MasTec, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Aug 31, 2016

12-CA-153478 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

JD–81–16
Miami, FL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
MASTEC, INC.
and Case 12-CA-153478
JOSE LUIS SANCHEZ CORDERO, an Individual
MASTEC SERVICES CO.
and Case 12-CA-154795
MOISHE BEN LEVISON, an Individual
Caroline Leonard, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Jessica T. Travers and William J. Emanuel, Esqs. (Littler Mendelson, P.C.),
of Miami, Florida, and Los Angeles, California, for the Respondents.
Scott C. Adams (LaBar & Adams, P.A.), of Orlando, Florida, and
Jay P. Lechner, Esq. (Whittel & Melton, LLC), of St. Petersburg, Florida,
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MICHAEL A. ROSAS, Administrative Law Judge. This matter is before me on a
stipulated record. The charging parties, Jose Luis Sanchez Cordero and Moise Ben Levison, filed
unfair labor practice charges against Mastec, Inc. and MasTec Services Co. (collectively
Respondents) on June 3 and 24, 2015, respectively.1 The General Counsel issued the
consolidated complaint on March 31, 2016. The consolidated complaint alleges that the
Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act)2 by
maintaining and enforcing a Dispute Resolution Policy (DRP) requiring its employees to waive
their right to pursue class, collective, or representative actions, with the availability of an opt-out
provision.

1 All dates are referred to herein relate to the year 2015 unless otherwise indicated.
2 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1), et seq.
JD–81–16
2
On June 30 2016, the parties submitted a Joint Motion and Stipulated Record, requesting
that the foregoing allegations be decided without a hearing based on a stipulated record. I granted
the parties’ motion and, on August 10, 2016, the parties submitted their respective post-hearing
briefs in this case. 5
On the entire stipulated record and after considering the parties’ briefs, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT10
I. JURISDICTION
MasTec, Inc. and its subsidiary, MasTec Services Co., have been Florida corporations
with a common principal office and place of business in Coral Gables, Florida. At all material 15
times, the Respondents maintained places of business located in Brooksville and Longwood,
Florida, and at other locations throughout the United States. During the past 12 months,
Respondents purchased and received at their place of business in the State of Florida, goods
valued in excess of $50,000, directly from points outside the State of Florida. Respondents have
been contractors performing engineering, procurement, construction and maintenance of 20
infrastructures for electric transmission and distribution, oil and natural gas pipelines, and
communications systems, including the installation of satellite television systems, home security
systems, home automation systems and related services. At all material times, Respondents
admit, and I find, that they are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.25
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Dispute Resolution Policy
30
Prior to February 1, 2013, MasTec Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates maintained in
effect and enforced a Dispute Resolution Policy (DRP) in its employee handbook applicable to
all of their employees in the United States, including those employed at its Brooksville and
Longwood, Florida facilities. An exception applied to those employees who opt out pursuant to
the procedure set forth in the DRP. The DRP further stated that an employee choosing to opt-35
out would “not be subject to any adverse employment action as a consequence of that decision.”
