JACK IN THE BOX, INC.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Dec 1, 2015

32-CA-145068 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 1, 2015)

JD(SF)–48–15
Nationwide
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION OF JUDGES
JACK IN THE BOX, INC.
and Case 32-CA-145068
DANA OCAMPO, an Individual
Lelia M. Gomez, Esq. and Judith J. Chang, Esq.
for the General Counsel.
Christian J. Rowley, Esq.
for the Respondent.
Kevin R. Allen, Esq.
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
MARY MILLER CRACRAFT, Administrative Law Judge. This case concerns the Arbitration
Agreement maintained by Jack in the Box, Inc. (Respondent). The issues presented are whether
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by soliciting employees to sign the Arbitration
Agreement and by maintaining and/or enforcing the Arbitration Agreement (1) because it
interferes with employees’ Section 7 rights to engage in collective legal activity such as
participating in collective and class litigation; (2) because it interferes with employees’ access to
the Board and its processes; and (3) because the confidentiality provision interferes with
employees’ Section 7 rights to discuss their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment with others by restricting employees from publicly disclosing the terms of
arbitration awards.1
The parties submitted this case by joint stipulation of facts which was accepted on
October 6, 2015. On the entire record, and after considering the parties’ statements of position
and the briefs filed by counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for the Respondent, the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law are made.
JURISDICTION
Respondent is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in San Diego, California. It
operates fast-food restaurants on a nationwide basis, including a fast-food restaurant in San Jose,

1 The unfair labor practice charge was filed by Dana Ocampo, an individual, on January 26, 2015. On
July 30, 2015, the Complaint and Notice of Hearing issued. Respondent duly filed an Answer to the
Complaint, admitting and denying certain allegations.
JD(SF)–48–15
2
California. In conducting its operations during the 12-month period ending June 30, 2015,
Respondent derived gross revenue in excess of $500,000. During that same period, Respondent
purchased and received goods valued in excess of $5000 directly from points outside the State of
California. The parties thus stipulate and I find that Respondent has been an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Accordingly, this dispute 5
affects interstate commerce and the Board has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to Section 10(a)
of the Act.
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE ALLEGATIONS
10
Respondent has maintained the Arbitration Agreement on a nationwide basis since at
least July 26, 2014. Respondent promulgates to its employees at the time of their hire and
requires them, through a web-based application, to sign a “Dispute Resolution and Arbitration
Agreement” (the Arbitration Agreement). Specific portions of the Arbitration Agreement are
alleged to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees. The parties stipulated that the Arbitration 15
Agreement specifically informs employees that they are bound to the Arbitration Agreement as a
condition of their employment with Respondent.
Alleged Interference with Right to Engage in Collective Legal Action
20
The Arbitration Agreement is a 5-page, single spaced document. The portions quoted
below are from pages 1-2 and 5. The second sentence of the Arbitration Agreement (page 1)
states, “Employee understands and agrees that any such differences [that may arise between
Employee and Respondent] will be resolved by the terms of this [Arbitration Agreement].”
Various other parts of the Arbitration Agreement also reference or inform an employee’s ability 25
to engage in collective court, administrative, or arbitral action. For instance:
Mutual Promise to Resolve Claims by Binding Arbitration (page 1)
In signing the Acknowledgment and Receipt, Employee agrees that all claims or 30
disputes covered by this Agreement must be submitted to binding arbitration and
that this binding arbitration will be the sole and exclusive remedy for resolving
any such claim or disputes. The Company also agrees that all claims or disputes
covered by this Agreement that Company may have against Employee will be
submitted to binding arbitration as the sole and exclusive remedy for any such 35
claim or dispute.
Claims Covered by the Agreement (pages 1-2)
This Agreement applies to disputes and claims for relief Employee may presently 40
or in the future have against the Company or against its officers, directors,
employees, or agents in any way related to Employee’s employment or
termination of employment including, but not limited to, claims for wrongful
discharge under statutory and common law; claims for discrimination based on
[specifically enumerated bases not including NLRA] or any other claim of 45
discrimination. This Agreement also applies to claims brought under state or
federal laws including, but not limited to [specifically enumerated bases not
JD(SF)–48–15
3
including NLRA] or any other present or future laws; any claims for retaliatory
discharge . . . and any other statutory and common law claims under any law of
the United States or State or local agency are also covered by this Agreement. . . .
