Four Seasons Healthcare & Wellness Center, LP, a California limited partnership

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 2019

368 N.L.R.B. 117 (N.L.R.B. 2019)

368 NLRB No. 117
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the
Executive 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.
Four Seasons Healthcare & Wellness Center, LP, A
California Limited Partnership and Ana Cruz.
Case 31–CA–169143
November 21, 2019
DECISION, ORDER, and NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS KAPLAN
AND EMANUEL
On June 21, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Ariel L.
Sotolongo issued a decision in this case, and on Septem-
ber 20, 2017, he issued an Errata. The Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Coun-
sel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
1. The judge found, applying the Board’s decisions in
D. R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB 2277 (2012), enf. denied
in relevant part 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013), and Mur-
phy Oil USA, Inc., 361 NLRB 774 (2014), enf. denied in
relevant part 808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015), that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor
Relations Act by maintaining and enforcing a mandatory
arbitration agreement that requires employees, as a con-
dition of employment, to waive their rights to pursue
class or collective actions involving employment-related
claims in all forums, whether arbitral or judicial.
The Supreme Court issued a decision in Epic Systems
Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. __, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018), a
consolidated proceeding including review of court deci-
sions below in Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp., 823 F.3d
1147 (7th Cir. 2016), Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834
F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016), and Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v.
NLRB, 808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015). Epic Systems
concerned the issue, common to all three cases, whether
employer-employee agreements that contain class- and
collective-action waivers and stipulate that employment
disputes are to be resolved by individualized arbitration
violate the National Labor Relations Act. Id. at __, 138
S. Ct. at 1619–1621, 1632. The Supreme Court held that
such employment agreements do not violate this Act and
that the agreements must be enforced as written pursuant
to the Federal Arbitration Act. Id. at __, 138 S. Ct. at
1619, 1632.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs. In light of the Su-
preme Court’s decision in Epic Systems, which overrules
the Board’s holding in Murphy Oil USA, Inc., we con-
clude that the complaint allegations that the arbitration
agreement is unlawful based on Murphy Oil must be
dismissed.1
2. There remains the separate issue whether the Re-
spondent’s arbitration agreement independently violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because it would reasonably be
construed by employees to restrict their ability to file
unfair labor practice charges with the Board.
At the time of the judge’s decision and the Respond-
ents’ exceptions, the issue of whether the maintenance of
a work rule or policy that did not expressly restrict em-
ployee access to the Board violated Section 8(a)(1) on
the basis that employees would reasonably believe it did
would have been resolved based on the prong of the ana-
lytical framework set forth in Lutheran Heritage Village-
Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004), which held an employ-
er’s maintenance of a facially neutral work rule would be
unlawful “if employees would reasonably construe the
language to prohibit Section 7 activity.” Id. at 647. The
Board subsequently overruled the Lutheran Heritage
“reasonably construe” test and announced a new standard
that applies retroactively to all pending cases. Boeing
Co., 365 NLRB No. 154, slip op. at 14–17 (2017).
Accordingly, we sever and retain this complaint alle-
gation, and we issue below a notice to show cause why
the allegation that the arbitration agreement would rea-
sonably be construed by employees to restrict employ-
ees’ ability to file unfair labor practice charges with the
Board should not be remanded to the judge for further
proceedings in light of Boeing, including, if necessary,
the filing of statements, reopening the record, and issu-
ance of a supplemental decision.2
ORDER
The complaint allegations that the maintenance and en-
forcement of the arbitration agreement unlawfully restrict
employees’ statutory rights to pursue class or collective
actions are dismissed.
Further,
NOTICE IS GIVEN that any party seeking to show
cause why the issue whether the Respondent’s mandato-
ry arbitration agreement unlawfully restricts employee
access to the Board should not be remanded to the ad-
ministrative law judge must do so in writing, filed with
the Board in Washington, D.C., on or before December
5, 2019 (with affidavit of service on the parties to this

