Beena Beauty Holding, Inc. d/b/a Planet Beauty

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Mar 3, 2016

31-CA-144492 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 3, 2016)

JD(SF)–11–16
Studio City, CA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION OF JUDGES
BEENA BEAUTY HOLDING, INC. d/b/a
PLANET BEAUTY
and Case 31-CA-144492
MICHAEL SANCHEZ, an Individual
Renée M. Medved, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Jeffrey S. Ranen, Esq., and Victoria Lin, Esq.,
for Respondent.
Nicholas De Blouw, Esq., for the Charging Party.
DECISION
MARY MILLER CRACRAFT, Administrative Law Judge. Beena Beauty Holding, Inc. d/b/a
Planet Beauty (Respondent)1, maintains an arbitration/dispute resolution provision in its
commission agreement-sales (the Agreement) which prohibits class or collective legal claims in
all forums, arbitral and judicial, and requires signatory employees to settle any dispute arising
out of or relating to their employment with Respondent in accordance with the terms of the
provisions of the Agreement. The General Counsel alleges that Respondent’s entering into,
maintenance, and enforcement2 of the Agreement with employees violates Section 8(a)(1) of the
National Labor Relations Act (the Act).3 Further, the General Counsel alleges that employees
would reasonably construe the language used in the Agreement to preclude them from filing
unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (the Board or NLRB) in
violation of Section 8(a)(1). 4 The violations are found as alleged.
On the entire record,5 and after considering the briefs filed by counsel for the General
Counsel and the brief filed by counsel for the Respondent, the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law are made.

1 Filed on January 14 and April 8, 2015, respectively, the unfair labor practice charge and first
amended charge in Case 31-CA-144492 were submitted by Charging Party Michael Sanchez (Sanchez),
who worked for Respondent from June 2012 to October 2014.
2 In a civil suit brought against Respondent by Sanchez in state court, Respondent sought to compel
arbitration pursuant to the Agreement.
3 29 U.S.C. §158(a)(1).
4 The complaint issued on June 30, 2015. An amendment to the complaint issued on November 6,
2015. Respondent duly filed its answer to the complaint and the amendment to the complaint.
5 The facts were submitted by stipulation. No credibility resolutions are required on this record.
JD(SF)–11–16
2
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a corporation with an office and place of business located in Studio City,
California where it engages in the retail sale of beauty supplies and related products. During the 5
twelve-month period ending April 7, 2015, it derived gross revenue in excess of $500,000 and
during that same period, sold and shipped goods valued in excess of $5000 directly to points
outside the State of California. Thus, the parties stipulate and I find that Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
Accordingly, this dispute affects interstate commerce and the Board has jurisdiction of this case 10
pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Act. Respondent’s claim that this matter is time-barred is
rejected.6
II. FACTS
15
A. Arbitration Provision of the Agreement
The parties agree and it is found that since at least April 2, 2013, Respondent has
maintained an arbitration provision in the Agreement that prohibits class or collective legal
claims in all forums, arbitral and judicial, and requires employees to settle any dispute arising out 20
of or relating to their employment with Respondent in accordance with the terms of the
arbitration provision of the Agreement. The parties agree and I find that by signing the
Agreement, Sanchez and other commissioned sales employees were required to be bound to the
terms of the arbitration provision of the Agreement. There is no evidence that any employee was
able to decline or opt out of the arbitration provision of the Agreement.25
Paragraph 11 of the Agreement, the arbitration provision,7 provides,
The Company (“Planet Beauty and its Affiliates”) is committed to provid[ing] the
best possible working conditions for employees. However, the Company and its 30
employees recognize that occasionally differences may arise during or following
an employee’s employment with the Company. By accepting or continuing
employment with the [C]ompany, you agree and understand that you and the
Company mutually agree to resolve an[y] binding arbitration any claim that, in