Nothing in this Agreement precludes Employee from filing a charge or from 5
participating in an administrative investigation of a charge before an appropriate
government agency, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
or similar state Agency.
Claims Not Covered by this Agreement (page 2)10
The following claims or disputes are not covered by this Agreement: claims for
unemployment insurance benefits; claims for workman’s compensation benefits;
claims seeking only monetary recovery where the total amount of the claim does
not exceed $15,000; claims that in the absence of This Agreement have no basis 15
in law or could not be filed in court; or claims both Employee and Company agree
are not covered by this Agreement. Neither Employee nor Company shall be
entitled to join or consolidate in arbitration claims not covered by this Agreement
or arbitrate a representative action or a claim as a representative or member of a
class.20
Exclusive, Final and Binding Remedy for Eligible Disputes (page 2)
If employee or Company is seeking to resolve claims covered by this Agreement,
they must use binding arbitration. As to any such dispute, arbitration is designed 25
as a substitute for court action and except as provided by this Agreement is the
exclusive, final, and binding method to resolve the dispute, whether based on
federal, state, or local law. Neither the Company nor the Employee can initiate or
prosecute a lawsuit which raises a dispute covered by this Agreement. Employee
must first pursue an administrative claim or charge under federal or state 30
discrimination laws prior to seeking arbitration of that claim or charge as required
by law. The Company and Employee agree to give up their respective
constitutional rights to have these claims decided in a court of law before a jury,
and instead are accepting the use of final and binding arbitration.
35
No Loss of Rights (page 5)
This procedure, and the Agreement implementing it, does not create or destroy
any individual legal rights; it only changes the forum in which those rights will be
resolved. In other words, the Employee will be able to arbitrate the same claims 40
he/she could bring in court, and the Arbitrator will apply exactly the same laws
and principles as would a judge or jury. The arbitrator can award to the winning
party the same recovery the party would be entitled to in a court of law subject to
the same limitations used by courts of law.
45
JD(SF)–48–15
4
The language in the Arbitration Agreement, an acknowledged condition of employment,
is quite broad. The terms of the agreement specifically require single2 employee arbitration as the
only method for resolving all employment-related claims. It is “the sole and exclusive remedy
for any such claim or dispute.”3 No employee can initiate or prosecute a lawsuit which raises a
dispute covered by the Arbitration Agreement.4 Thus, the Arbitration Agreement applies to 5
“disputes and claims for relief Employee may presently or in the future have against
[Respondent] . . . in any way related to Employee’s employment or termination of
employment.”5
Nothing in the “Claims Not Covered” portion of the Arbitration Agreement lessens the 10
impact of the broad language. The only exemptions in that language are for unemployment
compensation, workers’ compensation, claims for less than $15,000, and baseless claims.
Moreover, the specific language allowing “filing a charge” or “participating in an administrative
investigation of a charge before an appropriate government agency”6 does not include allowing
employees to access the courts in concert regarding employment-related matters.15
In Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 72 (2014), enf. denied, ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir.
No. 15-60800, Oct. 26, 2015),7 the Board emphasized the core objective of the Act to protect
workers’ ability to act in concert in support of one another, and held that “arbitration agreements
that are imposed as a condition of employment, and that compel NLRA-covered employees to 20
pursue workplace claims against their employer individually” require forfeiture of the
substantive right to act collectively. Murphy Oil, supra, slip op. at 2. Thus, the Board found that
such an arbitration agreement nullified “the foundational principle that has consistently informed
national labor policy as developed by the Board and the courts.” Id. This includes seeking to
improve working conditions through resort to administrative and judicial forums.. . .”825
Respondent asserts that Murphy Oil was improperly decided arguing that by holding that
an employer may not require its employees to agree to arbitration as a condition of employment
“the Board overreached its statutory authority and ignored settled Supreme Court precedent.”

2 Neither Employee nor Company shall be entitled to join or consolidate in arbitration claims not
covered by this Agreement or arbitrate a representative action or a claim as a representative or member of
a class. (Claims Not Covered by this Agreement.)
