Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Aug 18, 2015

12-CA-145083 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 18, 2015)

JD(NY)-37-15
Tampa, FL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
f/k/a SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AMERICA, LLC
and Case No. 12–CA–145083
JORGIE FRANKS, An Individual
Caroline Leonard, Esq. and Christopher Zerby, Esq.,
for the General Counsel.
Mark Zelek, Esq. and Derek Dilberian, Esq.,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Counsel for the Respondent.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Joel P. Biblowitz, Administrative Law Judge. This case was heard by me on June 29,
2015, in Tampa, Florida. The complaint herein, which issued on April 29, 2015, was based on
an unfair labor practice charge and a first and second amended charge that were filed on January
26, February 12 and March 10, 2015, by Jorgie Franks, an individual. The complaint alleges that
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., f/k/a Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, (the
Respondent), since on about January 18, 2013, has maintained a "Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate
Claims," (the Agreement), which employees are required to sign as a condition of employment,
which stated that neither the Respondent nor the employees could initiate or prosecute any
lawsuit against the other, nor could they arbitrate any action, as a class action. In other words,
neither the employee nor the employer could litigate any action against the other in any way
other than by an individual arbitration. The complaint also alleges that on about September 3,
2014,1 the Respondent, by Sandra Sanchez, its Human Resources Business Partner, and an
admitted agent of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act, instructed
employees not to talk to other employees about a lawsuit or potential lawsuit related to
compensation and working conditions, and interrogated employees about their concerted
activities, and on about October 7 Sanchez, by email, interrogated employees about their
concerted activities.
The complaint further alleges that on about November 13, Franks and other employees
"engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid and protection" by filing a
nationwide collective action complaint and demand for a jury trial against the Respondent, later
joined by Respondent's employee Natalie Flores, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standard

1 Unless indicated otherwise, all dates referred to here relate to the year 2014.
JDNY)–37–15
2
Act, and that on various dates starting on about December 11, Respondent demanded that the
employees participating in the lawsuit withdraw the lawsuit and on about January 9, 2015,
Respondent filed a defendant's motion to dismiss and compel mediation/arbitration. It is alleged
that by this conduct the Respondent interfered with, restrained and coerced employees in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent admits, and I find, that it has been an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.10
II. THE FACTS
Since about January 18, 2013, the Respondent has required employees to sign the 10
Agreement as a condition of employment. It is alleged that on about September 3, Sanchez15
instructed employees not to talk to other employees about a lawsuit or potential lawsuit related to
compensation and working conditions. Franks testified that in about July and August she spoke
to other employees and asked them if they thought that they were working too many hours
compared to what they were being paid for and, if so, would they be interested in joining her in a
lawsuit against the Respondent. She also testified that on one occasion she attended a meeting of 20
employees that was presided over by Sanchez. Prior to the meeting her manager told her and the
others attending "to be on our best behavior and don't... cause any problems." Sanchez spoke of
the Respondent's policies and what qualities they looked for in selecting people for promotions.
When she asked if there were any questions, Franks asked what a typical day was like because it
felt like she was working more than 40 hours a week, and Sanchez said that Samsung was a great 25
company and that they should be happy working there. Although she felt that Sanchez had not
answered her question, she did not pursue it further because of what her manager had said.
Franks testified further that on September 3, Sanchez called her and she missed the call
so she called Sanchez, who asked her how work was going for her. Franks testified that she was 30
nervous and tried to be vague in her responses and Sanchez said, "before you jump off the phone,
let me talk to you about the real i sue, why I called. I received a complaint from one of your
coworkers about a lawsuit. .they felt very uncomfortable with that conversation, is there
anything you would like to me [sic] about now?" Franks said no and Sanchez then said: "We
really don't want you calling or reaching out to your coworkers to discuss these types of things." 35
Franks replied that she talks to coworkers about a lot of subjects and Sanchez replied that she
made the others very uncomfortable and if she had any concerns or questions, she should go
directly to her. On cross examination she was asked if Sanchez told her that she should not talk
about the lawsuit and she answered "no." After this conversation, Franks called one of her
coworkers and told her what Sanchez had said.40
Sanchez is the HR Business Partner for the Respondent and, prior to her employment
with the Respondent, was employed by Verizon, which has unionized employees, and McAfee,
which does not; she testified that she is aware of the concept of protected concerted activities.