1 We therefore find no need to address other issues raised by the Re-
spondent’s exceptions to the judge’s decision regarding these allega-
tions.
2 See generally Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley, LLC, 368 NLRB
No. 10, slip op. at 5 (2019) (explaining the Board’s post-Boeing ap-
proach to analyzing allegations that a mandatory arbitration agreement
unlawfully restricts access to the Board).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
proceeding). Any briefs or statements in support of the
motion shall be filed on the same date.
Dated, Washington, D.C. November 21, 2019
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
________________________________________
William J. Emanuel Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Nicholas Gordon, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Kamran Mirrafati, Esq. (Foley & Lardner LLP), for the Re-
spondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARIEL L. SOTOLONGO, Administrative Law Judge. This case
is before me based on a stipulated record, pursuant to a joint
motion submitted by the parties on January 3, 2017, which I
approved on January 9, 2017. At issue is whether Four Seasons
Healthcare & Wellness Center, LP, a California Limited Part-
nership (Respondent or Employer) violated the Act by main-
taining and enforcing an arbitration policy and agreement com-
pelling its employees to forgo class actions and submit em-
ployment-related disputes to arbitration. The issues presented
in this case thus fall squarely within the preview of the Board’s
doctrine first announced in D. R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB 2277
(2012), enf. denied in relevant part, 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir.
2013), and further expanded upon in Murphy Oil USA, Inc.,
361 NLRB 774 (2014), enf. denied 808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir.
2015), cert. granted 137 S. Ct. 809 (2017). As indicated by the
citation in Murphy Oil, these issues are currently pending be-
fore the Supreme Court in light of a split between the circuit
courts on these matters.1 The Supreme Court’s ultimate deci-
sion, it is anticipated, will finally help resolve numerous cases
presently pending before the Board and the courts on these
issues. Until then, I am compelled to Board precedent on these
matters, as discussed below.
I. JURISDICTION
In their joint motion (JM), which I approved and granted, the
parties agreed to the following jurisdictional facts and conclu-
sions:
At all material times, Respondent has been a Limited Part-
nership with an office and place of business in North Holly-

1 See also Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir.
2016), cert. granted 137 U.S. 809 (2017).
wood, California (the facility), where it is engaged in the opera-
tion of a skilled nurse facility providing rehabilitation services
for the elderly. In conducting its business operations at the
facility during the last 12 months, Respondent derived gross
revenues in excess of $100,000, and during the 12-month peri-
od ending on May 31, 2016, Respondent purchased and re-
ceived at the facility good and services valued in excess of
$5000 directly from points outside the State of California.
Accordingly, the parties agreed, and I conclude, that at all
material times, Respondent has been an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.2
II. FACTS
In the JM, the parties stipulated to the following facts, as
enumerated below:
1. Since at least about July 1, 2011, and at all materials times,
Respondent has maintained a Policy and Agreement, which, if
signed by employees, apply to “all disputes relating to [their]
employment” as defined in the Policy and prohibits them
from “joining or participating in a class action or representa-
tive action, acting as a private attorney general or representa-
tive of others, or otherwise consolidating a covered claim with
the claims of others.” (JM, ¶ 14—and Jt. Exh’s. 1–2.)
The Policy reads in relevant part:
WHO IS COVERED BY THE ADR POLICY: the ADR
Policy will be mandatory for ALL DISPUTES ARISING
BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND THE COMPANY.
COVERED DISPUTES: Covered disputes include any dis-
pute arising out of or related to my employment, the terms
and conditions of my employment and/or the termination of
my employment but not limited to, the following:
 Claims of unlawful harassment, discrimination, retal-
iation or wrongful termination that cannot be resolved
by the parties or during an investigation by an admin-
istrative agency…
 Claims alleging failure to compensate for all hours
worked, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay mini-
mum wage, failure to reimburse expenses, failure to
pay wages upon termination, failure to provide accu-
rate, itemized wage statements, failure to provide
meal and/or breaks, entitlement to waiting time pen-
alties and/or other claims involving employee wages,
including, but not limited to claims brought under the
California Labor Code, the applicable wage order, the
Fair Labor Standards Act and any other statutory
scheme…
The following types of disputes are expressly excluded and
are not covered by this ADR policy:
 Disputes or claims that are expressly excluded by
statute or are expressly required to be arbitrated under