3 Mutual Promise to Resolve Claims by Binding Arbitration.
4 Exclusive, Final and Binding Remedy for Eligible Disputes.
5 Claims Covered by this Agreement.
6 Claims Covered by this Agreement.
7 As Respondent points out, the courts which have reviewed cases relying on Murphy Oil and on an
earlier case, D. R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184 (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), have denied
enforcement of the Board’s holdings. This argument was addressed and rejected in Murphy Oil, supra,
slip op.6-11. Moreover, the Board is not required to acquiesce in adverse decisions of the Federal courts
in subsequent proceedings not involving the same parties. Murphy Oil, supra, 361 NLRB No. 72, slip op.
p. 2, fn. 17, citing, Enloe Medical Center v. NLRB, 433 F.3d 834, 838 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Nielsen
Lithographing Co. v. NLRB, 854 F.2d 1063, 1066–1067 (7th Cir. 1988).
8 Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556, 566 (1978), cited in Murphy Oil, supra, slip op. at 1. See also,
Amex Card Services Co., 363 NLRB No. 40, slip op. at p. 2 (2015) (arbitration policy facially unlawful
because it requires employees, as a condition of employment, to submit their employment-related legal
claims to individual arbitration).
JD(SF)–48–15
5
Specifically, Respondent asserts that Murphy Oil conflicts with the fundamental principles of the
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Relying on CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, ___ U.S. ___,
132 S.Ct. 665 (2012) (because the Credit Repair Organization Act is silent on whether claims
under the Act can proceed in an arbitrable forum, the FAA requires the parties’ arbitration
agreement to be enforced according to its terms), Respondent argues that because the NLRA is 5
silent on whether claims under it can proceed to arbitration, the FAA requires that arbitration
agreements be enforced according to their terms. Respondent asserts that the Board failed to give
appropriate deference to the FAA in Murphy Oil, thus resulting in rejection of its holding by
almost every federal and state court presented with the issue. These arguments were addressed
and rejected in Murphy Oil.9 Murphy Oil is binding precedent for purposes of this proceeding.10
Further, Respondent argues that its Arbitration Agreement is specifically permitted by the
FAA as recently interpreted in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, ___ U.S. ___,
133 S.Ct. 2304 (2013), and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1740
(2011). In Murphy Oil, supra, 361 NLRB No. 62, slip op. at 10-15, the Board rejected this 15
argument. The Board found instead that its view -- that requiring employees to waive their right
to collectively pursue employment-related claims in all forums, arbitral and judicial violated
Section 8(a)(1) -- did not conflict with the letter or interfere with the policies underlying the
FAA.
20
An administrative law judge is required to apply established Board precedent which the
Supreme Court has not reversed. “Only by such recognition of the legal authority of Board
precedent, will a uniform and orderly administration of a national act, such as the National Labor
Relations Act, be achieved.” Pathmark Stores, Inc., 342 NLRB 378 at fn. 1 (2004), (quoting
Iowa Beef Packers, Inc., 144 NLRB 615, 616 (1963), enfd. in part 331 F.2d 176 (8th Cir. 1964) 25
(quoting Insurance Agents’ International Union, AFL–CIO, 119 NLRB 768, 773 (1957)).
Respondent asserts that because Murphy Oil has essentially been overruled or reversed by
Supreme Court precedent, I may not follow it. I disagree.
Murphy Oil is consistent with the Court's holdings which did not involve the core 30
substantive Section 7 right of employees to act together to file a class action lawsuit. The Board's
interpretation of the Section 7 right of employees to act together to file lawsuits against for
employment related claims as a core substantive right is entitled to judicial deference. Moreover,
American Express and Concepcion did not involve an employer who required employees to
waive their substantive Section 7 rights. Because Murphy Oil was not reversed by Supreme 35
Court precedent, Respondent’s argument is rejected.