Sometime in about August, she was told by David Daugherty, a Regional Manager for the 45
Respondent, that Eric Maddox, one of his managers told him that one of his employees was
JDNY)–37–15
3
uncomfortable regarding a conversation with Franks about a potential lawsuit that she was
asking other employees to join. On that day or the next day she called Franks:
I said that I just wanted to share with you that I've gotten some feedback that a
conversation that you're having with some peers is making them uncomfortable regarding 5
some issues of a potential lawsuit. And she said that's not true, I'm not talking to anyone.
I never asked her specifically if she made the comment or not. I just said, That's okay, I
mean, you can talk to whoever you like… I wanted to make you aware that there were
people that are uncomfortable with that conversation, just to share it with you. And she
said, you know, I probably have vented, just normal ups and downs. And I said, "yeah, I 10
do it too, so it's fine."
That was the extent of the conversation and she testified that she did not tell Franks not to
discuss lawsuits with other employees or interrogate her about the lawsuit. In about early
October an HR administrator told her that an employee complained that at a training conference 15
Franks "reached out to him regarding a lawsuit" and he was uncomfortable about it. On October
7 Sanchez sent an email to Franks, stating:
As you are aware, you and I spoke on September 3, 2014. In this conversation, you told
me that you had no issues with Samsung and whatever conversations that you were20
having with your peers was simply normal "venting between peers." You also stated in
that same conversation that you have not make [sic] any comments regarding a lawsuit or
charge against Samsung and that you "loved working for Samsung."
We recently received a separate phone call from one of the FSMs in the Southeast region 25
stating that you had approached him about "a lawsuit you had filed with an attorney about
Samsung" during the regional training the week of September 8, 2014 which was after
our conversation noted above.
Has anything changed since our September 3rd conversation? I would like to reiterate 30
again that you can always reach out directly to me with any issues/concerns.
Franks responded by email on the following day that she was not comfortable speaking
about it, and that if Sanchez had any questions, she should call Franks' attorney.
35
Jamie Youngman has been employed by the Respondent since October 2012, and has
known Franks since about that time. She met her at a convention when she first began her
employment with the Respondent and has communicated with her on Facebook since that time,
generally about social issues and children, but also occasionally about work issues, like the
company getting stricter with "slackers" and their work hours. During one conversation, Franks 40
asked for her telephone number and she gave it to her and Franks called in the evening on
August 30. After some casual conversation, Franks said that she spoke to her boyfriend and they
determined that with the hours that she was working, she was being paid minimum wage. She
said that she had contacted a lawyer who agreed to take her case, "I've given them a list of names
and.. I'm reaching out to you to see if you will take part in this case." Youngman testified: "And I 45
said no, no, no, no, no… don't give them my name, call them back, tell them I don't want on this
list, I don't want any ..part in this, like I'm fine. My retail hours, my hours, it's all been fine to
JDNY)–37–15
4
me. Like I love it where I'm at and the way that it is." Because she was "panic- stricken" she
immediately called Eric Maddox, her District Manager, and told him of Franks ‘phone call, that
Franks wanted to file a lawsuit against the company, and that Franks gave her name to the
lawyers. Youngman told him that she wanted the company to know that she didn't want to be on
the list and didn't want to be affiliated with it. When she didn't hear back from Maddox, she 5
called Sanchez about a week later, on September 8. She told her that Franks spoke to her about
filing a lawsuit against the company and that she didn't want to be a part of it, and she asked
Sanchez if she should unfriend Franks on Facebook and Sanchez asked if they were friends on
Facebook and she said that they were. Sanchez said that if she was comfortable with her being
her friend, then she shouldn't unfriend her.10
The parties stipulated to the following:
From at least January 13, 2013, until at least January 2015, Respondent STA managers
required newly hired employees to sign a California or non-California version of a 15
Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims (the Agreement) as a condition of employment.
From at least January 13, 2013, until at least January 2015, Agreements have been signed
by Respondent STA's newly hired employees at Respondent's locations within: the
United States and its territories, including locations in 49 states, and since January 2015.