2 In the JM, the parties also agreed to several procedural facts and
matters, such as the dates of the filing and service of the initial charge
and amended charges, as well as the dates of the issuance of the com-
plaint and the filing of the answer thereto.
FOUR SEASONS HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTER, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 3
a different procedure pursuant to the terms of a team
member benefit plan.
CLASS ACTION WAIVER: I understand and agree this
ADR program prohibits me from joining or participating in a
class action or representative action, acting as a private attor-
ney general or representative of others, or otherwise consoli-
dating a covered claim with the claims of others. (Jt. Exh. 1
pp. 1–2.)
Furthermore, the Agreement reads in relevant part:
This ADR program is understood to apply to all disputes re-
lating to my employment, the terms and conditions of my
employment, including but not limited to my compensation,
wages, claims alleging failure to compensate for all hours
worked, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum
wage, failure to reimburse expenses, failure to pay wages up-
on termination, failure to provide accurate, itemized wage
statements, failure to provide meal and/or breaks, entitlement
to waiting time penalties and/or other claims involving em-
ployee wages, benefits, discipline, performance evaluations,
promotions and transfers, and the termination of my employ-
ment, as defined in the ADR Program materials. I agree this
ADR Program prohibits me from joining or participating in a
class action or representative action, acting as a private attor-
ney general or representative of others, or otherwise consoli-
dating a covered claim with the claims of others…
I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS AGREEMENT IS A
WAIVER OF ALL RIGHTS TO A CIVIL COURT
ACTION FOR ALL DISPUTES RELATING TO MY
EMPLOYMENT, THE TERMS AND CONIDTION OF
MY EMPLOYMENT AND/OR THE TERMINATION OF
MY EMPLOYMENT WHETHER BROUGHT BY ME OR
THE COMPANY; ONLY AN ARBITRATOR, NOT A
JUDGE OR JURY, WILL DECIDE THE DISPUTE. IN
ADDITION, I UNDERSTAND I AM PROHIBITED FROM
JOINING OR PARTICIPATING IN A CLASS ACTION
OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION, ACTING AS A
PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR
REPRESENTATIVE OF OTHERS, OR OTHERWISE
CONSOLIDATING A COVERED CLAIM WITH THE
CLAIMS OF OTHERS…
I also acknowledge and agree that nothing in this ADR policy
shall be construed as precluding any employee from filing a
charge with a state or federal administrative agency, such as
the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”) or the National Labor Relations Board… (Jt. Exh.
2 pp. 1–2.)3
2. Since about July 1, 2011, and at all material times, Re-
spondent has required employees, including Cruz, to sign the

3 Additionally, the final paragraph of the Policy, under a heading
entitled “Severability,” contains the following language: “Nothing in
this Alternative Dispute Policy is intended to preclude any employee
from filing a charge with…the National Labor Relations Board or any
similar federal or state agency seeking administrative resolution. How-
ever, any claim that cannot be resolved through administrative proceed-
ings shall be subject the procedures of this ADR policy.” (Jt. Exh. 1 pp.
1–3.)
Agreement as a condition of employment. (JM, ¶ 15.)4
3. Since about July 1, 2011, and at all material times, Re-
spondent has required employees, including Cruz, to sign the
Agreement as a condition of employment. (JM, ¶ 15.)
4. On or about November 6, 2015, Respondent filed a notice
of motion and motion to compel arbitration, dismiss plaintiffs
class claims, and request for stay of proceedings in accord-
ance with the terms of the Agreement and Policy in the Supe-
rior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
in Case No. BC588960 (State Court Action). (JM, ¶ 16(a).)5
5. Respondent’s motion to compel moved the California
State Court to require Cruz to submit the entirety of her State
Court Action to binding arbitration pursuant to the terms of
Respondent’s Agreement and Policy. (Jt. Exh. 3, p. 2.)
6. On or about December 11, 2015, Respondent filed an
amended notice of motion and motion to compel arbitration,
dismiss plaintiff’s class claims, and request for stay of pro-
ceedings in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and
policy in the State Court action. (JM, ¶ 16(b).)
7. Respondent’s amended motion to compel again moved the
State Court to require Cruz to submit the entirety of her State
Court action to binding arbitration pursuant to the terms of
Respondent’s Agreement and Policy.
8. On or about January 15, 2016, Respondent filed a reply to
Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion to compel arbi-
tration, dismiss claims, and request for stay of proceedings.
(JM, ¶ 16(c).)
9. Respondent’s reply to plaintiff’s opposition requested that
the State Court grant Respondent’s motion to compel arbitra-
tion.
10, On or about January 25, 2016, the Honorable Elihu M.
Berle of the Los Angeles Superior Court granted Respond-
ent’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the terms of the
agreement and policy noted therein. (JM, ¶ 16(d).)
In accordance to the above stipulated facts, the parties in the
JM agreed that this case presented the following issues:
(1) Whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by maintaining a mandatory arbitration policy which requires
employees to resolve employment-related disputes exclusive-
ly through individual arbitration proceedings and to relinquish
any right they have to resolve such disputes through collective
or class action.
(2) Whether Respondent violated section 8(a)(1) of the Act by

