East Brunswick European Wax Center, LLC,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 13, 2020

369 N.L.R.B. 77 (N.L.R.B. 2020)

369 NLRB No. 77
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.
East Brunswick European Wax Center, LLC and Kel-
lie Meagan Zambrano. Case 22‒CA‒178646
May 13, 2020
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS KAPLAN AND
EMANUEL
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this
case pursuant to the terms of an informal settlement agree-
ment. Upon a charge, first amended charge, and second
amended charge filed by Kellie Meagan Zambrano on
June 20, August 5, and October 31, 2016, respectively, the
General Counsel issued a complaint on November 30,
2016, against the Respondent, alleging that it violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
The Respondent did not file an answer to the complaint.
Subsequently, the Respondent entered into an informal
settlement agreement, which was approved by the Re-
gional Director on January 3, 2017. Pursuant to the terms
of the settlement agreement, the Respondent agreed,
among other things, to: (1) post at its facility the appropri-
ate Board notice for 60 days; (2) send the notice by text
message to all employees who work at the facility; (3)
read, or have a Board Agent read, the notice; (4) comply
with all the terms and provisions of the notice, including
rescinding handbook rules prohibiting talking or com-
plaining about wages, hours, and working conditions or
the Respondent’s rules, policies, and/or procedures and re-
scinding the final warning issued to Liz Siebold; (5) make
Kellie Zambrano whole by paying her $20,000 in backpay
and interest; (6) remove from its files all references to
Zambrano’s discharge, and inform Zambrano in writing
that it had been done; and (7) notify the Regional Director
in writing what steps the Respondent had taken to comply
with the settlement.
The agreement also contained the following provision:
Performance by the Charged Party with the terms and
provisions of this Agreement shall commence immedi-
ately after the Agreement is approved by the Regional
Director, or if the Charging Party does not enter into this
Agreement, performance shall commence immediately
upon receipt by the Charged Party of notice that no re-
view has been requested or that the General Counsel has
sustained the Regional Director.
The Charged Party agrees that in case of non-compli-
ance with any of the terms of this Settlement Agreement
by the Charged Party, and after 14 days’ notice from the
Regional Director of the National Labor Relations
Board of such non-compliance without remedy by the
Charged Party, the Regional Director will issue a Com-
plaint that includes the allegations covered by the Notice
to Employees, as identified above in the Scope of Agree-
ment section, as well as filing and service of the
charge(s), commerce facts necessary to establish Board
jurisdiction, labor organization status, appropriate bar-
gaining unit (if applicable), and any other allegations the
General Counsel would ordinarily plead to establish the
unfair labor practices. Thereafter, the General Counsel
may file a Motion for Default Judgment with the Board
on the allegations of the Complaint. The Charged Party
understands and agrees that all of the allegations of the
Complaint will be deemed admitted and that it will have
waived its right to file an Answer to such Complaint.
The only issue that the Charged Party may raise before
the Board will be whether it defaulted on the terms of
this Settlement Agreement. The General Counsel may
seek, and the Board may impose, a full remedy for each
unfair labor practice identified in the Notice to Employ-
ees. The Board may then, without necessity of trial or
any other proceeding, find all allegations of the Com-
plaint to be true and make findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law consistent with those allegations adverse to
the Charged Party on all issues raised by the pleadings.
The Board may then issue an Order providing a full rem-
edy for the violations found as is appropriate to remedy
such violations. The parties further agree that a U.S.
Court of Appeals Judgment may be entered enforcing
the Board Order ex parte, after service or attempted ser-
vice upon Charged Party at the last address provided to
the General Counsel.
By letter dated January 6, 2017, the Region’s compli-
ance officer outlined the Respondent’s obligations under
the settlement agreement, specifically that the agreement
required the Respondent to pay Zambrano $20,000, re-
move from its files any reference to her discharge and no-
tify her in writing of the same, rescind the final warning
of Siebold, and post, read in the presence of a Board agent,
and transmit by text the Notice to Employees. By letter
dated February 1, 2017, the Region’s compliance officer
notified the Respondent that the Respondent had failed to
fulfill the terms of the settlement agreement and stated
that, unless full compliance was achieved by February 15,
2017, the compliance officer would recommend that the
Regional Director reissue the complaint and filed a Mo-
tion for Default Judgment with the Board. By email dated
March 20, 2017, the Region’s compliance officer
acknowledged receipt of Zambrano’s backpay and inter-
est, but noted that the Respondent failed to remove from
its files reference to Zambrano’s discharge or notify her of
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
the same, failed to rescind Siebold’s final warning, failed
to post, read, and text the notice and failed to return the
required settlement agreement paperwork to the Region,
such as the Certification of Compliance forms. The Re-
gion’s compliance officer gave the Respondent until April
4, 2017, to comply with its additional obligations.
