Page:Cordúa Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB (19-60630) (2021) Opinion.pdf/7

 On May 31, 2016, the NLRB’s General Counsel issued a final consolidated complaint, alleging various violations of the NLRA by Cordúa.

The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) held a five-day evidentiary hearing June 27 through July 1, 2016. On December 9, 2016, the ALJ issued a decision and order, finding that Cordúa violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by maintaining an overbroad no-solicitation rule and by firing Ramirez for engaging in protected activities within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act.

On April 26, 2018, the Board issued a decision and order affirming in part the ALJ’s recommended findings. The Board affirmed the ALJ’s finding that Cordúa violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by firing Ramirez for engaging in protected activities. The Board severed the no-solicitation rule allegation from the case and retained it for future resolution. On August 14, 2019, the Board issued a supplemental decision and order unanimously affirming the ALJ’s finding that Cordúa violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by firing Ramirez for engaging in protected activities. The Board also unanimously adopted the ALJ’s finding that Cordúa further violated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining an overbroad no-solicitation rule.

As to the no-solicitation policy, the Board ordered Cordúa to rescind its no-solicitation rule, provide employees with supplemental handbook inserts, and post a remedial notice to employees at its restaurants and electronically. As to Cordúa’s firing of Ramirez, the Board ordered Cordúa