Since February 1, 2013, all newly hired employees of Respondents, their subsidiaries and
affiliates have been required to sign the DRP. The DRP provision at issue here expressly
prohibits an employee’s right to join a class or collective action. The pertinent provision states 40
as follows:
This Dispute Resolution Policy is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1
at seq. This Policy applies to any dispute arising out of, or related to, Employee's
employment with or termination of employment with MasTec, Inc. and any of its 45
subsidiaries and affiliates (“the Company"). Nothing contained in this Policy shall be
construed to prevent or excuse an Employee from utilizing the Company's existing
JD–81–16
3
internal procedures for resolution of complaints, and this Policy is not intended be a
substitute for the utilization of such procedures. Except as it otherwise provides, this
Policy is intended to apply to the resolution of disputes that otherwise would be resolved
in a court of law, and therefore this Policy requires all such disputes that have not
otherwise been resolved to be resolved only by an arbitrator through final and binding 5
arbitration and not by way of court or jury trial. Such disputes include, without limitation,
disputes arising out of or relating to interpretation or application of this Policy, but not as
to the enforceability or validity of the Policy or any portion of the Policy. The Policy also
applies, without limitation, to disputes regarding the employment relationship, trade
secrets, unfair competition, compensation, breaks and rest periods, termination, or 10
harassment and claims arising under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Civil Rights Act of
1964, Americans With Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Family
Medical Leave Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, and state statutes, If any, addressing the same or similar subject matters, and all
other state statutory and common law claims (excluding workers compensation, state 15
disability insurance and unemployment insurance claims). Regardless of any other terms
of this policy, claims may be brought before and remedies awarded by an administrative
agency if applicable law permits access to such an agency notwithstanding the existence
of an agreement to arbitrate such administrative claims, including without limitation,
claims or charges brought before . . . the National Labor Relations Board. . . .20
[T] here will be no right or authority for any dispute to be brought, heard or arbitrated as
a class, collective or representative action, or in a representative or private attorney
general capacity on behalf of a class of persons or the general public ("Class Action
Waiver"). 25

B. Opt-Out Provision
The DRP also contains, in pertinent part an “opt out” procedure:
30
An Employee may submit a form stating that the Employee wishes to opt out and not be
subject to this Policy. The Employee must submit a signed and dated statement on a
‘Dispute Resolution Policy Opt Out’ form (‘Form’) that can be obtained from the
Company’s Legal Department, 800 Douglas Road, 11th Floor, Coral Gables, Florida
33134, by calling 305-406-1875. In order to be effective, the signed and dated Opt Out 35
form must be returned to the Legal Department within 30 days of the Employee's
original receipt of this Policy. An Employee choosing to opt out will not be subject to
any adverse employment action as a consequence of that decision.
In the event that an employee does not opt out of the DRP, the employee acknowledges 40
that he/she and the Company will be bound by the policy.
The charging parties are former employees of the Respondents. Moishe Ben Levison
was employed by MasTec Services Co. as a satellite television installer/technician from June
10, 2013 until April 2, 2015. Jose Luis Sanchez Cordero was employed by MasTec Services45
Co. from April 14, 2014 until January 23, 2015. During their employment, Levison and
Sanchez signed forms acknowledging receipt of the Respondents’ DRP.
JD–81–16
4
C. Class Action Lawsuits
5
On April 9, 2015, Sanchez and Mastec Services Co. employees Luiz Gomez-Montanez,
Alexis A. Warner and Brian Nazar, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a
collective action complaint against MasTec, Inc. and co-defendant AT&T Digital Life in United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the Sanchez FLSA Lawsuit). On May
22, 2015, MasTec, Inc. and AT&T Digital Life filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and 10
Alternative Motion to Dismiss with Memorandum of Law in Support. On July 27, 2015, the
District Court granted Respondents’ Motion to Compel Arbitration in the Sanchez FLSA
Lawsuit.
On or about June 30, 2015, Levison, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, 15
filed a lawsuit against Respondents in the Civil Division, Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial
Circuit in Hernando County, Florida (the Levison FLSA Lawsuit I). On or about July 7, 2015,
following removal of the Levison FLSA Lawsuit I to the District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, Levison and coworker Steven Salmons, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, filed an amended complaint against Respondent and DirecTV, Inc., in the United 20
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the Levison FLSA Lawsuit II).
On July 30, 2015, Levison and Salmons, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, filed a Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective Action and Facilitate Notice to
Potential Class Members and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in the Levison FLSA Lawsuit 25
II.
On July 31, 2015, August 4, 2015, and August 21, 2015, in response to the Levison
FLSA Lawsuit II, the Respondents filed motions to compel arbitration and memoranda in
support in the District Court for the Middle District of Florida. On August 25, 2015, the District 30
Court granted the Respondents’ Motion to Compel Arbitration in the Levison FLSA Lawsuit II,
concluding that the parties’ claims must proceed to arbitration.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
35
The issue in this case is whether the Respondents’ Dispute Resolution Policy violates
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act even though the policy includes an Opt-Out procedure for employees
who do not want to sign the DRP.