6 Sec. 10(b) of the Act provides that an unfair labor practice charge must be filed within six months of
the alleged misconduct. Respondent claims that the complaint is time barred because it was filed more
than six months from the date Sanchez signed the Agreement. However, it is undisputed that Respondent
continued to maintain the Agreement during the six-month period preceding the filing of the initial
charge. Under these circumstances, maintenance of the Agreement constitutes a continuing violation that
is not time-barred by Sec. 10(b). See Cowabunga, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 133, slip op. 2-3 (2016), citing PJ
Cheese, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 177, slip op. at 1 (2015); Neiman Marcus Group, 362 NLRB No. 157, slip
op. at 2 fn. 6 (2015); and Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC, 362 NLRB No. 27, slip op. at 2 fn.7 (2015).
7 In its original form, the Agreement contains minor errors which, for ease of understanding, have
been corrected in brackets. The brackets replace the following: “provide” is replaced by “provid[ing];”
“company” by “[C]ompany” to conform with otherwise uniform capitalization of that word; “and” by
“an[y];” “absent” by “absen[ce];” “nation” by “national;” “company” by “[C]ompany” to conform with
otherwise uniform capitalization of that word;
JD(SF)–11–16
3
the absen[ce] of agreement, would be resolved in a court of law under applicable
state or federal law. The claims governed by this agreement are those that you or
the Company may have relating to your employment with, behavior during or
termination from, the Company. Claims for worker compensation or
unemployment compensation benefits are not subject to this agreement. By 5
accepting or continuing employment with the [C]ompany, you and the Company
both agree to resolve such claims through final and binding arbitration. This
includes, but is not limited to, claims of employment discrimination because of
race, sex, religion, nation[al] origin, color, age, disability, medical condition,
marital status, gender identity, sexual preference or any other characteristic 10
protected by law. It also includes any claim you might have for unlawful
harassment including sexual harassment and unlawful retaliation; any claims
under contract or tort law; any claims for wages, compensation or benefits; any
claim for trade secret violations, unlawful competition or breach of fiduciary duty.
Each party may be represented by an attorney and each party shall bear the 15
expenses of its/his/her own attorney’s fees and costs, experts, witnesses, and the
preparation and presentation of evidence. The Company will pay all types of costs
that are unique to arbitration. The Company shall be entitled to recover any costs
paid if it prevails at the arbitration.8 . . . This Agreement does not create a contract
of employment and does not in any way change the “At-Will” status of your 20
employment. You and the Company hereby agree that this agreement shall
survive the termination of your employment with the Company. THE
COMPANY AND YOU AGREE TO GIVE UP ANY RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY
JURY AND RIGHT TO APPEAL AND TO SUBMIT ANY CLAIMS THAT
EITHER HAS AGAINST THE OTHER TO FINAL AND BINDING 25
ARBITRATION. YOU ALSO AGREE TO WAIVE YOUR RIGHTS TO
PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION OR BE NAMED AS CLASS
REPRESENTATIVES. Your signature below acknowledges that you have been
given sufficient time to read & understand this agreement. Your signature further
certifies that you have had the opportunity to consult with legal counsel prior to 30
executing this agreement.
I acknowledge that I have received a copy of this Commission Agreement. I have
read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions set forth under this
Agreement.35
________________ _________________ ____________
Employee Name Employee Signature Date Signed
40
__________________ _________________ ____________
Planet Beauty Representative Manager’s Signature Date Signed

8 Procedures for selection of an arbitrator, applicable local laws, timing of award, action to enforce
arbitration or arbitration award are omitted here.
JD(SF)–11–16
4
Paragraph 10 of the Agreement provides, that,
This contract will be effective on [date of hire to be filled in here] and will be in
effect for 6 months from the effective date unless a new contract is signed to
supersede it. This contract will supersede all other contracts previously signed and 5
agreed upon by the employee and employee representatives. An expired contract
is presumed to remain in full force and effect until the contract is superseded or
employment is terminated by either party. This contract can be canceled at any
time by either party given a 2 month notice.
10
B. Wage and Hour Class Action
On December 9, 2014, after his separation from employment with Respondent, Sanchez
filed a wage and hour class action suit against Respondent in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles (Superior Court). By letter of December 30, 2014, 15
Respondent informed Sanchez that the arbitration/dispute resolution provision of the Agreement
prohibited bringing the class action complaint. Thereafter, on March 6, 2015, 9 Sanchez filed a
first amended class action complaint.
By motion of March 31, Respondent sought to compel individual arbitration of the class 20
action wage and hour claims. Sanchez filed opposition to the motion to compel on April 23.
Respondent withdrew its motion to compel individual arbitration and on April 30, it re-filed its
motion to compel individual arbitration. On May 18, Sanchez filed an opposition and
Respondent’s reply brief was filed June 1.
25
By order of June 22, the Superior Court found in favor of Respondent on the motion to
compel arbitration. By order of August 25, the Superior Court dismissed Sanchez’s class claims
without prejudice, giving him 60 days to find a qualified class representative. Although the court
granted Sanchez 60 days to find a suitable class representative not subject to arbitration, Sanchez
was unable to find a class representative who had not signed the Agreement’s arbitration 30
provision.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Entering into and Maintenance of the Agreement35
In both D. R. Horton,10 and Murphy Oil,11 the Board held that an employer violates the
Act when it requires employees, as a condition of their employment, to sign an agreement
waiving their right to file joint, class, or collective claims regarding wages, hours or working
conditions against their employer in any forum, arbitral or judicial. As the General Counsel 40

