Dynamic Nursing Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 2020

369 N.L.R.B. 49 (N.L.R.B. 2020)

369 NLRB No. 49
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.
Dynamic Nursing Services, Inc. and Santos Tena.
Case 31–CA–193325
March 27, 2020
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS KAPLAN AND
EMANUEL
Upon a charge and an amended charge filed by Santos
Tena on February 15 and May 18, 2017, respectively, the
General Counsel issued a complaint and notice of hear-
ing on September 29, 2017, alleging that the Respondent
has been violating Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor
Relations Act by maintaining its Alternative Dispute
Resolution Agreement (ADRA), which precludes em-
ployees from, or restricts them in, filing unfair labor
practice charges. On October 12, 2017, the Respondent
filed an answer admitting in part and denying in part the
complaint allegations and raising certain affirmative de-
fenses.
On July 23, 2018, the Respondent, the Charging Party,
and the General Counsel filed a joint motion to waive a
hearing and a decision by an administrative law judge
and to transfer this proceeding to the National Labor Re-
lations Board for a decision based on a stipulated record.
On July 19, 2019, the Board granted the parties’ joint
motion. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General
Counsel filed briefs.
On the entire record and briefs, the Board makes the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a California
corporation with an office and place of business in
Sherman Oaks, California, has been engaged in personal
attendant home care. In conducting its operations during
the calendar year ending December 31, 2016, the Re-
spondent derived gross revenues in excess of $250,000
and purchased and received goods, supplies, and materi-
als valued in excess of $5000 directly from points out-
side the State of California. At all material times, the
Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Stipulated Facts
Since about December 21, 2013, the Respondent has
maintained the ADRA, which states, in relevant part, as
follows:
In the event that any employment claim or dispute aris-
es between DYNAMIC NURSING SERVICES, INC.
(“Dynamic”) and ___________ (“Employee”), the par-
ties involved will make all efforts to resolve any such
claim or dispute through informal means. If these in-
formal attempts at resolution fail and if the claim or
dispute arises out of or is related to Employee’s em-
ployment, wage and hour issues, termination of em-
ployment or any other alleged other [sic] claim or dis-
pute, Dynamic and Employee will submit the claim or
dispute to final and binding arbitration.
By accepting and continuing employment with Dynam-
ic, Employer and Employee agree that arbitration is the
exclusive remedy for all claims and disputes; and with
respect to such claims and disputes, no other action
may be brought in court or any other forum (except ac-
tions to compel arbitration hereunder or any claim
within the jurisdiction of the small claims). THIS
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
AGREEMENT IS A WAIVER OF THE PARTIES’
RIGHTS TO A CIVIL COURT ACTION FOR A
DISPUTE RELATING TO EMPLOYEE’S
EMPLOYMENT, WAGE AND HOUR ISSUE, OR
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT OR ANY
OTHER ALLEGED DISPUTE, WHICH INCLUDES
BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO CLAIMS OF
HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION AND
RETALIATION; ONLY AN ARBITRATOR, NOT A
JUDGE OR JURY, WILL DECIDE THE DISPUTE.
For the purpose of this Agreement, “claim” means any
assertion of a right, dispute or controversy between
Employer and Employee arising from or relating to the
Agreement of Employment, the On Call Agreement for
Live-In Personal Attendants and/or the relationship be-
tween Dynamic and Employee. Claim includes claims
of every kind and nature including, but not limited to,
initial claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-
party claims and claims based upon contract, tort, in-
tentional tort, statutes, regulations, common law and
equity. Employer shall not elect to use arbitration un-
der this arbitration provision for any individual claim
that Employee properly files and pursues in a small
claims court so long as the claim is pending only in that
court.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
WAIVER OF CLASS ACTION AND RIGHT TO
JURY TRIAL
IF ARBITRATION IS CHOSEN BY ANY PARTY
WITH RESPECT TO A CLAIM, NEITHER
EMPLOYER NOR EMPLOYEE WILL HAVE THE
RIGHT TO LITIGATE THAT CLAIM IN COURT
OR HAVE A JURY TRIAL ON THAT CLAIM.
FURTHER, EMPLOYEE WILL NOT HAVE THE
RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN A
REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY OR AS A
MEMBER OF ANY CLASS OF CLAIMAINTS
PERTAINING TO ANY CLAIM SUBJECT TO
ARBITRATION. THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION
WILL BE FINAL AND BINDING. NOTE THAT
OTHER RIGHTS THAT EMPLOYEE WOULD
HAVE IF EMPLOYEE WENT TO COURT MAY
ALSO NOT BE AVAILABLE IN ARBITRATION.