The General Counsel alleges that the administrative law judge is bound to follow extant 40
agency precedent in D. R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184 (2012). In that case, the Board held
that Section 7 creates a substantive right for employees to pursue collective action and, thus, a
required waiver of such right violates Section 8(a)(1) of the act. The General Counsel further
asserts that the enforcement of the class action waiver in the DRP constitutes additional
violations.45
JD–81–16
5
The Respondents contend that the DRP does not violate the Act because: (1) the Board
decision in D. R. Horton was overruled by the federal courts; (2) D. R. Horton was wrongly
decided and conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA); (3) an employee is not required
to sign the DRP as a condition of employment; (4) an employee may voluntarily exercise a
Section 7 right to “refrain” from concerted activity; and (5) Section 7 does not protect the 5
procedural right to participate in class or collective actions.
I. The Board Precedent in D. R. Horton, Inc. governs the DRP.
The Respondents maintain that the charging party cannot rely on Board decisions in D. 10
R. Horton and Murphy Oil that were reversed by the federal courts that upheld class action
waivers. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, 737 F.3d 344, 359-360 (5th Cir. 2013); Murphy Oil USA,
Inc. v. NLRB, 808 F.3d 1013, 1016 (5th Cir. 2015). In Murphy Oil, the Board affirmed the
holding in D. R. Horton and addressed the Fifth Circuit’s rejection of the Board’s decision by
reiterating its position that the Board is not required to follow their decisions in other cases. 15
Murphy Oil, 361 NLRB No.72, slip op. 2 fn. 17, citing Enloe Medical Center v. NLRB, 433
F.3d 834, 838 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
Only the Board or the Supreme Court can reverse extant Board precedent in D.R.
Horton and Murphy Oil. Waco, Inc., 273 NLRB 746, 749, fn. 14 (1984); Iowa Beef Packers, 20
Inc., 144 NLRB 615, 616-617 (1963), enf. granted in part, 331 F.2d 176 (1964). As such,
unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise, an administrative law judge is bound to
follow the Board’s controlling precedent finding class action waivers unlawful. See, e.g.,
Waco, Inc., 273 NLRB 746, 749 fn. 14 (1984); Pathmark Stores, 342 NLRB 378 n.1 (2004)
(finding that the administrative law judge has duty to apply established Board precedent which 25
the Supreme Court has not reversed); Chesapeake Energy Corp., 362 NLRB No. 80 (2015)
(rejecting the administrative law judge’s deference of the Act to the FAA and finding that
arbitration policies violated Section 8(a)(1)).
Moreover, the federal courts diverge in their opinions regarding the issue. The Seventh 30
Circuit recently agreed with the Board’s decision in D.R. Horton and deferred to the Board’s
interpretation of Sections 7 and 8 as prohibiting employers from requiring employees to
refrain from pursuing class action remedies. Lewis v. Epic Sys. Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir.
2016). Deference to the Board’s interpretation of the Act is neither a novel nor new concept,
even at the Supreme Court. See, e.g., Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U.S. 527, 536 (1992). 35
The Supreme Court has not overturned Board precedent in D. R. Horton and Murphy
Oil holding that class action waivers in arbitration agreements restricting the right of
employees to engage in concerted activity are unlawful. Therefore, D. R. Horton remains
controlling Board law. Manor West, Inc., 311 NLRB 655, 667 fn. 43 (1993). 40
II. D. R. Horton, Inc. was not wrongly decided.
The Respondents further contend that the Board’s decision in D. R. Horton was wrongly
decided because it fails to accommodate Congress’s policies advanced in the FAA, citing AT&T 45
Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) and CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 132
S.Ct. 665 (2012).