9 All subsequent dates are in 2015 unless otherwise referenced.
10 D. R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB 2277 (2012), enf. denied in relevant part 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir.
2013), petition for rehearing en banc denied (5th Cir. No. 12-60031, April 16, 2014).
11 Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 72, slip op. at 2 (2014), enf. denied in relevant part 808 F.3d
1013 (5th Cir. 2015).
JD(SF)–11–16
5
points out, this holding has been extended to include agreements that were voluntarily entered
into as well.12
Respondent claims that D. R. Horton and Murphy Oil were wrongly decided relying on
(1) D. R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir 2013) (arbitration agreements containing 5
class action waivers are enforceable); (2) the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)13 as interpreted in
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct 1740, 1746 (2011) (rule neutral on its face but
applied in a fashion that disfavors arbitration is not grounds for revocation of any contract within
meaning of savings clause of FAA); (3) American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133
S.Ct. 2304 (2013) (class action waiver must be enforced according to its terms in the absence of 10
a contrary Congressional command); (4) lack of inherent conflict between the NLRA and the
FAA in that individual arbitration agreements have no effect on any collective-bargaining
obligations under the NLRA; (5) inapplicability of the Norris-LaGuardia Act (NLGA)14 because
the Agreement is not illegal under the NLGA and does not constitute a prohibited “yellow dog
contract.” These arguments are rejected for the reasons set forth in D. R. Horton and Murphy Oil. 15
Further, as the General Counsel notes, citing On Assignment Staffing Services, Inc., 362 NLRB
No. 189, slip op. at 12 (2015), the Board is the agency with primary responsibility for developing
and applying national labor policy and need not apologize for adopting positions firmly
grounded in Board precedent, Supreme Court decisions, and federal statutes.
20
Nevertheless, it is clear that the provisions of the Agreement require employees to agree
to the arbitration provision as a condition of their employment. There is no opt-out provision and
the literal provision states that by accepting or continuing employment, the employee agrees to
resolve covered claims through binding arbitration. There is no evidence of employees opting
out. The employee’s signature to the entire Agreement is immediately below the arbitration 25
provision. Moreover, as noted by counsel for the General Counsel, in the state court class action
suit filed by Sanchez, Respondent argued in support of its motion to compel individual
arbitration that employers may condition employment on execution of an arbitration agreement
and that its arbitration agreement met California’s heightened enforceability standards for
mandatory employment arbitration agreements which are imposed as a condition of 30
employment.15 Thus, it must be concluded that the arbitration agreement constitutes a condition
of employment.

12 On Assignments Staffing Services, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 189, slip op. at 7 (2015), citing J. I. Case v.
NLRB, 321 U.S. 332, 338 (1944) (individual arbitration agreements that would prevent employees from
engaging in concerted legal activity must yield to the Act whether or not they were a condition of
employment).
13 9 U.S.C. § 2.
14 29 U.S.C. § 102.
15 See Amendariz v. Foundation Health Psychare Services, Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 83, 4 P.3d 669 (Cal SCt
2000) (In state law antidiscrimination class action, court held mandatory arbitration as a condition of
employment allowable only where the agreement insured neutrality of the arbitrator, the provision of
adequate discovery, a written decision that will permit a limited form of judicial review, and limitations
on the costs of arbitration. Holding the arbitration agreement was unenforceable, the court found it
unconscionably unilateral and did not allow full vindication of statutory rights).
JD(SF)–11–16
6
The parties agree that Respondent’s arbitration provision prohibits class or collective
legal claims in all forums, arbitral and judicial, and requires that employees settle any dispute
arising out of or relating to their employment with Respondent in accordance with the
Agreement. Thus, Respondent’s arbitration requires that employees waive their right to
participate in a class action and agree to submit all employment claims except workers 5
compensation and unemployment claims to final and binding arbitration. It is found that the
arbitration provision precludes concerted legal activity, a substantive right under Section 7 of the
Act, and violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
B. Enforcement of Arbitration Provision in Class Action Suit10
Relying on the Agreement’s arbitration provision, Respondent sought and was granted
enforcement of individual arbitration for Sanchez’s individual claims. It is clear that by seeking
to enforce its arbitration provision in the class action lawsuit, Respondent sought to restrain
Sanchez statutory right to pursue concerted legal action.16 Accordingly, I find that by seeking 15
enforcement of the Agreement’s arbitration provision in Sanchez’s wage and hour class action
litigation, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
C. Access to the Board
20
In Ralph’s Grocery Co., 363 NLRB No. 128 (2016), the Board stated:
“Preserving and protecting access to the Board is a fundamental goal of the Act,”
and so the Board must carefully examine employer rules that may interfere with
this goal. SolarCity, 363 NLRB No. 83, slip op. at 4 [(2015)]. In turn, the Board 25
recognizes that “rank-and-file employees . . . cannot be expected to have the
expertise to examine company rules from a legal standpoint.” Id., slip op. at 5,
quoting Ingram Book Co., 315 NLRB 515, 516 fn. 2 (1994).
Examination of the arbitration provision under these precepts reveals that it does not 30
explicitly prohibit employees from filing unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB.
Nevertheless, employees would reasonably construe the language of the arbitration provision to
prohibit such action. Thus, work rules which do not explicitly restrict Section 7 activities may
nevertheless violate the Act if employees would reasonably construe the rule as prohibiting
Section 7 activity.17 With the specific exemption of workers compensation and unemployment 35
compensation claims, Respondent’s arbitration provision requires employees to agree to pursue
any claim that could be resolved in court under state or federal law including employment-
related claims by utilizing final and binding individual arbitration. There is no language in the