Respondent has continued to maintain these signed Agreements.20
At all material times, the non-California and California versions of the Agreement have
each included the following provision:
CLAIMS COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT25
Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, both the Company and I agree that
neither of us shall initiate or prosecute any lawsuit or administrative action (other than an
administrative charge of discrimination to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission or a similar fair employment practices agency or an administrative charge
within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board) in any way related to any 30
claim covered by this Agreement. Moreover,
there will be no right or authority for any dispute to be brought, heard or arbitrated as a
class action (including without limitation opt out class actions or opt in collective class
actions) or in a representative capacity on behalf of a class of persons or the general
public.35
In January 2013, Respondent hired Scott Faia (Faia) as a Field Sales Manager in
California. Faia worked in that position from on or about January 18, 2013 until June 14,
2013.
40
In January 2013, Respondent hired Natalie Flores (Flores) as a Field Sales Manager in
California. Flores worked in that position from on or about January 21, 2013 until August
23, 2013.
In January 2013, Respondent hired Amberlee Milliken (Milliken) as a Field Sales 45
Manager in Texas. Milliken worked in that position from on or about January 21, 2013
until December 6, 2013.
JDNY)–37–15
5
In January 2013, Respondent hired Richard Ojeh (Ojeh) as a Field Sales Manager in
California. Ojeh worked in that position from on or about January 23, 2013, until August
26, 2014.
In January 2013, Respondent hired John Sinopoli (Sinopoli) as a Field Sales Manager in 5
New York. Sinopoli worked in that position from on or about January 21, 2013 until
September 18, 2013.
On or about November 13, 2014 Charging Party as lead plaintiff and Faia Milliken and
Ojeh, as opt-in plaintiffs, filed the "Nationwide Collective Action Complaint and 10
Demand for Jury Trial" (the Complaint) in the United States District Court Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division, (Jorgie Franks. et al. v. Samsung
Telecommunications America. LLC, hereinafter referred to as "the Lawsuit") along with
a "Notice of Filing Notice of Consent to Join" and "Notice of Consent to Join" signed by
the Charging Party. A "Notice of Consent to Join" and "Consent to Join Collective 15
Action and Be Represented by Morgan and Morgan P.A." was filed on behalf of Richard
Ojeh on November 20, 2014. A "Notice of Consent to Join" and "Consent to Join
Collective Action and Be Represented by Morgan and Morgan, P.A." was filed on behalf
of Amberlee Milliken on November 25, 2014. A "Notice of Consent to Join" and
"Consent to Join Collective Action and Be Represented by Morgan and Morgan, P.A." 20
was filed on behalf of Scott Faia on December 2, 2014. The Complaint alleges that
Respondent violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq by
failing to pay overtime wages to the Charging Party and other, similarly-situated Field
Sales Managers employed by Respondent, including Faia, Milliken, and Ojeh, and by
failing to maintain adequate records.25
On or about December 11, 2014, Natalie Flores (Flores) filed a "Consent to Join
Collective Action and Be Represented by Morgan and Morgan P.A." and a "Notice of
Filing Notice of Consent to Join" the Lawsuit.
30
On or about December 11, 2014, in a letter from Respondent counsel Mark E. Zelek
(Zelek) of Morgan Lewis & Beckius LLP to the Charging Party counsel Andrew R.
Frisch (Frisch) of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., dated December 11, 2014, also served on or
about December 11, 2014 at 6:24p.m. as an attachment to an electronic mail message
from Respondent counsel Derek J. Dilberian, Esq. of Morgan Lewis & Beckius LLP to 35
the Charging Party counsel Frisch, Respondent demanded that the Complaint be
withdrawn, and that the plaintiffs in the Lawsuit individually mediate and/or arbitrate
their claims, because the Charging Party and the opt-in plaintiffs had signed copies of the
Agreement.
40
On or about December 15, 2014, at 10:24 a.m., in an electronic mail message from
Respondent's counsel Zelek to Charging Party counsel Frisch, Respondent requested a
response to its letter of December 11, 2014.
On or about December 16, 2014, the Complaint was amended to name Flores as the lead 45
plaintiff, with the Charging Party remaining a party to the action as an opt-in plaintiff.
