Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and Bank of America Corporation (he

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 24, 2020

369 N.L.R.B. 12 (N.L.R.B. 2020)

369 NLRB No. 12
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.
Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc., and Bank of America Corpo-
ration and Joshua D. Buck and Mark Thierman,
Thierman Law Firm and Paul Cullen, The Cullen
Law Firm. Cases 31–CA–072916 and 31–CA–
072918
January 24, 2020
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS KAPLAN
AND EMANUEL
On August 14, 2015, the National Labor Relations
Board issued its Decision and Order in this proceeding,
finding that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the National Labor Relations Act by (1) maintaining or
enforcing/applying a mandatory arbitration agreement in
a manner that requires employees to waive the right to
maintain class or collective actions in all forums; and (2)
maintaining a mandatory arbitration agreement that em-
ployees would reasonably believe bars or restricts em-
ployees’ right to file charges with the Board or to access
the Board’s processes. Countrywide Financial Corp., 362
NLRB 1331 (2015). The Respondents filed a petition to
review, and the Board filed a cross-application to enforce,
the Board’s Decision and Order.
On June 29, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit granted the Board’s motion for the
Court to (1) summarily grant Respondents’ petition to re-
view and deny the Board’s cross-application to enforce the
portion of the Board’s Decision and Order dealing with
the first finding in light of Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis,
584 U.S. __, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018) (holding that

1 In Boeing, the Board overruled the “reasonably construe” prong of
the Lutheran Heritage standard that governed whether maintenance of a
policy that does not expressly prohibit Sec. 7 activity nevertheless vio-
lates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343
NLRB 646, 647 (2004). Under Boeing, when the Board considers “a
facially neutral policy, rule or handbook provision that, when reasonably
interpreted, would potentially interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights,
the Board will evaluate two things: (i) the nature and extent of the poten-
tial impact on NLRA rights, and (ii) legitimate justifications associated
with the rule.” Boeing, slip op. at 3 (emphasis omitted). In conducting
this evaluation, the Board will strike a proper balance between the as-
serted business justifications and the invasion of employee rights in light
of the Act and its policies, viewing the rule or policy from the employees’
perspective. Id. “As a result of this balancing . . . the Board will delin-
eate three categories” of work rules:
Category 1 will include rules that the Board designates as lawful to
maintain, either because (i) the rule, when reasonably interpreted, does
not prohibit or interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights; or (ii) the
employers may lawfully maintain arbitration agreements
that bar employees from concertedly pursuing work-re-
lated claims); and (2) remand the second finding back to
the Board for further proceedings in light of The Boeing
Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017) (Boeing).1 See
Countrywide Financial Corporation et al v. NLRB, Nos.
15-72700, 15-73222 (9th Cir. June 29, 2018).
On October 15, 2018, the Board issued a Notice to
Show Cause why the second and sole remaining issue
should not be remanded to a judge for further proceedings
in light of Boeing, including, if necessary, the filing of
statements, reopening the record, and issuance of a sup-
plemental decision. No party filed a response.2
The Board has reviewed the entire record and has con-
cluded, for the reasons set forth below, that no remand to
an administrative law judge is necessary, and that the ar-
bitration agreement unlawfully restricts access to the
Board and its processes in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
I. FACTS
From about 2007 through approximately March 2009,
applicants for employment with Respondent Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc. (CHL) were presented with arbitration
agreements substantially similar to the “Mutual Agree-
ment to Arbitrate Claims” (Arbitration Agreement or
Agreement) presented to Dominique Whitaker and John
White in August 2007 and September 2008, respectively.
362 NLRB at 1331–1332. Respondent CHL was a subsid-
iary of Respondent Countrywide Financial Corporation
(CFC), the author of the Arbitration Agreement and one
of the companies that maintains the Agreement. Id. at
1331 & fn. 2. The Agreement states that an applicant “will
not be able to move forward in the application process at
potential adverse impact on protected rights is outweighed by justifica-
tions associated with the rule. . . .
Category 2 will include rules that warrant individualized scrutiny in
each case as to whether the rule would prohibit or interfere with NLRA
rights, and if so, whether any adverse impact on NLRA-protected con-
duct is outweighed by legitimate justifications.
Category 3 will include rules that the Board will designate as unlawful
to maintain because they would prohibit or limit NLRA-protected con-
duct, and the adverse impact on NLRA rights is not outweighed by jus-
tifications associated with the rule.
Id., slip op. at 3–4 (emphasis in original). However, these categories “will
represent a classification of results from the Board’s application of the new
test. The categories are not part of the test itself.” Id., slip op. at 4 (emphasis
in original). The Board also decided to apply its new standard retroactively
to all pending cases in whatever stage. Id., slip op. at 16–17.
2 On December 20, 2018, the Board denied Counsel for the General
Counsel’s Motion to Accept a Late-Filed Response to the Notice to Show
Cause.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
this time” if the applicant does not agree to be bound by
the Arbitration Agreement. Id. at 1332.3
Section 1 of the Agreement, titled “Designated Claims,”
states as follows:
Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the
Company and the Employee hereby consent to the reso-
lution by arbitration of all claims or controversies arising
out of, relating to or associated with the Employee’s em-
ployment with the Company that the Employee may
have against the Company or that the Company may
have against the Employee, including any claims or con-
troversies relating to the Employee’s application for em-
ployment with the Company, the Company’s actual or
potential hiring of the Employee, the employment rela-
tionship itself, or its termination (hereinafter the “Cov-
ered Claims”). The Covered Claims subject to this
Agreement include, but are 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 or harassment on bases which
include but are not limited to race, sex, sexual orienta-
tion, religion, national origin, age, marital status, disabil-
ity or medical condition; claims for benefits and claims
for violation of any federal, state or other governmental
constitution, statute, ordinance, regulation, or public pol-
icy. The purpose and effect of this Agreement is to sub-
stitute arbitration, instead of a federal or state court, as
the exclusive forum for the resolution of Covered
Claims. The parties’ responsibilities and legal remedies
available under any substantive law applicable to a Cov-
ered Claim shall be enforced in any arbitration con-
ducted pursuant to this Agreement.
Id. at 1331–1332 fn. 3.
Section 3, entitled, “Claims Not Covered by This
Agreement,” states that “[n]othing in this Agreement shall
be construed to require arbitration of any claim if an agree-
ment to arbitrate such claim is prohibited by law.” Id. at
1331–1332.
Section 10, entitled “Exclusive Remedy,” states, “Arbi-
tration is the parties’ exclusive remedy for Covered
Claims.” Id. at 1332.