16 See Murphy Oil, supra, slip op. at 5, 19 (mandatory arbitration agreements that bar employees from
bringing joint, class, or collective claims restrict the exercise of the substantive right to act in concert for
mutual aid and protection; enforcement of such a mandatory rule through motion to dismiss collective
legal action unlawfully restricts Sec. 7 rights).
17 Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646, 647 (2004): A work rule may be found
unlawful if it explicitly restricts Section 7 activity or (1) employees would reasonably construe the rule as
prohibiting Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule
has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 activity.
JD(SF)–11–16
7
agreement that exempts claims of unfair labor practices. It is reasonable, accordingly, to construe
the language of the provision to prohibit the filing of unfair labor practice charges with the
NLRB.18 Respondent argues, however, that the language of the Agreement applies only to those
claims that “would resolve in a court of law under applicable state or federal law.” Respondent
avers that this language does not apply to claims brought in administrative proceedings before 5
the Board because it is not a court of law and thus employees would reasonably understand that
NLRB proceedings are not implicated. As the General Counsel correctly notes,19 however, this
argument is not viable because the Board has held that non-lawyer employees would not be
familiar with the intricacies of federal court jurisdiction. Thus, it is found that by maintaining the
Agreement, which is reasonably construed as prohibiting access to the Board, Respondent 10
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By entering into and maintaining the arbitration/dispute resolution provision of its 15
commission agreement – sales, which prohibits class or collective action in all forums,
arbitral and judicial, and requires employees to settle any dispute arising out of or relating
to their employment with Respondent in accordance with the terms of the arbitration
provision, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.20
2. By taking actions to enforce the arbitration/dispute resolution provision of its commission
agreement – sales in the Los Angeles Superior Court class action litigation, Sanchez v.
Planet Beauty, Inc., Case No. BC566065, specifically by letter of December 30, 2014, by
its March 31 and April 30 motions to compel arbitration and briefs in support of these
motions, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.25
3. By maintaining the arbitration/dispute resolution provision of its commission agreement
– sales, which is reasonably interpreted as precluding employees from filing unfair labor
practice charges with the Board, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
REMEDY30
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it must be
ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. Consistent with the Board’s usual practice in cases involving unlawful
litigation, Respondent must reimburse Sanchez for all reasonable expenses and legal fees, with 35
interest,20 incurred in opposing Respondent’s unlawful letter and motions to compel individual