JDNY)–37–15
6
The caption of the Lawsuit was changed to Natalie Flores. et al. v. Samsung
Telecommunications America, LLC.
On or about December 16, 2014, Sinopoli filed a "Consent to Join Collective Action and
Be Represented by Morgan and Morgan, P.A." and "Notice of Filing Notice of Consent 5
to Join" the Lawsuit.
On or about December 17, 2014, in a letter from Respondent counsel Zelek to Charging
Party counsel Frisch, dated December 17, 2014, Respondent demanded that the Amended
Complaint be withdrawn and that the parties individually mediate and/or arbitrate their 10
claims, because Flores and the opt-in plaintiffs, including Charging Party, had signed
copies of the Agreement.
On or about December 22, 2014 at 12:18 p.m., in an electronic mail message from
Charging Party counsel Frisch to Respondent counsel Zelek, the Charging Party replied 15
to Respondent's letters of December 11 and December 17, 2014.
On or about December 29, 2014, at 4:19p.m., in an electronic mail message from
Respondent counsel Zelek to Charging Party counsel Frisch dated December 29, 2014,
Respondent replied to the Charging Party's electronic mail message of December 22, 20
2014.
On or about December 29,2014, at 6.05 p.m., in an electronic mail message from
Charging Party counsel Frisch to Respondent counsel Zelek, the Charging Party replied
to Respondent's electronic mail message of December 29, 2014.25
On or about December 31, 2014, at 10:56 a.m., by electronic mail message from
Respondent counsel Zelek to Charging Party counsel Frisch, dated December 31, 2014,
Respondent replied to the Charging Party's electronic mail message of December 29,
2014, and reasserted that the parties must individually mediate and/or arbitrate their 30
claims, because Flores and the opt-in plaintiffs, including charging party, had signed
copies of the Agreement.
On or about January 9, 2015, Respondent filed "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and
Compel Mediation/Arbitration, with Incorporated Memorandum of Law" (Respondent's35
Motion) in the Lawsuit.
On or about January 27, 2015, Natalie Flores stipulated to the dismissal of the Lawsuit
without prejudice.
40
III. ANALYSIS
The initial issue is whether the Respondent's Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims,
which Respondent's newly hired employees have been required to sign since about January 13,
2013, violates the Act. Although the Courts have rejected the Board's reasoning in Horton and 45
later cases, as I am required to follow Board law unless, and until, reversed by the Supreme
Court, I find that pursuant to Board law, it clearly does. The Board's decision in D. R. Horton,
JDNY)–37–15
7
Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184 (2004), applied the test as set forth in Lutheran Heritage Village,
Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004) that if the rule explicitly restricts Section 7 activities, it is
unlawful. If not, a violation is dependent upon showing one of the following: the rule has been
applied to restrict the exercise of those activities or employees would reasonably construe the
rule to prohibit protected activity. In finding a violation in Horton, supra, the Board stated (slip 5
opinion at p. 12): "employers may not compel employees to waive their NLRA right to
collectively pursue litigation of employment claims in all forums arbitral and judicial" as a
condition of employment. Although the Agreement specifically excludes from its coverage
claims before the Board and the EEOC, the Board's findings in Horton were not based solely
upon the fact that the employees were precluded from filing charges with the Board; rather, it 10
was because the employees were limited to individual arbitrations, rather than any collective
action. If there was any doubt about this issue, there could be none after the Board's decisions in
Murphy Oil, USA, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 72 (2014) and Cellular Sales of Missouri, L.L.C., 362
NLRB No. 27 (2015). Murphy Oil stated (at slip opinion at p. 2) "To be clear, the NLRA does
not create a right to class certification or the equivalent, but as the D. R. Horton Board explained, 15
it does create a right to pursue joint, class or collective claims if and as available, without the
interference of an employer-imposed restraint." As the Respondent's rule restricts the employees'
right to pursue joint, class or collective action, even while permitting Board charges, it violates
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
20
The parties stipulated that on about December 11,17, and 31 counsel for the Respondent
wrote to counsel for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit demanding that the complaint be withdrawn and