3 The Agreement states that it is between “the Company and the Em-
ployee” and defines the Company as “Countrywide Financial Corpora-
tion and all of its subsidiary and affiliated entities . . . and all successors
and assigns and any of them.” Id. at 1331. In June 2008, Respondent
Bank of America (BAC) purchased CFC and became the parent of CFC
and CHL. Id. at 1331& fn. 2. Respondents CHL, CFC, and BAC joined
II. DISCUSSION
A. Legal Principles
This case is controlled by the Board’s recent decisions
in Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley, LLC, 368 NLRB
No. 10 (2019) (Prime Healthcare), and Everglades Col-
lege, Inc. d/b/a Keiser University, 368 NLRB No. 123
(2019) (Everglades), which issued after the Notice to
Show Cause. Consistent with the clear congressional
command in Section 10(a) of the Act that the Board’s
power to prevent unfair labor practices “shall not be af-
fected by any other means of adjustment or prevention that
has been or may be established by agreement, law, or oth-
erwise,” we held in Prime Healthcare that the Federal Ar-
bitration Act does not authorize the maintenance or en-
forcement of arbitration agreements that interfere with an
employee’s right to file charges with the Board. 368
NLRB No. 10, slip op. at 5. We also held that an arbitra-
tion agreement that explicitly prohibits the filing of claims
with the Board or, more generally, with administrative
agencies must be found unlawful because such an agree-
ment constitutes an explicit prohibition on the exercise of
employee rights under the Act. Id.4
Where an arbitration agreement does not contain such
an express prohibition but rather is facially neutral, the
standard set forth in Boeing, above, applies. Id. Under
that standard, the Board must first determine whether that
agreement, “when reasonably interpreted, would poten-
tially interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights.” Boeing,
above, slip op. at 3. If it does, the Board will proceed to
analyze the rule under Boeing’s balancing test, weighing
the agreement’s potential interference with Section 7
rights against the employer’s legitimate business justifica-
tions. Id.
In Prime Healthcare, we concluded that where provi-
sions in an arbitration agreement or elsewhere make arbi-
tration the exclusive forum for the resolution of employ-
ment-related claims, including claims for violations of
federal statutes, then such provisions are unlawful and fall
within Boeing Category 3. 368 NLRB No. 10, slip op. at
6–7. As we explained, such provisions, reasonably inter-
preted, interfere with the exercise of the right to file
charges with the Board; such provisions significantly im-
pair employee rights, the free exercise of which is vital to
the implementation of the statutory scheme established by
Congress in the National Labor Relations Act; and no le-
gitimate justification outweighs, or could outweigh, the
together and were active participants in seeking to enforce the Agree-
ment in federal court litigation. Id. at 1331 fn. 2.
4 As we noted in Prime Healthcare, the Supreme Court in Epic Sys-
tems did not address whether the Act prohibits agreements that restrict
employees’ access to the Board or its processes. Id.
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., AND BANK OF AMERICA CORP. 3
adverse impact of such provisions on employee rights and
the administration of the Act. Id., slip op. at 6–7.
B. The Arbitration Agreement is Unlawful
Applying Prime Healthcare, we conclude that the Arbi-
tration Agreement interferes with employee rights under
the Act and falls within Boeing Category 3. Although the
Arbitration Agreement does not explicitly prohibit charge
filing, it does interfere, when reasonably interpreted, with
the right to file charges with the Board. The Agreement
states that “[a]rbitration is the parties’ exclusive remedy
for covered claims,” which are defined as claims arising
out of, relating to, or associated with the employee’s em-
ployment relationship and claims for violation of federal
statutes. Employees would reasonably interpret this lan-
guage to restrict the filing of charges with the Board. See
id., slip op. at 6 (reasonably interpreted, provisions that
make arbitration the exclusive forum for the resolution of
all employment-related claims restrict the filing of charges
with the Board).5 And, as we explained in Prime
Healthcare, no legitimate justification outweighs, or could
outweigh, the adverse impact of such a provision on em-
ployee rights and the administration of the Act. Id., slip
op. at 6–7.
Applying our recent decision in Everglades, we also
conclude that the exclusion clause in Section 3 is too
vague to salvage the Arbitration Agreement. Section 3
states that “[n]othing in this Agreement shall be construed
to require arbitration of any claim if an agreement to arbi-
trate such claim is prohibited by law.” We recently held
in Everglades that a reasonable employee interpreting
vague, generalized exclusion-clause language like that
here—purporting to except claims for which arbitration is
“specifically prohibited by law”—“cannot be expected to
divine any intent to exclude from [the] coverage” of an
arbitration agreement claims arising under the NLRA,
given that rank-and-file employees do not generally carry
law books and “‘cannot be expected to have the expertise
to examine company rules from a legal standpoint.’”

