLRB at 646, the Board explained that an
arbitration agreement that “explicitly prohibits the filing
of claims with the Board or, more generally, with admin-
istrative agencies must be found unlawful.” 368 NLRB
No. 10, slip op. at 5. The Board further held that where an
arbitration agreement does not contain such an express
prohibition—i.e., where the arbitration agreement in ques-
tion is facially neutral—the Boeing standard applies. Id.
The Board added that the “when reasonably interpreted”
standard is an objective one and “looks solely to the word-
ing of the rule, policy, or other provision at issue[,] … in-
terpreted from the employees’ perspective.” Id., slip op.
at 6 fn. 14.
Applying that standard, the Board found that the arbi-
tration agreement at issue in Prime Healthcare violated
Section 8(a)(1).5 First, the Board found that although the
agreement did not explicitly prohibit charge filing or other
access to the Board and its processes, it did, when reason-
ably interpreted, interfere with employees’ rights to file
charges with the Board. Id., slip op. at 5. The Board then
weighed the agreement's potential interference with Sec-
tion 7 rights against the employer's legitimate business
justifications. The Board concluded that “as a matter of
law, there is not and cannot be any legitimate justification
for provisions, in an arbitration agreement or otherwise,
that restrict employees’ access to the Board or its pro-
cesses.” Id., slip op. at 6. The Board placed arbitration
agreements that restrict employees’ access to the Board by

5 The arbitration provision there required “all claims or controversies
for which a federal or state court would be authorized to grant relief,”
including claims under a long list of employment-related statutes and
“claims for violation of any federal, state, or other governmental consti-
tution, statute, ordinance, regulation, or public policy,” to be resolved by
binding arbitration. Id., slip op. at 6. Thus, the policy made arbitration
the exclusive forum for the resolution of all claims, including claims aris-
ing under the Act.
6 As described above, the language at issue is an exclusion clause.
For an example of a savings clause in a lawful arbitration agreement, see
making arbitration the exclusive forum for the resolution
of all claims into Boeing Category 3, which is designated
for rules and policies that are unlawful to maintain. Id.,
slip op. at 7.
As in Prime Healthcare, the agreement here does not
explicitly prohibit charge filing, but it does, when reason-
ably interpreted, interfere with employees’ access to the
Board and its processes. Id., slip op. at 6. Contrary to the
Respondent’s arguments, the agreement does not exclude
from coverage claims to enforce Section 7 rights under the
Act. The Respondent relies on language in the agreement
that states:
All claims or disputes subject to arbitration, other than
claims seeking to enforce rights under Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act, must be brought in the
party’s individual capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class
member in any class, collective, or representative action.
However, the language in the agreement immediately pre-
ceding this sentence requires “confidential binding arbitra-
tion” of “any dispute or claim . . . arising from or related to
your employment or the termination of your employment in-
cluding . . . claims for violation[s] of any federal, state, or
governmental law, statute, regulation, or ordinance” (em-
phasis added). Like the provision found unlawful in Prime
Healthcare, the foregoing language makes arbitration the ex-
clusive forum for the resolution of all claims, including
claims arising under the Act.
We agree with the judge that the language upon which
the Respondent relies, read on its face and in the context
of the entire agreement, “only exempts NLRA related
claims from the agreement’s prohibition against class, or
collective, arbitration.” It is therefore unlike an exclusion
clause that specifically carves out or excludes certain
claims under the Act from the scope of the agreement, or
a savings clause that preserves employees’ rights to file
charges with the Board, even if the agreement otherwise
includes claims arising under the Act.6 When read from
the perspective of an objective, reasonable employee, the
Respondent’s agreement makes arbitration the exclusive
forum for the resolution of claims including those arising
under the Act.7 As the Board in Prime Healthcare held,
Briad Wenco, LLC d/b/a Wendy's Restaurant, 368 NLRB No. 72, slip
op. at 2 (2019) (finding arbitration agreement lawful because of savings
clause stating that “[n]othing in this [a]greement shall be construed to
prohibit any current or former employee from filing any charge or com-
plaint or participating in any investigation or proceeding conducted by
an administrative agency, including but not limited to . . . the National
Labor Relations Board”).