On June 12, 2017, the Region’s compliance officer read
the notice to Employees at the Respondent’s facility. By
email to the Respondent on June 19, 2017, the Region’s
compliance officer noted that she had read the notice and
sought compliance with the remaining obligations of the
settlement agreement. Specifically, she asked the Re-
spondent to send the notice by text to employees, rescind
Siebold’s final warning, remove references to Zambrano’s
discharge from its files and inform her of the same, and
complete and return the relevant forms by June 23, 2017.
As of June 19, 2017, the Respondent had taken no further
steps toward compliance with the terms of the settlement
agreement.
Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the noncompli-
ance provision of the settlement agreement, on July 31,
2018, the Regional Director reissued the complaint and
vacated the settlement agreement. Also on July 31, 2018,
the General Counsel filed a Motion for Default Judgment
with the Board, requesting that the Board issue a Decision
and Order against the Respondent containing findings of
fact and conclusions of law based on the allegations in the
reissued complaint, and that the Board provide “a full rem-
edy for the unfair labor practices alleged.” On August 3,
2018, the Board issued an order transferring the proceed-
ing to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the mo-
tion should not be granted. On August 17, 2018, the Re-
spondent filed a response with an attached submission of
documents.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment
In its response to the Notice to Show Cause, the Re-
spondent contends that the Motion for Default Judgment
should be denied and the reissued complaint should be dis-
missed because the documents attached to its response to
the Notice to Show Cause, which consist of copies of com-
pleted compliance forms, an email communication to em-
ployees, a copy of an email stating that Manager Shania
Guadalupe read the notice on April 7, 2017, email com-
munication confirming the compliance officer’s reading
of the notice on June 12, 2017, a copy of the check issued
to Zambrano, a copy of the correspondence sent to Zam-
brano confirming expungement of the discharge from her
1 The Respondent also has not established that it has rescinded the
handbook rules prohibiting talking or complaining about wages, hours,
and working conditions or the Respondent’s rules, policies, and/or pro-
cedures. However, the Region has not cited this as a basis for default,
personnel record, and a copy of Siebold’s file with all ref-
erences to the final written warning she received removed,
show “that the alleged deficiencies were all addressed and
complied with.”
Although the Respondent asserts that it has complied
with the settlement agreement, the Respondent has not es-
tablished that it has sent the notice to employees by text
message to employees. As noted above, the noncompli-
ance provision in the settlement agreement provides that
“[t]he only issue that the Charged Party may raise before
the Board will be whether it defaulted on the terms of this
Settlement Agreement.” As described, the Respondent has
not shown that it has fully complied with that agreement.
The settlement agreement further provides that “[t]he
Board may then, without necessity of trial or any other
proceeding, find all allegations of the Complaint to be true
and make findings of fact and conclusions of law con-
sistent with those allegations adverse to the Charged Party
on all issues raised by the pleadings.” Therefore, because
the Respondent has not established that it complied with
all of the terms of the settlement agreement, we find that
the Respondent has failed to raise any material issue of
fact warranting a hearing.1
Accordingly, we grant the General Counsel’s Motion
for Default Judgment and find, pursuant to the non-com-
pliance provision of the settlement agreement set forth
above, that all of the allegations in the reissued complaint
are true.2
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent has been a limited
liability company with an office and place of business in
East Brunswick, New Jersey, and has been engaged in the
operation of a waxing salon providing beauty services and
the retail sale of related products.
During the 12-month period ending August 31, 2016,
the Respondent has derived gross revenues in excess of
$500,000, and it has purchased and received more than
$5000 of goods and materials directly from points located
outside of the State of New Jersey.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
either in its Motion for Default Judgment or its communications with the
Respondent, and therefore we do not rely on it here.