5 We find no merit in the Respondents’ contention, advanced in the
initial litigation, that employees would understand that the Arbitration
Agreement applies only to claims brought in Federal or State court—and
therefore does not prohibit employees from filing charges with the
Board—in light of the explanatory sentence in Section 1 that the “pur-
pose and effect of this Agreement is to substitute arbitration, instead of
a federal or state court, as the exclusive forum for the resolution of Cov-
ered Claims.” 362 NLRB at 1332–1333 (emphasis added). In Prime
Healthcare, we rejected a similar argument, noting that a federal court
of appeals is authorized to grant relief for claims arising under the Act
on a petition for enforcement or review of a Board order pursuant to Sec-
tions 10(e) and (f), respectively, and that a federal district court is author-
ized to grant interim injunctive relief for claims arising under the Act in
the first instance pursuant to Sections 10(j) and 10(l). Prime Healthcare,
368 NLRB No. 10, slip op. at 6. Significantly, Boeing requires the Board
to interpret disputed provisions from “the perspective of employees,”
Everglades, 368 NLRB No. 123, slip op. at 3–4 (quoting
Ingram Book Co., 315 NLRB 515, 516 fn. 2 (1994)). In
other words, as we explained in Everglades, slip op. at 4,
while an objectively reasonable employee would under-
stand that the arbitration agreement does not apply where
“prohibited by law,” that language leaves the reasonable
employee in the dark as to what is “prohibited by law” be-
cause “the language remains impermissibly vague and
ambiguous as to whether it applies to claims that the
NLRA has been violated.”
In sum, the language of the Arbitration Agreement,
when reasonably interpreted under Boeing, makes arbitra-
tion the exclusive forum for resolution of claims arising
under the Act, and the exclusion clause language is legally
insufficient. The Agreement restricts employee access to
the Board, and such restriction of Section 7 rights cannot
be supported by any legitimate business justification.
Therefore, the Agreement is a Boeing Category 3 policy,
and we find that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by maintaining it.6
ORDER
A. The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Countrywide Home Loans, Calabasas, Cali-
fornia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining a mandatory arbitration agreement that
employees would reasonably believe bars or restricts the
right of employees to file charges with the National Labor
Relations Board.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the mandatory arbitration agreement, or re-
vise it to make clear to employees that it does not bar or
restrict employees’ right to file charges with the National
Labor Relations Board.
Boeing, above, slip op. at 3, and it is unlikely that employees would be
sufficiently familiar with the “intricacies of Federal court jurisdiction” to
appreciate the distinction the Respondent has advanced. Prime
Healthcare, 368 NLRB No. 10, slip op. at 6 (citing U-Haul Co. of Cali-
fornia, 347 NLRB 375, 377–378 (2006), enfd. 255 Fed. Appx 527 (D.C.
Cir. 2007)). Nowhere does the Arbitration Agreement state that it ex-
cludes claims arising under the NLRA from its scope, or that employees
retain the right to file charges with the NLRB or with administrative
agencies generally. Reasonably interpreted, these provisions, taken as a
whole, make arbitration the exclusive forum for resolution of federal stat-
utory claims under the National Labor Relations Act.
6 Contrary to his colleagues, Member Emanuel would find the exclu-
sion clause in Sec. 3 renders the Arbitration Agreement lawful for the
reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in Everglades, slip op. at 6–7.
He would therefore dismiss the allegation that the Respondent violated
Sec. 8(a)(1) by maintaining the Agreement.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
(b) Notify all applicants and current and former em-
ployees who were required to sign the arbitration agree-
ment that it has been rescinded or revised and, if revised,
provide them a copy of the revised agreement.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Calabasas, California facility copies of the attached no-
tice marked “Appendix A.”7 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper no-
tices, 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. Rea-
sonable 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 the facility involved in these proceedings, the
Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice marked “Appendix A” to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respond-
ent at any time since July 19, 2011, and any employees
against whom the Respondent has enforced its mandatory
arbitration agreement since August 22, 2011.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with
the Regional Director for Region 31 a sworn certification
of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com-
ply.
B. The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Cala-
basas, California, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining a mandatory arbitration agreement that
employees reasonably would believe bars or restricts the
right of employees to file charges with the National Labor
Relations Board.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.