4 “Cruz” refers to Ana Cruz, an employee of Respondent and Charg-
ing Party in this case.
5 Cruz had filed a class-action complaint in state court on or about
July 22, 2015, against Respondent (and apparently affiliated entities) on
behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals for alleged
violations related to rest periods, overtime, and minimum wages, etc.
(See GC Exh. 1(f).) Curiously, this underlying fact was left out of the
stipulation, but is clearly undisputed inasmuch it was the basis for
Respondent’s filing in state court to enforce the mandatory arbitration
agreement, which is admitted.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
enforcing the Policy and Agreement when it relied upon them
in support of its motion to compel arbitration in response to
class action litigation.
(3) Whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by maintaining a mandatory arbitration policy that employees
reasonably would believe precludes them from or restricts
them in filing unfair labor practice charges with the National
Labor Relations Board.
The above-described facts are the relevant facts agreed upon
by the parties in their stipulation.
III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
As briefly mentioned in the preamble, the facts and issues of
this case fall within and are governed by the Board’s decisions
in D. R. Horton and Murphy Oil, and numerous subsequent
cases where the Board affirmed the doctrine espoused in those
two cases.
With regard to the first and second issues enumerated above,
I note that as described in the factual stipulation above (JM ¶
1), Respondent’s “Alternate Resolution Policy” (Policy) and
the accompanying “Agreement To Be Bound By Alternative
Dispute Resolution Policy” (Agreement), clearly requires em-
ployees to forgo collective claims of any type in both arbitral
and judicial forums, including class actions or representative
actions, and to submit employment-related disputes to arbitra-
tion. Additionally, as described in the factual stipulation (JM, ¶
2), it is clear that employees are required, as a condition of
employment, to sign the Agreement and follow the Policy, the
relevant portions of which are posted above, and thus to be
bound to their terms. It is by now well-established Board poli-
cy pursuant to D. R. Horton and Murphy Oil, as well as many
subsequent cases, that any policies that bind or force employees
to pursue individual arbitration in employment-related disputes
in lieu of other forms of collective actions or remedies violate
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See, e.g., Century Fast Foods, Inc.,
363 NLRB No. 97 (2016); Fuji Food Products, 363 NLRB No.
118 (2016); Haynes Bldg., Services, LLC, 363 NLRB No. 125
(2016). I find it unnecessary to rehash the Board’s rationale in
support of such doctrine, for the Board has by now explained
its reasons in exquisite detail not only in D. R. Horton and
Murphy Oil, but in many subsequent cases as well. Although
some Courts of Appeal have disagreed with the Board on this
issue and refused to enforce its orders, as pointed out by Re-
spondent on brief, other Courts of Appeal have agreed with the
Board’s view—including one just in the last few days.6 As
discussed in the preamble, this issue is now pending before the
Supreme Court. In the meantime, I am bound to follow Board
precedent, not that of circuit courts which disagree with the
Board. Pathmark Stores, 342 NLRB 378 fn. 1 (2004); Waco,