2 See U-Bee, Ltd., 315 NLBR 667 (1994).
EAST BRUNSWICK EUROPEAN WAX CENTER, LLC 3
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, the following individuals have
held the positions set forth opposite their respective names
and have been supervisors of the Respondent within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the Re-
spondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act:
Dipali Patel—Shareholder and Officer
Vicki Walkoviak—Regional Director
Shania Guadalupe—Manager
The Respondent engaged in the following conduct:
1. The Respondent, by the individuals named below,
about the dates and at the locations opposite their names,
interrogated its employees about their union and protected
concerted activities:
(a) Patel—The end of May 2016—In the office at the
Respondent’s facility
(b) Walkoviak—May 31, 2016—In the office at the Re-
spondent’s facility
(c) Guadalupe—May 26, 2016—In the office at the Re-
spondent’s facility
2. About May 26, 2016, the Respondent, by Guadalupe,
at the Respondent’s facility, implied that employees
would be discharged if they engaged in union or protected
concerted activities.
3. About the end of May 2016, the Respondent, by Pa-
tel, at the Respondent’s facility, solicited employee assis-
tance in ascertaining the union and protected concerted ac-
tivities and support of their coworkers.
4. Since at least 6 months prior to the filing of the
charge, the Respondent, by issuing an employee handbook
rule, promulgated and since then has maintained the fol-
lowing rules:
(a) Under Standards of Conduct/Disciplinary Actions:
“Discussions related to personal information or behavior
of any employee member or guest is prohibited. Gossip
about fellow employees and guests, your work environ-
ment, or center policies and/or procedures is prohibited.
All concerns related to any these [sic] work-related areas
should be communicated to Senior Management or the
Center Manager.”
(b) Under grounds for discipline:
“Gossiping or complaining about co-workers, clients or
the center’s rules and or [sic] procedures.”
5. Since about June 1, 2016, the Respondent has pro-
hibited discussions among employees about ongoing in-
ternal investigations.
3 To the extent that the Respondent has already complied with some
of the ordered remedies, it shall not be required to do so again. See, e.g.,
Able Building Maintenance, 367 NLRB No. 134 (2019) (ordering
6. In about May 2016, the Respondent’s employee,
Kellie Zambrano, engaged in concerted activities with
other employees for the purposes of collective bargaining
and other mutual aid and protection, by discussing and
texting with her coworkers regarding their terms and con-
ditions of employment.
7. About June 9, 2016, the Respondent discharged
Zambrano.
8. About June 9, 2016, the Respondent issued a final
written warning to its employee, Siebold.
9. The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
above in paragraph 7 because Zambrano engaged in the
conduct described above in paragraph 6 and to discourage
employees from engaging in these or other concerted ac-
tivities.
10. The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
above in paragraphs 7 and 8 because Zambrano and
Siebold violated the prohibition described above in para-
graph 5 and to discourage employees from engaging in
these or other concerted activities.
11. The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
above in paragraph 7 because Zambrano formed, joined,
and assisted a union and engaged in concerted activities,
and to discourage employees from engaging in these ac-
tivities.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By the conduct described above in paragraphs 1 through
6, 8, 9, and 11, the Respondent has been interfering with,
restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
By the conduct described above in paragraphs 7 and 11,
the Respondent has been discriminating in regard to the
hire or tenure of employment or the terms or conditions of
employment of its employees, thereby discouraging mem-
bership in a labor organization in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
The unfair labor practices of the Respondent described
above affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, and in accordance with the
General Counsel’s request for a “full remedy” for the vio-
lations found, we shall order the Respondent to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.3 Specifically, having
found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) by
respondent to, inter alia, make a discriminatee whole “to the extent that
the Respondents have not already done so”).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
promulgating and/or maintaining unlawful handbook
rules, we shall order the Respondent to rescind the unlaw-
ful rules. Pursuant to Guardsmark, LLC, 344 NLRB 809,
812 fn. 8 (2005), enfd. in part 475 F.3d 369 (D.C. Cir.
2007), the Respondent may comply with our order of re-
scission by rescinding the unlawful provisions and repub-
lishing its handbook without the unlawful rules. We rec-
ognize, however, as we did in Guardsmark, that republish-
ing the handbook could be costly. Accordingly, the Re-
spondent may supply the employees either with inserts to
the handbook stating that the unlawful rules have been re-
scinded, or with new and lawfully worded rules on adhe-
sive backing that will correct or cover the unlawful rules,
until it republishes the handbook without the unlawful
provisions. Any copies of the handbook that include the
unlawful rules must include the inserts before being dis-
tributed to employees. See id.
The Respondent additionally shall be ordered to remove
from its files any reference to the final written warning of
Siebold and to notify her in writing that this has been done
and that the final written warning will not be used against
her in any way.