that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit individually mediate and/or arbitrate their claims because they
had signed the Agreement. In addition, on about January 9, 2015, counsel for the Respondent
filed "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Compel Mediation/Arbitration with Incorporated 25
Memorandum of Law," seeking to have the plaintiffs lawsuit dismissed. In Cellular Sales, supra,
(at slip opinion, p. 2), with similar language in Murphy Oil, supra, (at slip opinion p. 2), the
Board stated: "It is equally well established that an employer's enforcement of an unlawful rule,
including a mandatory arbitration policy like the one at issue here, independently violates
Section 8(a)(1)." By writing to their counsel demanding that the plaintiffs withdraw their lawsuit,30
and by filing a motion to dismiss it, the Respondent further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The remaining allegations relate to Sanchez' conversation with Franks on September 3,
and her email to her on October 7. It is alleged that in the September 3 conversation, Sanchez
instructed Franks not to discuss the lawsuit with other employees and interrogated her regarding 35
her concerted activities, the lawsuit. Franks testified that Sanchez told her that there was a
complaint from a coworker who felt uncomfortable about a conversation Franks had with the
employee about the lawsuit and then asked Franks if there was anything that she would like to
ask her, and Franks answered no. Sanchez then said that they didn't want her reaching out or
calling other employees "to discuss these types of things," although when asked if Sanchez told 40
her that she should not talk about the lawsuit, she answered no. When Franks replied that she
speaks to her coworkers about a lot of subjects, Sanchez answered that she made them
uncomfortable and if she had any concerns or questions, she should come directly to her.
Sanchez, on the other hand, testified that she told Franks that a conversation that she had with
some peers about a potential lawsuit made them uncomfortable, and when Franks denied it, she 45
told her that she could talk to anyone that she liked, but that she, Sanchez, wanted her to be
aware that some people were uncomfortable with the conversation. This is a difficult
JDNY)–37–15
8
credibility determination as neither Franks nor Sanchez was clearly more credible than the other.
With such a close issue it is necessary to examine all the facts, even subsequent facts, and I note
that Sanchez' October 7 email to Franks states only that after their September 3 conversation,
another employee called to state that Franks had approached him about her lawsuit; however, the
email does not state that he said that he felt uncomfortable about the conversation and, yet, 5
Sanchez asked: "Has anything changed since our September 3 conversation?" The inference is
that Sanchez was asking her why she did not follow her request that she not discuss the lawsuit
with other employees, and I so find. I therefore credit Franks and find that Sanchez told her that
they really didn't want her speaking to other employees "to discuss these types of things." This is
an indirect way of telling her not to talk to other employees about the lawsuit, and I therefore 10
find that it violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
It is further alleged that Sanchez interrogated her in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by asking her in that conversation if there was anything that she wanted to talk to her about
and by stating in her October 7 email: "Has anything changed since our September 3rd 15
conversation?" The test for determining whether an employer's interrogation of an employee
violates the Act is whether, under the circumstances, it would reasonably tend to restrain or
interfere with the employees' exercise of the rights guaranteed them by the Act. Relevant factors
to be considered include the background leading to the interrogation, the nature of the
information sought and the identity of the questioner. United Services Automobile Association, 20
340 NLRB 784, 786 (2003); Stevens Creek Chrysler Jeep Dodge, Inc., 353 NLRB 1294, 1295
(2009). I find that Sanchez' question to Franks on September 3 whether there was anything that
she wanted to talk to her about, does not violate the Act. Sanchez was already aware that she was
speaking to other employees about the lawsuit so the question was not meant to elicit any
information that could be used against her and would not reasonably restrain her in continuing to 25
solicit other employees to join her in a lawsuit. I therefore find that this question in the
September 3 conversation did not violate the Act.