JD–81–16
6
The General Counsel argues that the D. R. Horton Board noted that Concepcion was
decided in the context of a commercial arbitration agreement and the preemption of a state
consumer protection law, not employees’ substantive, federal collective action rights under
Section 7 of the Act. 357 NLRB at 2288. The D. R. Horton Board explained that its holding did5
not conflict with the FAA because the intent of the FAA was to leave substantive rights
undisturbed and that the right to join or pursue collective relief was a substantive Section 7 right.
In Murphy Oil, the Board rejected the Fifth Circuit’s reliance on AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion,
131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), which held that the FAA preempted a California State law finding class-
action waivers in consumer contracts unconscionable. Murphy Oil, supra, slip op. at 9. 10
In any event, regardless as to whether the Board precedent was wrongly decided, an
administrative law judge is bound to follow applicable Board law. Chesapeake Energy Corp.
supra.
15
III. Respondents’ Voluntary DRP restricts Section 7 rights and violates the Act.
The Respondents allege that the Board’s decision in D.R. Horton is not applicable to
Mastec’s DRP because that decision only applies to mandatory class waivers, “imposed upon”
employees and “required” by employers “as a condition of employment.” 357 NLRB, supra, 20
slip op. at 1. The Respondents argue that the DRP is voluntary and not required as a condition
of employment. The charging parties signed the DRP and did not voluntarily opt out of the
DRP within 30 days of receiving the DRP.
However, recent Board decisions have further construed D. R. Horton to extend to 25
arbitration agreements that are voluntary. See On Assignment Staffing Services, 362 NLRB No.
189, slip op. at 10 (2015). Furthermore, whether the ADR policy was mandatory or voluntary
is not dispositive of whether such policy violates the Act. On Assignment Staffing Services,
supra, slip. op. at 6 (finding the arbitration policy violated the Act even if employees could opt
out of arbitration.); Nijjar Realty, Inc., d/b/a Pama Management, 363 NLRB No. 38, slip op. at 30
2 (2015) (rejecting the employer's assertion that the opt-out provision of its arbitration
agreement made the agreement lawful); U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., 363 NLRB No. 46, slip
op. at 1-2 (2015) (same).
The Respondents refer to the fact that On Assignment Staffing Services was summarily 35
reversed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On Assignment Staffing Services, Inc. v. NLRB,
No. 15-60642 (June 6, 2015). The Respondents also cite Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s,
Inc., 755 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2014), where the Ninth Circuit held that an arbitration agreement
with an opt-out clause did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. However, as discussed above,
the Board is not bound to follow conflicting federal courts decisions, unless reversed by itself 40
or the Supreme Court.
In On Assignment Staffing Services, the Board held that voluntary agreements are
“contrary to the National Labor Relations Act and to fundamental principles of federal labor
policy.” Supra, slip op. at 7. The Board found that the opt-out procedure interferes with 45
Section 7 rights by requiring employees to take affirmative steps and burdens the exercise of
Section 7 rights. A policy requiring employees to obtain their employer’s permission to engage
JD–81–16
7
in protected concerted activity is unlawful, even if the rule does not absolutely prohibit such
activity and regardless of whether the rule is actually enforced. Chromalloy Gas Turbine
Corp., 331 NLRB 858, 858–859 (2000), enfd. 262 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2001); Brunswick Corp.,
282 NLRB 794, 794–795 (1987). The Board also found that the Respondent’s opt-out
procedure interferes with Section 7 rights because it requires employees who wish to retain 5
their right to pursue class or collective claims to “make ‘an observable choice that
demonstrates their support for or rejection of’” concerted activity. On Assignment Staffing
Services, supra, slip op. at 6, citing Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 333 NLRB 734, 740 (2001), enfd.
301 F.3d 167 (3d Cir. 2002). Similarly, MasTec’s opt-out procedure forces employees to
reveal their attitudes concerning Section 7 rights.10
Applying Board precedent to this case, the Respondent’s DRP violates the Act.