7 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.”
(a) Rescind the mandatory arbitration agreement, or re-
vise it to make clear to employees that it does not bar or
restrict employees’ right to file charges with the National
Labor Relations Board.
(b) Notify all applicants and current and former em-
ployees who were required to sign the arbitration agree-
ment that it has been rescinded or revised and, if revised,
provide them a copy of the revised agreement.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Calabasas, California facility copies of the attached no-
tice marked “Appendix B.”8 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper no-
tices, 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. Rea-
sonable 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 the facility involved in these proceedings, the
Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice marked “Appendix B” to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respond-
ent at any time since July 19, 2011, and any employees
against whom the Respondent has enforced its mandatory
arbitration agreement since August 22, 2011.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with
the Regional Director for Region 31 a sworn certification
of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com-
ply.
C. The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Bank of America Corporation, Lancaster,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining a mandatory arbitration agreement that
employees reasonably would believe bars or restricts the
right of employees to file charges with the National Labor
Relations Board.
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 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.”
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., AND BANK OF AMERICA CORP. 5
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the mandatory and binding arbitration
agreement, or revise it to make clear to employees that it
does not bar or restrict employees’ right to file charges
with the National Labor Relations Board.
(b) Notify all applicants and current and former em-
ployees who were required to sign the arbitration agree-
ment that it has been rescinded or revised and, if revised,
provide them a copy of the revised agreement.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Lancaster, California facility copies of the attached no-
tice marked “Appendix C.”9 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper no-
tices, 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. Rea-
sonable 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 the facility involved in these proceedings, the
Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice marked “Appendix C” to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respond-
ent at any time since July 19, 2011, and any employees
against whom the Respondent has enforced its mandatory
arbitration agreement since August 22, 2011.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with
the Regional Director for Region 31 a sworn certification
of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com-
ply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. January 24, 2020
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman

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 National
Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the
_____________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
_____________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 vi-
olated 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 reasonably would 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 the mandatory arbitration agreement
or revise it to make clear that it 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 the mandatory arbi-
tration agreement that it has been rescinded or revised and,
if revised, provide them a copy of the revised agreement.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/31-CA-072916 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor
Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
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 vi-
olated 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 reasonably would 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 the mandatory arbitration agreement
or revise it to make clear that it 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 the mandatory arbi-
tration agreement that it has been rescinded or revised and,
if revised, provide them a copy of the revised agreement.
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/31-CA-072916 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.
APPENDIX C
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 vi-
olated 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 reasonably would 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 the mandatory and binding arbitration
agreement or revise it to make clear that it does not restrict
your right to file charges with the National Labor Rela-
tions Board.
WE WILL notify all applicants and current and former
employees who were required to sign the mandatory arbi-
tration agreement that it has been rescinded or revised and,
if revised, provide them a copy of the revised agreement.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/31-CA-072916 or by using the QR
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORP., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., AND BANK OF AMERICA CORP. 7
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.