Further, having found that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by terminating the employ-
ment of Zambrano, we shall order the Respondent to offer
Zambrano full reinstatement to her former job or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.4 In addition, we shall order
the Respondent to make Zambrano whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the un-
lawful action against her.5 Backpay shall be computed in
accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in New Hori-
zons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as pre-
scribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6
(2010). In accordance with our decision in King Soopers,
Inc., 364 NLRB No. 93 (2016), enfd. in relevant part 859
F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2017), we shall also order the Respond-
ent to compensate Zambrano for her search-for-work and
interim employment expenses regardless of whether those
expenses exceed interim earnings. Search-for-work and
interim employment expenses shall be calculated sepa-
rately from taxable net backpay, with interest at the rate
4 Although Zambrano waived reinstatement for the purposes of the
settlement, we shall order it as part of a full remedy for her unlawful
discharge.
5 Because it is unclear whether the total amount set forth in the set-
tlement agreement constitutes a full make-whole remedy, we leave to
compliance a determination of the proper amount due to Zambrano.
6 The General Counsel additionally seeks a make-whole remedy that
includes reasonable consequential damages incurred as a result of the
prescribed in New Horizons, supra, compounded daily as
prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, supra.6
The Respondent additionally shall be ordered to remove
from its files any references to the termination of Zam-
brano and to notify her in writing that this has been done
and that the termination will not be used against her in any
way. We shall further order the Respondent to compen-
sate Zambrano for any adverse tax consequences of re-
ceiving a lump-sum backpay award and to file with the
Regional Director for Region 22, within 21 days of the
date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement
or Board order, a report allocating the backpay award to
the appropriate calendar year. AdvoServ of New Jersey,
Inc., 363 NLRB No. 143 (2016).
Further, we shall order the Respondent to hold a meet-
ing or meetings, scheduled to ensure the widest possible
attendance on each shift, at which a high-ranking manage-
ment official will read the Notice to Employees on work
time in the presence of a Board agent. Alternatively, the
Respondent may choose to have a Board agent read the
notice during work time in the presence of a high-ranking
management official. See, e.g., Shamrock Cartage, Inc.,
368 NLRB No. 42 (2019). Finally, since the Respondent
communicates with its employees by text message, we
shall require the Respondent to send the notice to its em-
ployees by text message. See, e.g., Pacific Green Truck-
ing, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 14 (2019).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Re-
spondent, East Brunswick European Wax Center, LLC,
East Brunswick, New Jersey, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively interrogating employees about their un-
ion and protected concerted activities.
(b) Impliedly threatening employees that they would be
discharged if they engaged in union or protected concerted
activities.
(c) Soliciting employee assistance in ascertaining the
union and protected concerted activities and support of
their coworkers.
(d) Promulgating and/or maintaining the following un-
lawful rules:
(i) Under Standards of Conduct/Disciplinary Actions:
Respondent’s unfair labor practices. This issue, which was not briefed,
would involve a change in Board law. We are not prepared at this time
to deviate from our current remedial practice. Accordingly, we decline
to order this relief at this time. See, e.g., Laborers International Union
of North America, Local Union No. 91 (Council of Utility Contractors),
365 NLRB No. 28, slip op. at 1 fn. 2 (2017).
EAST BRUNSWICK EUROPEAN WAX CENTER, LLC 5
“Discussions related to personal information or behavior
of any employee member or guest is prohibited. Gossip
about fellow employees and guests, your work environ-
ment, or center policies and/or procedures is prohibited.
All concerns related to any these [sic] work-related areas
should be communicated to Senior Management or the
Center Manager.”
(ii) Under grounds for discipline:
“Gossiping or complaining about co-workers, clients or
the center’s rules and or [sic] procedures.”
(e) Prohibiting discussions among employees about on-
going internal investigations.
(f) Issuing final written warnings to employees because
they violated the prohibition on discussion among em-
ployees about ongoing internal investigations.
(g) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees for engaging in union or protected concerted
activities.
(h) 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 or revise the rules listed in 1(d), above.
(b) Furnish employees with inserts for the current em-
ployee handbook that (1) advise that the unlawful rules
have been rescinded or (2) provide lawfully worded pro-
visions on adhesive backing that will cover the unlawful
provisions; or publish and distribute to employees revised
employee handbooks that (1) do not contain the unlawful
rules or (2) provide lawfully worded provisions.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, to the
extent it has not already done so, remove from its files any
reference to the unlawful final written warning issued to
Siebold, and within 3 days thereafter, notify the employee
in writing that this has been done and that the final written
warning will not be used against her in any way.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Zambrano full reinstatement to her former job or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
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.”