A reasonable reading of the plain language of the Arbitration Agreement leaves no doubt
that a term and condition of employment is forfeiture of the substantive right to act in concert in
filing collective or class litigation regarding employment wages, hours, or other working 40

9 Murphy Oil, supra, slip op. 1-2 holding “Arbitration [under the FAA] is a matter of consent, not
coercion,” and a valid arbitration agreement may not require a party to prospectively waive its “right to
pursue statutory remedies; slip op. at 9 holding that the FAA does not apply, “because Section 7 of the
NLRA amounts to a “contrary congressional command” overriding the FAA.” See also, Convergys Corp.,
363 NLRB No. 51, fn. 3 (2015).
JD(SF)–48–15
6
conditions against Respondent in any forum, arbitral or judicial.10 Thus, employees are
compelled to pursue workplace claims against their employer through individual arbitration,
forfeiting their substantive right to act collectively in that forum or any other forum. Based upon
the record as a whole, I find that by requiring employees to act individually by precluding them
from participating in collective and class arbitration or litigation, the Arbitration Agreement5
interferes with the core substantive workers’ Section 7 right: the ability to act in concert in
support of one another. Thus, the Arbitration Agreement violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Alleged Interference with Access to the Board
10
The Arbitration Agreement does not specifically prohibit access to the NLRB. Rather, the
General Counsel claims that the language of the Arbitration Agreement is so broad and
confusing that employees would reasonably conclude that they are precluded from filing unfair
labor practice charges with the Board.
15
Specifically, as seen in the quoted provisions above, the Arbitration Agreement provides
that “all claims or disputes covered by this Agreement must be submitted to binding arbitration”
which is “the sole and exclusive remedy for resolving any such claim or dispute.”11 Further, the
Arbitration Agreement provides, “Nothing in this Agreement precludes Employee from filing a
charge or from participating in an administrative investigation of a charge before an appropriate 20
government agency, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or similar state
Agency.”12 Specific exclusions from binding arbitration include only unemployment insurance
benefits, workmen’s compensation benefits, monetary claims for less than $15,000, and claims
without a basis in law.13
25
As the Board stated in Hooters of Ontario Mills, 363 NLRB No. 2 (2015):
It is well settled that a work rule violates Section 8(a)(1) if employees would
reasonably believe that the rule interferes with their ability to file Board charges,
even if the policy does not expressly prohibit access to the Board. See Murphy Oil30
USA, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 72, slip op. at 19 fn. 98 (2014); D. R. Horton, Inc., 357
NLRB No. 184, slip op. at 2 fn. 2 (2012), enf. denied on other grounds 737 F.3d
344 (5th Cir. 2013), petition for rehearing en banc denied (2014); U-Haul Co. of
California, 347 NLRB 375, 377–378 (2006), enfd. 255 Fed. Appx. 527 (D.C. Cir.
2007). Furthermore, it is settled that production of extrinsic evidence, such as 35
testimony showing that employees interpreted the rule to preclude access to the
Board, is not a precondition to finding that a rule is unlawful by its terms. See,
e.g., Murphy Oil, supra, slip op. at 13 fn. 79; Hills & Dales General Hospital, 360
NLRB No. 70, slip op. at 1–2 (2014) (citing Lutheran Heritage Village Livonia,

10 In my view, the language is not ambiguous at all. Moreover, to the extent there are any ambiguities,
they must be resolved against Respondent, the drafter of the document. See, e.g., Supply Technologies,
LLC, 359 NLRB 38, slip op. at 3 (2012), citing Lafayette Park Hotel, 326 NLRB 824, 828 (1998), enfd.
203 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
11 Mutual Promise to Resolve Claims by Binding Arbitration (quoted in full supra).
12 Claims Covered by This Agreement (quoted supra).
13 Claims Not Covered by this Agreement, quoted in full above.
JD(SF)–48–15
7
343 NLRB 646, 646–647 (2004); Claremont Resort & Spa, 344 NLRB 832, 832
(2005)).
The Board has held repeatedly that broad language in defining the issues subject solely to
arbitral resolution is reasonably interpreted to encompass and prohibit the filing of unfair labor 5
practice charges. See, e.g., Supply Technologies, LLC, 359 NLRB No. 38, slip op. 1-4 (2012)
(agreement mandating that employees “bring any claim of any kind” including claims relating to
the application for employment, actual employment or termination of employment must be
remedied through alternative dispute resolution reasonably understood to prohibit filing of unfair
labor practice charges); 2 Sisters Food Group, 357 NLRB No. 168, slip op. at 1-2 (2011) (policy 10
requiring that all employment disputes and claims be submitted to arbitration reasonably
understood to include filing of unfair labor practice charges); U-Haul Co. of California, 347
NLRB 375, 377-378 (2006), enfd 255 F.Appx. 527 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (required arbitration of all
disputes relating to or arising out of employment or termination including any legal or equitable
claims or causes of action recognized by local, state, or federal law or regulation reasonably read 15
to prohibit access to NLRB).