6 Thus, the 5th and 8th circuit courts have disagreed with the Board.
See Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 808 F.3d 1013, 1018 (5th Cir.
20160; Cellular Sales of Mo., LLC v. NLRB, 824 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir.
2016). The 9th, 7th, and most recently, the 6th circuits have agreed
with the Board’s position. See Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d
975, 985–986 (9th Cir. 2016); Lewis v. Epic Sys. Corp., 823 F.3d 1147,
1160 (7th Cir. 2016); NLRB v. Alternative Entertainment, Inc., No. 16-
1385 (6th Cir. May 26, 2017).
Inc., 273 NLRB 746, 749 fn. 14 (1984). Accordingly, by main-
taining and implementing such policies, as reflected in the Poli-
cy and Agreement, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. Likewise, by filing a court action—and obtaining a
judgment—to enforce such Policy and Agreement, as Respond-
ent admitted (in the stipulated facts) it did against employee
Cruz, Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Cen-
tury Fast Foods, supra; Countrywide Financial Corp., 362
NLRB 1331, 1333 (2015).
The final issue posed by the instant case (issue No. 3,
above), as agreed upon by the parties, is whether under the
present circumstances, employees would reasonably believe
that the Policy and Agreement would preclude them from or
restrict them in filing charges with the Board. If so, under the
Board’s ruling in Ralph’s Grocery Co., 363 NLRB No. 128,
slip op. 1 (2016), applying the earlier doctrine announced by
the Board in Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB
646, 646–647 (2004), Respondent would violate Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.7 The Agreement contains language commonly re-
ferred to as a “savings clause,” which, at first glance, would
appear to preserve an employee’s right to file charges with the
Board (or other Federal or State agencies), notwithstanding the
other provisions in the Agreement. Indeed, as described in the
agreed-upon facts, such language appears in two places, once in
the Agreement and once in the Policy.
Despite the existence of similarly-worded or almost identical
“savings clauses” in other cases, however, the Board has none-
theless ruled that those clauses do not “save” the employer
from violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, if the scope or reach
of the mandatory arbitration language is such that it over-
whelms the arguably mitigating effect of the savings clause.
See Ralph’s Grocery Co., supra; Lincoln Eastern Management,
364 NLRB No. 16, slip op. 2–3 (2016). Such is the case in the
present situation. The language of the Policy, and particularly
the Agreement, is sweeping in its breadth, stating in bold, capi-
talized letters that it constitutes “A WAIVER OF ALL
RIGHTS TO A CIVIL COURT ACTION FOR ALL
DISPUTES RELATED TO MY EMPLOYMENT . . . ONLY
AN ARBITRATOR, NOT A JUDGE OR A JURY, WILL
DECIDE THE DISPUTE . . . ” (underlined emphasis supplied).
I additionally note that language similar to the one immediately
cited above, albeit in regular-sized letters, dominates and com-
mands the vast majority of the text in the Agreement and Poli-
cy, while the “savings clauses,” buried toward the end of both
documents, constitute but a small fraction of the over-all text in
these documents. At minimum, the conflicting messages repre-
sent an ambiguity that “must be construed against Respondent
as the promulgator of the rule.” Amex Card Services Co., 363
NLRB No. 40, slip op. at 2–3 (2015), citing Lafayette Park
Hotel, 326 NLRB 824, 828 (1998). This is particularly so in
light of the Board’s view that “rank and file employ-
ees…cannot be expected to have the expertise to examine com-
pany rules from the legal standpoint.” Ralphs Grocery Co.,
supra, slip op. at 1, quoting Solar City, 363 NLRB No. 83, slip
op at 5 (2015), in turn quoting from Ingram Book Co., 315

7 See also, U-Haul of California, 347 NLRB 375, 377–378 (2006),
enfd. 255 Fed.Appx. 527 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
FOUR SEASONS HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTER, LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 5
NLRB 515, 516 (1994). Accordingly, I conclude, as the Board
did in Ralphs Grocery Co., that the Policy and Agreement’s
nominal mention of employees’ right to file Board charges is
illusory. Thus, in the context of the sweeping over-all language
in the Policy and Agreement, I find that employees would rea-
sonably feel inhibited from filing Board charges, and that such
Policy and Agreement also violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
for this additional reason.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent at all times material herein has been an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by main-
taining and enforcing a mandatory arbitration agreement
(Agreement and Policy) that mandates individual arbitration
and precludes class actions by employees for employment-
related claims in any forum, arbitral, or judicial.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by filing a
notice of motion and motion to compel arbitration, dismiss
plaintiffs class claims, and request for stay of proceedings in
accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Policy in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Ange-
les, in Case No. BC588960.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by main-
taining and enforcing a mandatory arbitration agreement that
employees could reasonably construe to preclude filing of
charges with the Board.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
As I have concluded that the Agreement and Policy is unlaw-
ful, Respondent must revise or rescind the Agreement and Poli-
cy and advise their employees in writing that the Agreement
and Policy has been revised or rescinded. Further, Respondent
shall post notices in all locations where the Agreement and
Policy was in effect informing employees of the revision or
rescission of the Agreement and Policy, and shall provide said
employees with a copy of any such revised documents. Any
revision should clarify that such agreement does not bar or
restrict employees from seeking class wage and hour actions or
any other type of class employment-related actions in any fo-
rum, and specifically does not bar or restrict employees from
filing charges with the NLRB.
Respondent shall further be ordered to notify the State Court
in Case No. BC588960 that it no longer opposes the plaintiff’s
claims on the basis of the Agreement and Policy, which has
been rescinded or revised because it was found unlawful, and to
move the court to vacate its order compelling individual arbitra-
tion on the basis of the Agreement and Policy.8 Respondent