8 If the facility involved in these proceedings is open and staffed by a
substantial complement of employees, the notices must be posted, read,
and texted within 14 days after service by the Region. If the facility
involved in these proceedings is closed due to the Coronavirus Disease
(e) Make Zambrano whole, to the extent it has not al-
ready done so, for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of the discrimination against her, in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(f) Compensate Zambrano, to the extent it has not al-
ready done so, for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of
receiving a lump-sum backpay award, and file with the
Regional Director for Region 22, within 21 days of the
date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement
or Board order, a report allocating the backpay award to
the appropriate calendar years.
(g) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, to the
extent it has not already done so, remove from its files any
reference to the unlawful termination of Zambrano, and
within 3 days thereafter, notify her in writing that this has
been done and that the termination will not be used against
her in any way.
(h) Post at its East Brunswick, New Jersey facility cop-
ies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”7 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 22, after being signed by the Respondent’s author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent 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 by text
message. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent 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 current
employees and former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since April 2016.
(i) At its East Brunswick, New Jersey facility, hold a
meeting or meetings, scheduled to ensure the widest pos-
sible attendance of employees, at which the attached no-
tice marked “Appendix” is to be read to employees by a
high-ranking responsible management official of the Re-
spondent, in the presence of a Board agent if the Region
so desires, or, at the Respondent’s option, by a Board
agent in the presence of a high-ranking management offi-
cial.8
2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the notices must be posted, read, and texted
within 14 days after the facility reopens and a substantial complement of
employees have returned to work, and the notices may not be posted until
a substantial complement of employees have returned to work. Any such
delay also applies to additional electronic distribution of the notice if the
Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by electronic
means other than text messaging. See Danbury Ambulance Service, Inc.,
369 NLRB No. 68 (2020).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
(j) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with
the Regional Director for Region 22 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. May 13, 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 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 coercively question you about your union
and protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT impliedly threaten that you will be dis-
charged if you engage in union or protected concerted ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT solicit your assistance in ascertaining the
union and protected concerted activities and support of
your co-workers.
WE WILL NOT promulgate and/or maintain the following
unlawful rules:
(i) Under Standards of Conduct/Disciplinary Actions:
“Discussions related to personal information or behavior
of any employee member or guest is prohibited. Gossip
about fellow employees and guests, your work environ-
ment, or center policies and/or procedures is prohibited.
All concerns related to any these [sic] work-related areas
should be communicated to Senior Management or the
Center Manager.”
(ii) Under grounds for discipline:
“Gossiping or complaining about co-workers, clients or
the center’s rules and or [sic] procedures.”
WE WILL NOT prohibit discussions among employees
about ongoing internal investigations.
WE WILL NOT issue final written warnings to employees
because they violated the prohibition on discussion among
employees about ongoing internal investigations.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against you for engaging in union or protected concerted
activities.
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 or revise the employee work rules
listed above.
WE WILL furnish employees with inserts for the current
employee handbook that (1) advise that the unlawful rules
have been rescinded or (2) provide lawfully worded pro-
visions on adhesive backing that will cover the unlawful
provisions; or publish and distribute to employees revised
employee handbooks that (1) do not contain the unlawful
rules or (2) provide lawfully worded provisions.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, to the extent we have not already done so, remove
from our files any reference to the unlawful final written
warning to Liz Siebold, and WE WILL, within 3 days there-
after, notify her in writing that this has been done and that
the unlawful final written warning will not be used against
her in any way.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order,
offer Kellie Zambrano full reinstatement to her former job
or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to her seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL, to the extent we have not already done so,
make Zambrano whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits resulting from the unlawful termination of her
employment, less any net interim earnings, plus interest,
and WE WILL make Zambrano whole for reasonable
search-for-work and interim employment expenses, plus
interest.
WE WILL, to the extent we have not already done so,
compensate Zambrano for the adverse tax consequences,
EAST BRUNSWICK EUROPEAN WAX CENTER, LLC 7
if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award, and WE
WILL file with the Regional Director for Region 22, within
21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either
by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the back-
pay award to the appropriate calendar years.
WE WILL, to the extent we have not already done so,
within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove
from our files any reference to the unlawful termination of
Zambrano, and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify
her in writing that this has been done and that the termina-
tion will not be used against her in any way.
EAST BRUNSWICK EUROPEAN WAX CENTER, LLC
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/22-CA-178646 or by using the QR
code below. Alternately, you can obtain a copy of the de-
cision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Re-
lations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273‒1940.