Moreover, as the General Counsel points out, when determining a reasonable
interpretation, the Board does not presume that employees have specialized legal knowledge.
See, e.g., 2 Sisters Food Group, supra, 357 NLRB No. 168, slip op at 2, quoting U-Haul, 347 20
NLRB at 377: “[T]he limiting language in the Respondent’s arbitration policy does not by its
terms specifically exclude NLRB proceedings, and ‘most nonlawyer employees’ would not be
sufficiently familiar with the limitations the Act imposes on mandatory arbitration for the
language to be effective.”
25
In Hooters of Ontario Mills, supra, 363 NLRB No. 2, the arbitration agreement required
that all claims between the employee and employer by decided exclusively by arbitration.
“Claims” were defined broadly and included any claim under federal law or statute including
claims of discrimination, retaliation, discharge, or for wages. The Board held that although the
language did not explicitly prohibit the filing of charges with the Board, the broad language 30
would be reasonably read by employees to prohibit the filing of charges with the NLRB. Hooters
of Ontario Mills, supra, slip op. at 2. Although the agreement excluded coverage of any dispute
that cannot be arbitrated as a matter of law, the Board held this did not save the agreement
because unfair labor practice charges filed with the Board may be resolved by arbitration. Id.
35
Similarly, in Countrywide Financial Corp., 362 NLRB No. 165 (2015), the employer’s
arbitration agreement was the exclusive remedy for all claims or controversies including those
related to employment application, hiring, employment relationship, and termination. Claims for
wages, contract breach, discrimination, and violation of any federal statute, regulation, or public
policy were included by way of example. Based on the breadth of the language encompassing 40
claims under Federal statutes and regulations, the Board found that this language would
reasonably be read to include alleged violations of the Act. Slip op. at 2. Further, the Board
rejected the employer’s argument based upon a savings clause excluding arbitration if prohibited
by law. The Board found that unless the language specifically excluded NLRB proceedings,
most nonlawyer employees would not be sufficiently familiar with the limitations the Act 45
imposes on mandatory arbitration. Slip op. at 3. Thus, the Board concluded that the agreement
would reasonably be read to prohibit access to the Board. Id.
JD(SF)–48–15
8
The facts before me are indistinguishable from those in Hooters and Countrywide. Here,
although the Arbitration Agreement does not specifically preclude the filing of charges with the
NLRB, arbitration is nevertheless the sole and exclusive remedy for resolving any dispute now
or in the future regarding employment or termination of employment. The specific exceptions to 5
arbitration do not include filing charges with the NLRB. The savings clause applies only to equal
employment opportunity claims. Accordingly, I find that the Arbitration Agreement is
reasonably read to preclude filing charges with the NLRB. By maintaining the Arbitration
Agreement, Respondent has interfered with employees’ Section 7 right to file charges with the
Board and avail themselves of the Board’s processes in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.10
Alleged Unlawful Confidentiality Rule
The Arbitration Agreement contains the following confidentiality language:
15
Confidentiality
The Arbitrator’s decision is confidential. Neither Employee nor the Company
may publicly disclose the terms of the award unless:
 Agreed to in writing by the other party, or20
 Subpoenaed by a court to testify, or
 Required by law
The General Counsel claims this clause interferes with employees’ Section 7 right to
discuss their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment by restricting 25
employees from publicly disclosing the terms of the arbitration awards. Respondent points out
that the confidentiality clause does not explicitly or implicitly prohibit employees from
disclosing the terms of an arbitration award. Relying on OM 12-59, NLRB, Operations
Memorandum 07-27, Respondent also notes that confidentiality clauses covering nondisclosure
of the financial terms of a non-Board settlement are generally allowed.30
If a work rule would reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights, it will violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Hyundai America Shipping Agency, 357 NLRB
No. 80, slip op. at 2 (2011); Lafayette Park Hotel, 326 NLRB 824, 825 (1998), enfd. 203 F.3d 52
(D.C. Cir. 1999). A violation may occur merely by maintenance of such a rule -- even in the 35
absence of enforcement. Lafayette Park Hotel, supra; see also, Cintas Corp., 344 NLRB 943
(2005), enfd.482 F.3d 463 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
A rule which explicitly restricts Section 7 rights is unlawful. Lutheran Heritage Village-
Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004). In the absence of explicit restriction, a violation will 40
nevertheless be found if (1) employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit
Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule has
been applied to restrict Section 7 rights. Id. at 646-647. There is no allegation that any of these
rules were promulgated in response to union activity or to restrict Section 7 rights. Thus, the sole
inquiry here is whether employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 45
activity. In determining whether a challenged rule is unlawful, the rule must be given a
reasonable reading and particular phrases may not be read in isolation. Lafayette Park, supra,
JD(SF)–48–15
9
326 NLRB at 825, 827. In other words, there is no presumption of improper interference with
employee rights. Id.