7 Because the Boeing standard is objective, we agree with the judge
that the Charging Party’s subjective understanding of the arbitration
CBRE, INC. 3
arbitration agreements that restrict employees’ access to
the Board by making arbitration the exclusive forum for
the resolution of all claims are unlawful Category 3 rules
under Boeing. Prime Healthcare, 368 NLRB No. 10, slip
op. at 7.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judge’s finding
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
maintaining the arbitration agreement.8
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recom-
mended Order of the administrative law judge and orders
that the Respondent, CBRE, Inc., Los Angeles, California,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b).
“(b) Notify all applicants and current and former em-
ployees who were required to sign or otherwise became
bound to the Arbitration Agreement in any form that the
Arbitration Agreement has been rescinded or revised and,
if revised, provide them a copy of the revised agreement.”
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin-
istrative law judge.
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 16, 2019
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

agreement is irrelevant. See Prime Healthcare, 368 NLRB No. 10, slip
op. at 6 fn. 14.
8 Member McFerran acknowledges that Boeing, above, is currently
governing law, and joins the majority in applying that standard for insti-
tutional reasons but adheres to and reiterates her dissent in that case.
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 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 ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT maintain a mandatory arbitration agree-
ment that our employees would reasonably believe bars or
restricts their right to file charges with the National Labor
Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL rescind our mandatory arbitration agreement
in all of its forms or revise it in all of its forms to make
clear that the arbitration agreement does not restrict your
right to file charges with the National Labor Relations
Board.
WE WILL notify all applicants and current and former
employees who were required to sign or otherwise became
bound to the arbitration agreement in any form that the
agreement has been rescinded or revised and, if revised,
provide them a copy of the revised agreement.
CBRE, INC.
The Board’s decision can be found at
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/21-CA-182368 or by using the
QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Rela-
tions Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570,
or by calling (202) 273-1940.
Here, Member McFerran agrees with her colleagues that employees
would reasonably construe the Agreement as prohibiting employees
from filing charges with the Board, under either the standard set forth in
Boeing or the previous standard.
4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
James Racine, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Gordon A. Letter, Esq. (Littler Mendelson, PC), for the Respond-
ent.
Michael Curtis, Esq. (Baker & Schwartz, PC), for the Charging
Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN T. GIANNOPOULOS, Administrative Law Judge. Based
upon a charge filed by Steve Thoma (Charging Party or Thoma),
on March 31, 2017 a Complaint and Notice of Hearing (Com-
plaint) issued alleging that CBRE, Inc. (CBRE or Respondent)
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the
Act or NLRA) by maintaining an arbitration agreement contain-
ing language which employees would reasonably believe in-
fringed upon their rights to file unfair labor practice charges with
the National Labor Relations Board (the Board). On April 13,
2017, Respondent filed an answer denying the Complaint’s un-
fair labor practice allegations, and proffering various affirmative
defenses.
This case is before me based upon a Joint Motion and Stipu-
lation of Facts (Joint Motion) submitted by the parties on Sep-
tember 29, 2017. Pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(9) of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations the parties agree to waive a hear-
ing and ask that this matter be decided based upon the Joint Mo-
tion, the associated exhibits, along with the briefs filed by the
parties on November 17, 2017. Furthermore, in the Joint Motion
the parties stipulate the following issues to be resolved with re-
spect to the complaint:
(1) Whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by
maintaining an arbitration agreement which employees would
reasonably conclude prohibits or restricts their right to file un-
fair labor practice charges with the Board;
(2) Whether the language in Thoma’s initial unfair labor prac-
tice charge constitutes an admission that the arbitration agree-
ment excludes claims seeking to enforce rights under the Act,
and whether such an admission should be binding notwith-
standing the amended charge;
(3) Whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§
1–16, controls enforcement of the arbitration agreement; and
(4) Whether the Complaint is barred by Section l0(b) of the
Act.

1 The facts set forth herein are based upon the Joint Motion and re-
lated exhibits. Citations to the joint exhibits are denoted by “JX.” See
also McDonough v. CBRE, Inc., No. CV 14-13674-FDS, 2016 WL
Having considered the Joint Motion, the stipulated facts and ex-
hibits, along with the arguments of the parties set forth in their
respective briefs, I make the following findings of fact and con-
clusions of law.
I. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION
CBRE, a Delaware corporation with an office and place of
business in Los Angeles, California, is engaged in the businesses
of commercial real estate and investment services. In conducting
these enterprises, Respondent annually furnishes services valued
in excess of $50,000 directly to employers located outside the
State of California. Respondent stipulates, and I find, that it is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.1
II. FACTS
On August 17, 2016, Thoma filed the initial charge in this
matter containing the following language:
CBRE has been violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by main-
taining and enforcing a mandatory arbitration agreement that
prohibits employees from engaging in protected, concerted ac-
tivities. That agreement, which employees are required [to] en-
ter as a condition of employment, applies to ‘any dispute or
claim between you and CBRE.’ The agreement also contradic-
torily then states: ‘All claims or disputes subject to arbitration,
other than claims seeking to enforce rights under Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act, must be brought in the
party’s individual capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class mem-
ber in any class, collective, or representative action.’ It is con-
tradictory because NLRB precedent establishes that employ-
ees’ rights to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid and
protection, protected Section 7 [sic], includes concerted legal
activity. Most recently, CBRE violated Section 8(a)(1), on July
14, 2016, when it obtained a hearing date from the LASuperior
Court in Case No. BC612940 for a motion to compel arbitra-
tion of Mr. Thoma’s class claims. (JX. 3)
The charge was amended on December 7, 2016, to state:
The Employer, CBRE, Inc./CBRE Group, Inc. by maintaining
and enforcing the policies set forth in the Employer’s Arbitra-
tion Agreement, unlawfully prevented its employees from en-
gaging in protected, concerted activities, namely the activity of
filing joint, class, or collective employment-related claims in
any forum, arbitral or judicial. The policies maintained and en-
forced by the Employer are facially unlawful in that they also
impermissibly restrict their employees’ access to the Board and
its processes. (JX. 5)
The parties stipulated that, since at least March 17, 2016, Re-
spondent has maintained an arbitration agreement that applies to
all of its statutory employees within the meaning of Section 2(3)
of the Act. The pertinent language in the arbitration agreement
reads as follows:
In the event of any dispute or claim between you and CBRE
2349102, at *1 (D. Mass. 2016) (Court notes that CBRE, Inc. is a Dela-
ware corporation with its principal place of business in California).
CBRE, INC. 5
(including all of its employees, agents, subsidiary and affiliated
entities, benefit plans, benefit plans’ sponsors, fiduciaries, ad-
ministrators, affiliates, and all successors and assigns of any of
them), we jointly agree to submit all such disputes or claims to
confidential binding arbitration and waive any right to a jury
trial.
The claims and disputes subject to arbitration include all claims
arising from or related to your employment or the termination
of your employment including, but not limited to, claims for
wages or other compensation due; claims for breach of any
contract or covenant (express or implied); tort claims; claims
for discrimination (including but not limited to, race, sex, reli-
gion, national origin, age, marital status, or medical condition
or disability); claims for benefits (except where an employee
benefit or pension plan specifies that its claims procedure shall
culminate in an arbitration procedure different from this one);
and claims for violations of any federal, state, or governmental
law, statute, regulation, or ordinance. All claims or disputes
subject to arbitration, other than claims seeking to enforce
rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act,
must be brought in the party’s individual capacity, and not as a
plaintiff or class member in any class, collective, or representa-
tive action. The arbitration (i) shall be conducted pursuant to
the provisions of the arbitration rules of the Federal Arbitration
Act (ii) shall be heard before a retired State or Federal judge in
the county containing the Company’s office in which you were
last employed. The Company shall pay for all fees and costs
of the Arbitrator; however, each party shall pay for its own
costs and attorney’s fees, if any, except as otherwise required
by law.
In consideration of my employment, I agree to conform to the
rules and standards of CBRE, Inc. as amended from time to
time at the company’s sole discretion.
. . .
I represent and warrant that I have read and fully understand
the foregoing and seek employment under these conditions.