Although the DRP has an opt-out provision, employees have to take affirmative steps to opt
out in order to exercise Section 7 rights. Employees who want to opt out are required to obtain
an Opt-Out form from the Legal Department, and sign and return it within thirty days of 15
receipt of the policy. The Respondents argue that the supervisors or managers of employees
who elect to opt out would not know which employees opted out. The Respondents further
allege that the test to determine interference, restraint, or coercion under Section 8(a)(1) is an
objective one and, thus, not dependent on an employee’s subjective interpretation of a
statement. Miami Systems Corp., 320 NLRB 71 n.4. The Board in Miami Systems Corp. did 20
not rely on an employee’s subjective interpretation of a manager’s statement to eliminate the
shift, instead concluding that the threat to eliminate the shift violated of the Act. Here, Mastec
employee’s subjective interpretation of the DRP is not applicable. It is reasonable to expect
that employees would not be inclined to affirmatively opt out of the DRP over concern of
standing out as an employee who rejected the employer’s request that they waive their Section 25
7 rights.
The stand-alone DRP includes the same language that was already found to have violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in the employee handbook version of the DRP in MasTec Services Co.,
363 NLRB No. 81 (2015), enf. denied No. 16-60011 (per curiam) (5th Cir. July 11, 2016). 30
IV. Employees’ signing DRP is not the same as refraining from concerted activity.
The Respondents also assert that the DRP is lawful because employees can exercise
their right to “refrain” from concerted activity. Lee v. National Labor Relations Board, 393 35
F.3d 491, 494-95 (4th Cir. 2005); BE & K Constr. Co. v. NLRB, 23 F.3d 1459, 1462 (8th Cir.
1994) (holding that the right to refrain from joining or assisting a union is an equally protected
right with that of joining or forming a union).
It is true that federal courts and the Board have recognized the employee’s right to 40
waive statutorily protected rights. However, the Board already rejected the argument that an
opt-out provision affords employees the power to enter into a class waiver, or refrain from
doing so. MasTec Services Co., 363 NLRB No. 81 (2015), enf. denied No. 16-60011 (per
curiam) (5th Cir. July 11, 2016).
45
To further support its proposition regarding the right to refrain from concerted activity,
the Respondents rely on Ace Hardware Corp., 271 NLRB 1174, 1174 (1984) and Perkins
JD–81–16
8
Machine Co., 141 NLRB 697, 700. In Ace Hardware Corp., however, the circumstances were
different because the Board held that employer did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
informing employees how to cancel their checkoff authorizations and offering assistance in
doing so. In Perkins Machine Co., the employer acted lawfully in bringing to the attention of
its employees their contractual right to resign from the union and revoke their dues deduction. 5
As discussed above, the Board has held that even the voluntary nature of a class action
waiver restricts the Section 7 rights of employees. The Respondents’ employees must take
affirmative measures to opt out of the waiver, while in Ace Hardware Corp. and Perkins
Machine Co. the employer informed the employees that they can revoke their authorization10
and opt out of union dues deductions.
V. Respondents’ Motions to Compel Arbitration Violate the Act.
The Respondents filed a motion to compel arbitration and constrain the Charging Party15
from pursuing their lawsuits in court. The district court granted the Respondents’ motion to
compel arbitration in the lawsuit.
The General Counsel asserts that the Respondents’ successful motions to enforce the
DRP against Sanchez, Levison and other employees who joined the lawsuits, constitute 20
separation violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Board has held that filing a motion to
dismiss the class action and compel arbitration further violated Section 8(a)(1) as enforcement of
an unlawful mandatory arbitration agreement. Murphy Oil, supra at slip op. 27. The Respondents
rely on the aforementioned arguments that the DRPs are lawful as the basis for arguing that a
district court should compel employees to arbitrate their claims. 25
Here, the Respondents insist that the right to engage in class or collective action is not a
protected, concerted activity under Section 7 of the Act. The Respondents refer to the voluntary
nature of the DRP in support of their contention that MasTec did not interfere with, restrain or
coerce the Charging Parties in making their choice to opt out of the right to participate in class or 30
collective actions. Board precedent, however, holds otherwise and the Respondent’s motions to
compel arbitration in the district court violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
35
1. Respondents MasTec, Inc. and MasTec Services Co. are employers engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Since February 1, 2013, the Respondents have violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
maintaining and enforcing a Dispute Resolution Policy requiring employees to resolve 40
employment-related disputes exclusively through individual arbitration, and forego any right
they have to resolve such disputes through class or collective action.