THERE SHALL BE NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY
FOR ANY CLAIMS TO BE ARBITRATED ON A
CLASS ACTION BASIS OR ON ANY BASIS
INVOLVING CLAIMS BROUGHT IN A
PURPORTED REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY ON
BEHALF OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, OR OTHER
PERSONS OR EMPLOYEES SIMILARLY
SITUATED.
Employment disputes or claims arising out of or related
to Employee’s employment or termination of employ-
ment shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
alleged violations of federal, state and/or local constitu-
tions, statutes or regulations; claims based on any pur-
ported breach of a contractual obligation, including
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing;
and claims based on any purported breach of duty aris-
ing in tort, including violations of public policy.
Claims brought under California’s Fair Employment
and Housing Act or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, shall be exclusively arbitrated under
this Agreement to the maximum extent permitted by
law. Claims arising under the wage and hour laws of
the State of California and the United States of Ameri-
ca shall be resolved exclusively by arbitration under
this agreement to the maximum extent permitted by
law. Disputes or claims related to workers’ compensa-
tion and unemployment insurance are not arbitrable
hereunder.
(Emphasis in original.)
On December 21, 2013, Charging Party Santos Tena
signed a copy of the ADRA.
In 2015, former employee Rosa Salcedo added Tena as
a named representative in a class-action complaint that
Salcedo had filed against the Respondent in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles (California Superior Court). The complaint as-
serted numerous causes of action arising out of the plain-
tiffs’ employment with the Respondent. The Respondent
filed a petition to compel arbitration of all of Tena’s
claims raised in the complaint, arguing that by signing
the ADRA, Tena had agreed to binding arbitration as the
forum to resolve disputes arising out of her employment
with the Respondent. On September 30, 2016, the Cali-
fornia Superior Court granted the Respondent’s petition
to compel arbitration. The court found, in relevant part,
that the ADRA’s class-action waiver does not violate the
National Labor Relations Act but left it to an arbitrator to
decide the arbitrability of class claims under the ADRA.
On January 25, 2018, the arbitrator selected by the par-
ties, the Honorable Steven J. Stone, issued an order on
enforceability of class-action waiver, finding that the
ADRA’s class-action waiver is enforceable.
B. The Parties’ Contentions
The parties’ stipulation includes the following state-
ment of issues:
1. Whether the Respondent violated 8(a)(1) of the Act
by maintaining an Alternative Dispute Resolution
Agreement that precludes employees from, or restricts
them in, filing unfair labor practice charges with the
Board.
2. Whether the Charging Party’s claims are barred by
the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
3. Whether the Charging Party’s claims are barred by
the statute of limitations.
4. Whether the Charging Party’s claims are barred by
the doctrine of preemption.
Citing Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley, LLC, 368
NLRB No. 10 (2019), and Alorica, Inc., 368 NLRB No.
25 (2019), the General Counsel contends that the ADRA
makes arbitration the exclusive forum for resolving all
disputes, including disputes under the Act, and is there-
fore unlawful. He emphasizes that, similar to the arbitra-
tion agreement in Alorica, the ADRA states that arbitra-
tion is the “exclusive remedy for all claims and disputes”
and does not exclude from its scope the filing of charges
with the Board or with administrative agencies in gen-
eral. The General Counsel argues that the doctrine of
collateral estoppel does not apply because the Board was
not a party to any prior litigation involving the parties
here. See Field Bridge Associates, 306 NLRB 322, 322
(1992) (“The Board adheres to the general rule that if the
Government was not a party to the prior private litiga-
tion, it is not barred from litigating an issue involving
DYNAMIC NURSING SERVICES, INC. 3
enforcement of Federal law which the private plaintiff
has litigated unsuccessfully.”), enfd. sub nom. Service
Employees Local 32B-32J v. NLRB, 982 F.2d 845 (2d
Cir. 1993). In any event, the General Counsel contends,
the issue presented in this case has not been decided in
any prior litigation. The General Counsel argues that the
complaint is not barred by Section 10(b) because the
Respondent has stipulated that it has maintained the
ADRA at all material times since December 21, 2013.