III. ANALYSIS
A. The Arbitration Agreement Violates Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act
The language in Respondent’s arbitration agreement violates
Section 8(a)(1) as employees would reasonably read the agree-
ment to require arbitration of all employment related claims, in-
cluding alleged violations of the Act. Lutheran Heritage Vil-
lage-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004). In U-Haul Co. of Califor-
nia, 347 NLRB 375, 377–378 (2006), the Board found an arbi-
tration clause with similar language constituted violation. Citing
Lutheran Heritage, the Board held that, while the language in the
arbitration agreement did not explicitly restrict employees from

2 Even if this clause could plausibly be read to exclude NLRA related
claims from the agreement’s requirement that all disputes be subject to
mandatory arbitration, the Board “routinely has found insufficient lan-
guage in workplace rules purporting to except, or ‘save,’ employees’ le-
gal rights from restrictions on their conduct . . . even where such excep-
tions referred to the ‘NLRA’ or ‘National Labor Relations Act.’” ISS
resorting to the Board’s remedial procedure, the breadth of the
language used, referencing the arbitration provision’s applicabil-
ity to causes of actions recognized by “federal law or regula-
tions,” would reasonably be read by employees to prohibit the
filing of charges with the Board. Id. at 377.
The same is true here. Respondent’s arbitration agreement re-
quires mandatory arbitration of “any dispute or claim . . . arising
from or related to your employment or the termination of your
employment including . . . claims for violations of any federal,
state, or governmental law, statute, regulation, or ordinance.”
(JX. 1) As with the language in U-Haul Co. of California, Re-
spondent’s broad language requiring mandatory arbitration of all
claims for violations of any “federal or governmental law, stat-
ute, regulation, or ordinance,” would reasonably be read by em-
ployees to prohibit the filing of unfair labor practice charges with
the Board. Because the “language of the policy is reasonably
read to require employees to resort to the Respondent’s arbitra-
tion procedures instead of filing charges with the Board,” it vio-
lates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Id. at 377. See also Cellular
Sales of Missouri, LLC v. NLRB, 824 F.3d 772, 774, 778 (8th
Cir. 2016) (sustaining the Board’s finding of a violation where
the employer maintained an arbitration agreement requiring the
individual arbitration of all “claims, disputes, or controversies
arising out of, or in relation to this document or Employee’s em-
ployment with [the] Company,” as employees would reasonably
interpret the quoted language to limit or preclude their rights to
file charges with the Board).
The arbitration agreement’s reference to the NLRA does not
save Respondent from liability. The agreement states that “[a]ll
claims or disputes subject to arbitration, other than claims seek-
ing to enforce rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, must be brought in the party’s individual capacity,
and not as a plaintiff or class member in any class, collective, or
representative action.” The plain reading of this sentence, in the
context of the entire agreement, only exempts NLRA related
claims from the agreement’s prohibition against class, or collec-
tive, arbitration. Thus, when reading the clause in full, NLRA
related claims are still subject to mandatory arbitration, but can
be pursued through collective or class-action arbitration, while
non-NLRA related claims must be pursued through individual
arbitration. Accordingly, the mandatory nature of Respondent’s
arbitration policy would reasonably be ready by “employees as
substantially restricting, if not totally prohibiting, their access to
the Board’s processes.” Bill’s Electric, Inc., 350 NLRB 292, 296
(2007).2
B. Neither the Language of the Initial Charge Nor the FAA
Saves Respondent From a Violation
Respondent argues that there is no violation, and that the lan-
guage in the original charge is an admission by Thoma “that the
[a]rbitration [a]greement excludes claims seeking to enforce
rights under Section 7 . . . and that Thoma would not believe on
Facility Services, 363 NLRB No. 160, slip op. at 2 (2016). A violation
still exists because “absent language more clearly informing employees
about the precise nature of the rights supposedly preserved, the rule re-
mains vague and likely to leave employees unwilling to risk violating the
rule by exercising Section 7 rights.” Id.
6 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
face value that the language . . . precluded him from filing a
charge with the Board.” (Resp. Br., at 7) This argument fails.
The test to determine whether a rule violates the Act is an objec-
tive one, and is not dependent upon an employee’s subjective
interpretation. Miami Systems Corp., 320 NLRB 71, fn. 4
(1995), enfd. in pertinent part 111 F.3d 1284 (6th Cir. 1997).