8 Pursuant to the Board’s D.R. Horton and Murphy Oil rulings, Re-
spondent is free to oppose class certification on any basis other that an
unlawful arbitration agreement compelling employees to arbitrate em-
ployment disputes on an individual basis. As the Board observed,
shall also be ordered to reimburse Charging Party Cruz for all
reasonable expenses and legal fees, with interest, incurred in
opposing Respondent’s unlawful petition to compel individual
arbitration in a collective action. Interest shall be computed as
prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), com-
pounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center,
356 NLRB 6 (2010).
Upon the forgoing findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed.9
ORDER
Respondent, Four Seasons Healthcare & Wellness Center,
LP, a California Limited Partnership with an office and princi-
pal place of business in North Hollywood, California, its offic-
ers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining a mandatory and binding arbitration agree-
ment that require employees, as a condition of employment, to
waive their right to pursue class or collective claims in all fo-
rums, whether arbitral or judicial.
(b) Maintaining a mandatory and binding Agreement and
Policy that employees would reasonably believe bars or re-
stricts employees’ rights to file unfair labor practice charges
with the National Labor Relations Board or to access the
Board’s processes.
(c) Filing a petition to enforce its Agreement and Policy to
thereby compel individual arbitration and preclude employees
from pursuing employment-related disputes with the Respond-
ent on a class or collective basis in any forum.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
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 effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the mandatory and binding Agreement and Poli-
cy in all of its forms, or revise them in all of its forms to make
clear to employees that the Agreement and Policy do not con-
stitute a waiver of their right to maintain employment-related
joint, class, or collective actions in all forums, whether arbitral
or judicial; and that they do not restrict employees’ right to file
charges with the National Labor Relations Board or to access
the Board’s processes.
(b) Notify all current and former employees who were re-
quired to sign the Agreement and Policy in any form that they
have been rescinded or revised and, if revised, provide them a
copy of such documents.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, notify the
Superior Court of the State of California in Case No.
BC588960 that it has rescinded or revised the mandatory
Agreement and Policy upon which it based its motion to dis-

employees have Sec. 7 rights to seek class actions, not to have such
class actions approved.
9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
miss Ana Cruz’ collective state action and to compel individual
arbitration of her claim, and inform the court that it no longer
opposes the action on the basis of the Agreement and Policy.
(d) In the manner set forth in this decision, reimburse Ana
Cruz for any reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses
that she may have incurred in opposing Respondent’s petition
to dismiss her state court action in Case No. BC588960.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at all its
locations in California where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted, copies of the attached notice, in English and Span-
ish, marked “Appendix.”10 Copies of the notice, on forms pro-
vided 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 places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical post-
ing of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electroni-
cally, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customar-
ily communicates with its employees by such means. Reasona-
ble steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate-
rial. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceed-
ings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the
facilities 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
Respondent at any time since February 4, 2016.
(f) 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 comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 21, 2017
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.

10 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of the 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.”
WE WILL NOT maintain a mandatory and binding Agreement
and Policy that our employees reasonably would believe bars or
restricts their right to file charges with the National Labor Rela-
tions Board or to access the Board’s processes.
WE WILL NOT maintain and/or enforce a mandatory Agree-
ment and Policy that requires our employees, as a condition of
employment, to waive the right to maintain class or collective
actions in all forums, whether arbitral or judicial.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL rescind the mandatory and binding Agreement and
Policy in all of its forms, or revise it in all of its forms to make
clear that the Agreement and Policy does not constitute a waiv-
er of your right to maintain employment-related joint, class, or
collective actions in all forums; that it does not restrict your
right to file charges with the National Labor Relations Board or
to access the Board’s processes; and does not prohibit you from
discussing arbitrations with each other.
WE WILL notify all current and former employees who were
required to sign the Agreement and Policy in all of its forms
that the Agreement and Policy has been rescinded or revised
and, if revised, provide them a copy of the revised documents.
WE WILL notify the court in which Ana Cruz filed her collec-
tive state claim that we have rescinded or revised the mandato-
ry Agreement and Policy upon which we based our petition to
dismiss her collective state claim and compel individual arbitra-
tion, and
WE WILL inform the court that we no longer oppose Ana
Cruz’s collective claim on the basis of that Agreement and
Policy.
WE WILL reimburse Ana Cruz for any reasonable attorneys’
fees and litigation expenses that he may have incurred in op-
posing our motion to dismiss her collective state claim and
compel individual arbitration.
FOUR SEASONS HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTER,
LP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/31-CA-169143 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.