Ambassador Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 14-15341 (11th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-15341 Date Filed: 11/12/2015 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-15341 Agency No. 12-CA-26758 AMBASSADOR SERVICES, INC., Petitioner-Cross-Respondent, versus NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent-Cross-Petitioner. Petitions for Review of a Decision of the National Labor Relations Board (November 12, 2015) Before HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and MARTINEZ, * District Judge. PER CURIAM: * Honorable Jose E. Martinez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation. Case: 14-15341 Date Filed: 11/12/2015 Page: 2 of 2 Ambassador Services, Inc. (“Ambassador”) petitions this Court for review of the National Labor Relations Board’s Decision and Order, which found Ambassador in violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the “NLRA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1), (5). The Board crosspetitions for enforcement of its order. On appeal, Ambassador claims that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s decisions that • John Martin was a statutory supervisor; • Donnie May’s conduct violated NLRA § 8(a)(1); • Ambassador’s safety rule prohibiting “walking off the job” violated NLRA § 8(a)(1); • Ambassador did not establish that a majority of employees signed the decertification petition; and • Ambassador unlawfully failed and refused to recognize and bargain with the Union. After oral argument and careful consideration of the entire record and all of the merits issues, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determinations. Thus, we affirm the Board’s decision and grant the Board’s petition for enforcement. For the foregoing reasons, we DENY Ambassador’s petition for review and GRANT the Board’s cross-petition for enforcement of its order in full. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.