Finally, the General Counsel argues that the complaint is
not barred by the doctrine of preemption.1
The Respondent argues that the ADRA is lawful be-
cause it is less restrictive than the arbitration agreements
found unlawful in Prime Healthcare and Alorica. More
specifically, the Respondent argues that the ADRA is
less restrictive because it requires the parties to attempt
to informally resolve disputes through mediation before
submitting them to arbitration, and it expressly excludes
from its scope claims related to workers’ compensation
and unemployment insurance and claims properly pur-
sued in small claims court. Additionally, the Respondent
contends that the complaint is barred by Section 10(b)
because it promulgated the ADRA more than 6 months
before the initial charge was filed. Finally, the Respond-
ent argues that the Board should apply its postarbitral
deferral standard and defer to the California Superior
Court’s ruling granting the Respondent’s petition to
compel arbitration and Arbitrator Stone’s order on en-
forceability of class-action waiver.2
1 The Respondent has abandoned its preemption defense. See infra
fn. 2.
2 Whether the allegation challenging the ADRA should be dis-
missed pursuant to the Board’s postarbitral deferral standard is not one
of the stipulated issues before the Board for resolution. The Respond-
ent appears to conflate postarbitral deferral with collateral estoppel, but
they are distinct concepts. “The Board has long held that a stipulation
is conclusive on the party making it and prohibits any further dispute as
to the stipulated matters.” Labor Ready Southwest, Inc., 363 NLRB
No. 138, slip op. at 1 fn. 1 (2016). The Board adheres strictly to the
parties' stipulation “due, at least in part, to the parties' choice to forgo
offering evidence . . . in favor of reliance on the stipulation.” Arbors at
New Castle, 347 NLRB 544, 545 (2006). Thus, if a party raises an
issue that is outside the scope of the stipulated issues that are before the
Board for resolution, that issue is not properly before the Board, and the
Board will not consider the merits of the issue. See, e.g., Private Na-
tional Mortgage Acceptance Co. LLC, 368 NLRB No. 126, slip op. at 3
(2019) (finding that the judge erred by reaching the merits of the allega-
tion that an employer unlawfully maintained an arbitration agreement
that restricted employees’ right to access the Board because that issue
was not among the stipulated issues presented for resolution); Kelly
Services, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 130, slip op. at 1 fn. 3 (2019) (declining
to pass on the judge’s finding that an arbitration agreement was ambig-
uous as to whether the employees retained the right to file charges with
the Board because that allegation was outside the scope of the stipulat-
ed issue); Labor Ready Southwest, supra, slip op. at 1 fn. 1 (finding that
the allegation that an employer unlawfully attempted to enforce an
arbitration agreement was not at issue because it was not encompassed
C. Discussion
1. Section 10(b) does not bar the allegation
The Respondent argues that the allegation that it un-
lawfully maintained the ADRA is barred by Section
10(b)’s 6-month statute of limitations because it promul-
gated the ADRA more than 6 months before the Charg-
ing Party filed her initial charge in this case.3 That ar-
gument lacks merit, as the parties have stipulated that the
Respondent has maintained the ADRA since about De-
cember 21, 2013. The Board has long held that an em-
ployer’s maintenance of an unlawful work rule or policy
(including an arbitration agreement) during the 6-month
period preceding the filing of a charge is a continuing
violation of the Act, regardless of when the employer
first promulgated the rule or policy. See, e.g., Cedars-
Sinai Medical Center, 368 NLRB No. 83, slip op. at 8 fn.
7 (2019); Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC, 362 NLRB
241, 242 (2015), enfd. in relevant part 824 F.3d 772 (8th
Cir. 2016); see also Register Guard, 351 NLRB 1110,
1110 fn. 2 (2007) (“The maintenance during the 10(b)
period of a rule that transgresses employee rights is itself
a violation of Sec. 8(a)(1).”), enfd. in relevant part sub
nom. Guard Publishing Co., 571 F.3d 53 (D.C. Cir.
2009).
The Respondent cites Machinists Local Lodge 1424
(Bryan Mfg.) v. NLRB, 362 U.S. 411 (1960), to support
its 10(b) argument. In that case, the Supreme Court held
that an allegation involving a collective-bargaining
agreement that was valid on its face was barred by Sec-
tion 10(b) because the enforcement of the agreement was
“a continuing violation solely by reason of circumstances
existing only at the date of execution,” which occurred
more than 6 months before the initial charge was filed
(the union had lacked majority status at the time that the
collective-bargaining agreement was executed). Id. at
423. The Court distinguished those circumstances from
a situation, like here, where the unlawfulness of an
agreement is “independent of the legality of its execu-
tion” because it is “invalid on its face.” Ibid. Bryan
Mfg. is therefore not applicable here. Accordingly, we
by the stipulated issues). Accordingly, because the postarbitral deferral
issue raised by the Respondent is not within the scope of the stipulated
issues here, we find that it is not properly before us for resolution, and
we therefore will not consider the merits of that issue. The Respondent
has not presented any argument to show that the allegation challenging
the ADRA is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and has there-
fore failed to establish that affirmative defense. In addition, the Re-
spondent has not presented any argument to show that the allegation
challenging the ADRA is barred by the doctrine of preemption and has
therefore failed to establish that affirmative defense as well.