Thus Thoma’s subjective belief as to whether the arbitration
agreement precluded him from filing a charge not relevant. Id.
Moreover, even if Thoma’s subjective belief—as evidenced by
the language used in the initial charge—is relevant, which it is
not, it only highlights why the language is a violation as it is un-
lawfully vague and “likely to leave employees unwilling to risk
violating the rule by exercising Section 7 rights.” ISS Facility
Services, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 160, slip op. at 2 (2016). Finally,
because the language in the arbitration agreement violates the
Act, it “falls within the FAA’s savings clause.” NLRB v. Alter-
native Entertainment, Inc., 858 F.3d 393, 408 (6th Cir. 2017).3
Thus, the Federal Arbitration Act does not preclude the finding
of a violation. Id.
C. The Complaint is Not Barred by Section 10(b) of
the Act
If an employer or a union maintains an unlawful rule during
the 6-month period prior to the filing of a charge, Section 10(b)
does not preclude the Board from finding a violation, even if the
rule was adopted more than 6 months prior to the filing of the
charge. Carney Hospital, 350 NLRB 627, 627–28, 640 (2007);
Ivy Steel & Wire, Inc., 346 NLRB 404, 422 (2006). Such is the
case here. The parties stipulated that Respondent’s arbitration
agreement has been in effect since at least March 17, 2016, and
that it was in effect at the material time periods set forth in the
Complaint. This includes the period of time when Thoma filed
the charge and amended charge. Accordingly, the Complaint is
not time-barred by Section 10(b) of the Act. Cellular Sales of
Missouri, 824 F.3d at 779 (charge is not time-barred when it is
filed during the period in which respondent has maintained the
unlawful arbitration agreement).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. By maintaining an arbitration agreement that employees
reasonably would believe bars them from filing charges with the
National Labor Relations Board the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and has violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom

3 Pursuant to the FAA’s savings clause, “an arbitration provision that
runs afoul of ay ‘grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation
of any contract’ is unenforceable.” Alternative Entertainment, Inc., 858
F.3d at 406 (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 2).
4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. Specifically, Respondent is ordered to re-
scind or revise its arbitration agreement, and to notify employees
that it has done so. If the arbitration agreement has been revised,
Respondent shall provide employees a copy of the revised agree-
ment as set forth in the Order.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law, and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended4
ORDER
Respondent CBRE, Inc., Los Angeles, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining an arbitration agreement that employees
would reasonably believe bars or restricts rights to file charges
with the National Labor Relations Board.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind the arbitration agreement in all of its forms, or
revise it in all its forms to make clear to employees that the arbi-
tration agreement does not restrict employees’ rights to file
charges with the National Labor Relations Board.
(b) Notify all applicants, current employees, and former em-
ployees, who were required to sign or electronically
acknowledge the arbitration agreement in any form that the arbi-
tration agreement has been rescinded or revised and, if revised,
provide them with a copy of the revised agreement.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Los
Angeles, California facility copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 31, after being signed by the Re-
spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices,
notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, post-
ing on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic
means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its em-
ployees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. If the Respondent has gone out
of business or closed any of the facilities involved in these pro-
ceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own ex-
pense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former
employees employed by the Respondent at the closed facilities
any time since March 17, 2016.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director for Region 31 a sworn certification of a
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.
5 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 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.”
CBRE, INC. 7
responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting
to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply with this
order.
Dated, Washington, D.C. November 24, 2017
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 a representative to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT maintain a mandatory arbitration agreement that
our employees would reasonably believe bars or restricts their
right to file charges with the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights listed
above.
WE WILL rescind our arbitration agreement in all of its forms,
or revise it in all of its forms to make clear that the arbitration
agreement does not restrict your right to file charges with the
National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL notify all applicants and current and former employ-
ees who were required to sign the arbitration agreement in any
of its forms that the agreement has been rescinded or revised and,
if revised, provide them a copy of the revised agreement.
CBRRE, INC.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found
at www.nlrb.gov/case/21-CA-182368 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor
Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.