3. The aforementioned unfair labor practices affected commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 45
JD–81–16
9
REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have violated the Act by maintaining and enforcing the 5
Dispute Resolution Policy, I shall order them to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended 310
ORDER
The Respondents, Mastec, Inc. and MasTec Services Co., their officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall 15
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining and enforcing its Dispute Resolution Policy.
20
(b) Seeking court action to enforce the Dispute Resolution Policy that, either
expressly or impliedly, or by Respondent’s actions or practice, waives the right to
maintain class or collective actions in all forums, whether arbitral or judicial.
(c) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining or coercing employees25
in the exercise of their 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 Dispute Resolution Policy to make it clear to employees that 30
the agreement does not constitute a waiver of their right to maintain employment
related class or collective actions in all forums.
(b) Notify all employees at locations where the Policy is in effect, that it will no
longer maintain or enforce the provisions contained in the Dispute Resolution 35
Policy referred to in the employee handbook that waives employees’ right to bring
or participate in class or collective actions.
(c) Notify arbitral or judicial panels, if any, where the Respondents have attempted to
enjoin or otherwise prohibit employees from bringing or participating in class or 40
collective actions, that it is withdrawing those objections and that it no longer
objects to such employee actions.

3 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings,
conclusions and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD–81–16
10
(d) Reimburse the charging parties and/or other employees who joined Civil Case No.
6:15-cv-00572-GAP-KRS and Case No. 8:15-cv-1547-RAL-AEP for any
litigation expenses: (i) directly related to opposing Respondent’s Motion to
Compel; and/or (ii) resulting from any other legal action taken in response to
Respondent’s efforts to enforce the arbitration agreement. 5
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at all facilities where the Dispute
Resolution Policy is maintained or enforced, copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix”4 in both English and Spanish. Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 12, after being signed by the 10
Respondents' authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondents and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical
posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by
email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if 15
the Respondents customarily communicates with its employees and former
employees by such means. Respondents also shall duplicate and mail, at their own
expenses, a copy of the notice to all former employees who were required to sign
the mandatory and binding arbitration policy during their employment with the
Respondent. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to ensure that 20
the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondents have gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondents
shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current
employees and former employees employed by the Respondents at any time since 25
February 1, 2013.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondents have taken to comply.30
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 31, 2016
________________________________35
Michael A. Rosas
Administrative Law Judge
40

4 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.”
e?-
JD–81–16
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 maintain or enforce the Dispute Resolution Policy referred to in the Employees’
Handbook as far as it prohibits you from bringing or participating in class or collective actions in
all forums, whether judicial or arbitral.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce you in the
exercise of your exercise of rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind or revise the Dispute Resolution Policy from our Employee Handbook.
WE WILL notify any arbitral or judicial panel where we have attempted to prevent or enjoin you
from commencing, or participating in, joint or class actions that we are withdrawing our
objections to these actions.
WE WILL notify employees of the rescinded or revised agreement, including providing them
with a copy of the revised agreement or specific notification that the agreement has been
rescinded.
MasTec, Inc. and MasTec Services Co.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
JD–81–16
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.
South Trust Plaza, 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Ste 530, Tampa, FL 33602-5824
(813) 228-2641, Hours: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/12-CA-153478 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, (813) 228-2455.