As for the October 7 email, the initial paragraph of the email summarizes their September
3 conversation (as she testified about it), while the paragraph following states that she received a 30
phone call from an employee saying that Franks had approached him about a lawsuit that she had
filed against the company. The final paragraph, allegedly the unlawful one, states: "Has anything
changed since our September 3rd conversation? I would like to reiterate again that you can
always reach out directly to me with any issues/concerns." This email served as a follow-up to
their September 3 conversation where Sanchez told Franks that some of her fellow employees 35
felt uncomfortable about her soliciting them to join her lawsuit. After receiving a call from
Youngman or another employee saying that he/she felt uncomfortable about a call from Franks
about joining her lawsuit, she asked Franks if anything had changed since the September 3
telephone call and that she could always speak to her about concerns or issues that she had. As
this email was in response to a call that she had received complaining about Frank's solicitations, 40
contained no threats or promises of benefit, and would not tend to interfere with Franks' right to
maintain the lawsuit, I find that it does not violate the Act and recommend that it be dismissed.
Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984); Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, 361 NLRB No.
12 (2014).
JDNY)–37–15
9
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
5
2. By maintaining a mandatory arbitration agreement and/or enforcing a mandatory
arbitration agreement under which employees are compelled, as a condition of employment, to
waive the right to maintain class or collective actions in all forums, whether arbitral or judicial,
and by telling employees not to discuss their lawsuit with other employees, the Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of 10
the Act.
3. It is recommended that the allegations that the Respondent, by Sanchez, violated the
Act by interrogating Franks in their September 3 telephone conversation, and in her October 7
email to Franks, be dismissed.15
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
recommend that it be ordered it to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action 20
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Consistent with the Board's usual practice in cases
involving unlawful litigation, I recommend that the Respondent be ordered to reimburse the
plaintiffs for all reasonable expenses and legal fees, with interest2 incurred in opposing the
Respondent's unlawful motion to dismiss their collective FLSA action and compel individual
arbitration. I also recommend that the Respondent be ordered to rescind or revise the Agreement, 25
and to notify employees that it has done so. As Flores stipulated to the dismissal of the lawsuit,
there is no need to inform the district court that it no longer opposes the plaintiffs' claims on the
basis of the Agreement.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law and based upon the entire record, 30
I hereby issued the following recommended3
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).
35
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.

2 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).
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.
JDNY)–37–15
10
ORDER
Respondent, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., f/k/a Samsung Telecommunications
America, LLC, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
5
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Maintaining and/or enforcing a mandatory arbitration agreement that requires
employees, as a condition of employment, to waive the right to maintain class or collective
actions in all forums, whether arbitral or judicial.10
(b) Telling employees not to discuss their lawsuits with other employees.
(c) 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.15
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind or revise the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims in all of its forms, to
make clear to employees that it does not constitute a waiver of their right to maintain 20
employment related joint, class, .or collective actions in all forums.
(b) Notify all applicants and current and former employees who were required to sign the
Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims that it has been rescinded or revised and, if revised,
provide them a copy of the revised agreement.25
(c) In the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision, reimburse the plaintiffs
for any reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses that they may have incurred in
opposing the Respondent's motion to dismiss their wage claims and compel individual
arbitration.30
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at each of its facilities in the United
States, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by either the Regional Director for Region 12, after being signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive 35
days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to 40
all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
January 18, 2013.
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region
12, a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to 45
the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that allegations not specifically found are hereby
dismissed.
Dated, Washington, D.C., August 18, 2015
5
10
11
_________________________
Joel P. Biblowitz
Administrative Law Judge
JDNY)–37–15
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 activities77
WE WILL NOT maintain and/or enforce a mandatory arbitration agreement that requires you,
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 tell you not to discuss your lawsuits with other employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL rescind the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims (Agreement) or revise it to make
clear that it does not constitute a waiver of your right to maintain employment-related joint,
class, or collective actions in all forums and WE WILL notify all applicants and current and
former employees who were required to sign the Agreement that it has been rescinded or revised
and, if revised, provide them with a copy of the revised agreement
WE WILL notify Natalie Flores and her fellow employees who filed their wage claim in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division that we have
rescinded or revised the mandatory arbitration agreements upon which we based our motion to
dismiss their claim and to compel individual arbitration, and WE WILL reimburse Flores and her
fellow employees for any reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses that they may have
incurred in opposing our motion to dismiss their wage claims and compel individual arbitration.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
f/k/a SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
(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.
201 East Kennedy Boulevard, South Trust Plaza, Suite 50
Tampa, Florida 33602-5824
Hours: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
813-228-2641.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/12-CA-145083 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, 813-228-2662.