3 We note that the stipulated issues that are before the Board for
resolution do not include whether the Respondent’s promulgation of the
ADRA violated the Act.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
find that the allegation that the Respondent unlawfully
maintained the ADRA is not barred by Section 10(b).
2. The ADRA is unlawful
In Prime Healthcare, the Board held that, notwith-
standing the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems
Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. __, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018), up-
holding individual arbitration agreements containing
class- and collective-action waivers, the Federal Arbitra-
tion Act (FAA) “does not authorize the maintenance or
enforcement of agreements that interfere with an em-
ployee’s right to file charges with the Board.” Prime
Healthcare, supra, 368 NLRB No. 10, slip op. at 5. This
is so because the FAA’s requirement that arbitration
agreements be enforced as written “may be ‘overridden
by a contrary congressional command,’” which the
Board found to be established in Section 10 of the Act.
Ibid. (quoting Shearson/American Express, Inc. v.
McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 226 (1987)). Indeed, “[u]nder
Section 10(b) of the Act, the Board has no power to issue
complaint unless an unfair labor practice charge is filed,
and Section 10(a) of the Act relevantly provides that the
Board’s power to prevent unfair labor practices ‘shall not
be affected by any other means of adjustment or preven-
tion that has been or may be established by agreement,
law, or otherwise.’” Prime Healthcare, supra, slip op. at
5.
Accordingly, in Prime Healthcare, the Board held that
“an arbitration agreement that explicitly prohibits the
filing of claims with the Board or, more generally, with
administrative agencies must be found unlawful.” Ibid.
The Board further held that where an arbitration agree-
ment does not contain such an express prohibition—i.e.,
where the agreement is facially neutral—the Board must
apply the standard set forth in Boeing Co., 365 NLRB
No. 154 (2017), and initially “determine whether that
agreement, ‘when reasonably interpreted, would poten-
tially interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights.’”
Prime Healthcare, supra, slip op. at 5 (quoting Boeing,
supra, slip op. at 3). If the arbitration agreement would
potentially interfere with employees’ Section 7 rights,
Boeing would typically require the Board to weigh the
arbitration agreement’s potential interference with those
rights against the employer’s legitimate justifications.
See Boeing, supra, slip op. at 3. However, the Board
concluded that, “as a matter of law, there is not and can-
not be any legitimate justification for provisions, in an
arbitration agreement or otherwise, that restrict employ-
ees’ access to the Board or its processes.” Prime
Healthcare, supra, slip op. at 6. Finally, the Board found
that arbitration agreements that make arbitration the ex-
clusive forum for the resolution of all claims are unlaw-
ful to maintain because they restrict employees’ access to
the Board. See id., slip op. at 6–7. Such agreements,
therefore, belong in Boeing Category 3. See Prime
Healthcare, supra, slip op. at 7.
Applying these principles, the Board in Prime
Healthcare found that the arbitration agreement at issue
there violated the Act because, although it did not explic-
itly prohibit charge filing (or the exercise of other Sec. 7
rights), it did, when reasonably interpreted, interfere with
employees’ right to file charges with the Board. See id.,
slip op. at 6. The arbitration agreement at issue in that
case required “‘the resolution by binding arbitration of
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 constitution, statute, ordinance, regulation,
or public policy.’” Id., slip op. at 2. It also stated that
“‘[t]he purpose and effect of this [a]greement is to substi-
tute arbitration as the forum for resolution of’” all cov-
ered claims. Ibid. The Board found that, when reasona-
bly interpreted, the arbitration agreement made arbitra-
tion the exclusive forum for the resolution of all claims,
including federal statutory claims under the Act, thereby
unlawfully restricting charge filing with the Board. See
id., slip op. at 6.4
The ADRA here provides that “arbitration is the exclu-
sive remedy for all claims and disputes; and with respect
to such claims and disputes, no other action may be
brought in court or any other forum.” The claims and
disputes covered by the ADRA include “alleged viola-
tions of federal, state and/or local constitutions, statutes
or regulations.” As in Prime Healthcare, we find that
such language makes arbitration the exclusive forum for
resolving all disputes, including those brought under the
Act. Thus, we find that, as in Prime Healthcare, the
ADRA significantly impairs employees’ right to access
the Board and its processes, the free exercise of which is
vital to the implementation of the statutory framework
established by Congress in the National Labor Relations
Act, and cannot be legitimately justified. The ADRA
4 See also Haynes Building Services, LLC, 369 NLRB No. 2, slip
op. at 1–3 (2019) (finding that an employer unlawfully maintained an
arbitration agreement requiring all applicants to agree to “‘obligatory
arbitration for all disputes and complaints’” arising from the submis-
sion of their applications and to agree that if they are hired, “‘all dis-
putes or complaints . . . shall be submitted to obligatory arbitration’”);
Beena Beauty Holding, Inc. d/b/a Planet Beauty, 368 NLRB No. 91,
slip op. at 2–3 (2019) (finding that an employer unlawfully maintained
an arbitration agreement broadly requiring the parties to submit any
claim to final and binding arbitration); Alorica, supra, 368 NLRB No.