18 See, e.g., U Haul Co., 347 NLRB 375, 377 (2006), enfd. mem. 255 Fed.Appx. 527 (D.C. Cir.
2007).
19 The General Counsel cites U-Haul, supra at 378 (language exempting claims which would be
resolved in a court of law is insufficient to cure defects in the policy).
20 Interest shall be computed in the manner prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987),
compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). See Bill
Johnson’s Restaurants v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 747 (1983) (If a violation is found, the Board may order
the employer to reimburse the employees who he had wrongfully sued for their attorneys’ fees and
expenses as well as any other proper relief that would effectuate the policies of the Act); Teamsters Local
776 (Rite Aid), 305 NLRB 832, 835 fn. 10 (1991) (“[I]n make-whole orders for suits maintained in
JD(SF)–11–16
8
arbitration. Respondent shall also be ordered to rescind or revise the Agreement, notify
employees and the Los Angeles Superior Court that it has done so and that it will no longer
oppose the lawsuit on the basis of the Agreement. Respondent must also rescind or revise the
Agreement to make clear to employees that its Agreement does not constitute a waiver of the
right to maintain employment-related joint, class, or collective actions and that it does not bar or 5
restrict employees right to file charges with the NLRB.
ORDER
Respondent, Beena Beauty Holding, Inc. d/b/a Planet Beauty, Studio City, California, its 10
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Entering into and maintaining its commission agreement – sales
arbitration/dispute resolution agreement with employees that prohibits class or
collective legal claims in all forums, arbitral and judicial, and requires signatory 15
employees to settle any dispute arising out of or relating to their employment with
Respondent in accordance with the terms of the arbitration provision.
(b) Enforcing its commission agreement – sales through letters, motions, and briefs
seeking to compel arbitration in response to a wage and hour class action civil suit
brought against it in state court.20
(c) Maintaining the commission agreement – sales arbitration/dispute resolution
agreement which is reasonably understood to preclude employees from filing
unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.25
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the arbitration/dispute resolution provision of its commission agreement
– sales in all of its forms or revise it in all of its forms to make clear to employees
that the provision does not prohibit class or collective legal claims in all forums,
arbitral and judicial, and does not require signatory employees to settle any 30
dispute arising out of or relating to their employment with Respondent in
accordance with the terms of the arbitration provision.
(b) Rescind the arbitration/dispute resolution provision of its commission agreement
– sales in all of its forms or revise it in all of its forms to make clear to employees
that the provision does not prohibit access to the NLRB to file unfair labor 35
practice charges.
(c) Notify all current and former employees who signed the Agreement in any form
that it has been rescinded or revised and, if revised, provide them a copy of the
revised agreement.
(d) Notify the Los Angeles Superior Court of California that it has rescinded or 40
revised the arbitration/dispute resolution provision of its commission agreement –
sales upon which it based its motions to compel individual arbitration and seek

violation of the Act, it is appropriate and necessary to award interest on litigation expenses.”), enfd. 973
F.2d 230 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. denied 507 U.S. 959 (1993).
reinstatement of the lawsuit upon that basis, informing the
seeks to compel individual arbitration of
Agreement and move the court jointly with Sanchez to vacate its order compelling
arbitration.
(e) In the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision, reimburse Sanchez 5
for any reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses
may have incurred in opposing Respondents attempts to dismiss the lawsuit and
compel individual ar
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Studio City, California
facility copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”10
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 places, including places
where notices are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting or paper
notices, notices shall b15
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 Respondent to ens
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 20
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the not
all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any
time since July 14, 2014, and any employees against whom Respondent has
enforced its mandatory arbitration agreement since July 14, 2013.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for 25
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. March 3, 2
30
35

21 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.
9
court that it no longer
the lawsuit on the basis of the
, with interest,
bitration.
21 Copies of the notice,
e distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an
ure that the notices are not altered,
ice marked “Appendix” to
016
____________________
Mary Miller Cracraft
Administrative Law Judge
JD(SF)–11–16
that he
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 benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT enter into and maintain the arbitration/dispute resolution provision of our
commission agreement – sales, which prohibits class or collective action in all forums, arbitral
and judicial and requires employees to settle any dispute arising out of or relating to their
employment with us in accordance with the terms of the arbitration provision.
WE WILL NOT take actions to enforce the arbitration/dispute resolution provision of our
commission agreement – sales in the Los Angeles Superior Court class action litigation, Sanchez
v. Planet Beauty, Inc., Case No. BC566065, specifically by letter of December 30, 2014, by our
March 31 and April 30 motions to compel arbitration and our briefs in support of these motions.
WE WILL NOT maintain the arbitration/dispute resolution provision of our commission
agreement – sales, which is reasonably interpreted as precluding you from filing unfair labor
practice charges with the Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Federal law.
WE WILL reimburse Sanchez for all reasonable litigation expenses and legal fees with interest
directly related to our motions to compel individual arbitration and expenses.
WE WILL withdraw our letter, motions to compel individual arbitration, and briefs in support
of those motions and move the Los Angeles Superior Court, jointly with Sanchez, to vacate its
order compelling arbitration.
BEENA BEAUTY HOLDING, INC. d/b/a
PLANET BEAUTY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the
National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want
union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To
find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak
confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain
information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
11500 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90064-1824;
(310) 235-7352, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/31-CA-144492 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.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS
PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (310) 235-7424