25, slip op. at 1–2 (finding that an employer unlawfully maintained an
arbitration agreement requiring that “‘[a]ll disputes, claims, or contro-
versies . . . shall be resolved exclusively by final and binding arbitra-
tion’”).
DYNAMIC NURSING SERVICES, INC. 5
therefore belongs in Boeing Category 3. Accordingly,
we find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by maintaining the ADRA.5
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, Dynamic Nursing Services, Inc.,
is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by maintaining a mandatory arbitration agreement that
employees reasonably would believe bars or restricts
their right to file charges with the National Labor Rela-
tions Board.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in an
unfair labor practice, we shall order it to cease and desist
and to take certain affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having found
that the Respondent unlawfully maintained a mandatory
arbitration agreement that employees reasonably would
believe bars or restricts their right to file charges with the
Board, we shall order the Respondent to rescind or revise
the unlawful agreement and to advise its employees in
writing that it has done so.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Dynamic Nursing Services, Inc., Sherman
5 The Respondent argues that the ADRA is distinguishable from the
arbitration agreement in Prime Healthcare and therefore lawful because
the ADRA provides that prior to submitting any dispute to arbitration,
the parties will attempt to resolve the dispute informally through media-
tion. However, this is a distinction without a difference, as the ADRA
explicitly states that arbitration is the exclusive forum for the resolution
of all claims that are not specifically excluded from its scope if the
parties’ informal attempts at resolution fail. Thus, employees would
still reasonably interpret the ADRA to interfere with their right to file
charges with the Board. In fact, the Board has previously found arbitra-
tion agreements unlawful where they similarly provided that disputes
would be resolved exclusively by arbitration if they could not first be
resolved through informal means. See, e.g., Haynes Building Services,
supra, slip op. at 1–3 (finding unlawful an arbitration agreement that
stated, “‘all disputes or complaints that cannot be resolved within the
Company and informally shall be submitted to obligatory arbitration’”
(emphasis added)); Alorica, supra, slip op. at 1–2 (finding unlawful an
arbitration agreement that stated, “‘any dispute or controversy . . . ,
which cannot be resolved by use of the Company's internal grievance
procedures or by good faith negotiation between the parties, will be
resolved by final and binding arbitration’” (emphasis added)).
The Respondent also argues that the ADRA is distinguishable from
the arbitration agreement in Prime Healthcare and therefore lawful
because the ADRA expressly excludes from its scope claims related to
workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance and claims
properly pursued in small claims court. That argument lacks merit as
well. See, e.g., Beena Beauty, supra, slip op. at 2–3 (finding an arbitra-
tion agreement unlawful where it specifically excluded only claims for
workers’ compensation and unemployment benefits).
Oaks, California, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining an Alternative Dispute Resolution
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.
(a) Rescind the Alternative Dispute Resolution
Agreement in all of its forms, or revise it in all of its
forms 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 current and former employees who were
required to sign or otherwise became bound to the Alter-
native Dispute Resolution Agreement in any form that
the Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement 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 Sherman Oaks, California facility copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.”6 Copies of the notice,
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 consecutive days in conspicuous plac-
es, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of
paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent
customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent 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 to all cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since August 15, 2016.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 31 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
6 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.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 27, 2020
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
________________________________________
William J. Emanuel, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT maintain an Alternative Dispute Resolu-
tion Agreement 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 Alternative Dispute Resolution
Agreement in all of its forms, or revise it in all of its
forms to make clear that it does not restrict your right to
file charges with the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL notify all current and former employees who
were required to sign or otherwise became bound to the
Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement that the Al-
ternative Dispute Resolution Agreement has been re-
scinded or revised and, if revised, WE WILL provide them
a copy of the revised agreement.
DYNAMIC NURSING SERVICES, INC.
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/31-CA-193325 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.