Respondent’s confidentiality clause explicitly requires that employees not divulge the
terms of any arbitration award. The language, then, reasonably implies that employees cannot 5
discuss with each other the facts of the case, the respective merits of the parties positions, their
motivation in seeking relief, or the award rendered regarding any arbitration proceeding. The
right of employees to discuss such matters with each other lies at the core of Section 7, which
protects concerted activity for mutual aid and protection. See, e.g., Professional Janitorial
Service of Houston, 363 NLRB No. 35, fn. 3 (2015); Rocky Mountain Eye Center, P.C., 363 10
NLRB No. 34, fn. 1 (2015); Hyundai America Shipping, 357 NLRB No. 80, slip op. at 1 (2011),
enf. in relevant part, ___ F.3d ___ (D.C. Cir. 2015); Double Eagle Hotel & Casino, 341 NLRB
112, 115 (2004), enfd 414 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2005). Thus, I find that maintaining the
confidentiality provision of the Arbitration Agreement, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.15
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By requiring employees to sign the Arbitration Agreement as a condition of their
employment and by maintaining and enforcing the Arbitration Agreement, Respondent has 20
interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights to engage in collective legal activity such as
participating in collective and class action in any forum. Thus, Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
25
2. By requiring employees to sign the Arbitration Agreement as a condition of their
employment and by maintaining and enforcing the Arbitration Agreement, Respondent has
interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights to file unfair labor practice charges with the Board
and to avail themselves of the Board’s processes in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
30
3. By requiring employees to sign the Arbitration Agreement as a condition of their
employment and by maintaining and enforcing the Arbitration Agreement, Respondent has
interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights to discuss their wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment with others by restricting employees from publicly disclosing the
terms of arbitration awards.35
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it is
recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative 40
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent’s Arbitration Agreement requires that employees waive
their right to pursue class or collective action claims in any forum, whether arbitral or judicial,
and may be reasonably interpreted as prohibiting employees from filing unfair labor practice 45
charges with the National Labor Relations Board, and may further be reasonably interpreted as
prohibiting employees from discussing their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
JD(SF)–48–15
10
employment with others by restricting employees from publicly disclosing the terms of
arbitration awards, it is recommended that the Respondent be ordered to rescind or revise the
Arbitration Agreement and to provide employees with specific notification that the Arbitration
Agreement has been rescinded or revised.
5
Further, Respondent must post a notice in all locations where the Arbitration Agreement
was utilized. See, e.g., D. R. Horton, Inc., supra, 357 NLRB No. 184, slip op. at 13; U-Haul Co.
of California, supra, 347 NLRB at 375, fn.2; Guardsmark, LLC, 344 NLRB 809, 812 (2005),
enfd. in relevant part, 475 F.3d 369 (D.C. Cir 2007).
10
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended14
ORDER
15
The Respondent, Jack In the Box, Inc., nationwide including a facility in San Jose,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
20
(a) Maintaining and/or enforcing its Arbitration Agreement as a condition of employment
thus requiring employees to waive their right to pursue class or collective claims in all
forums, whether arbitral or judicial.
(b) Maintaining and/or enforcing its Arbitration Agreement as a condition of employment
containing language that would reasonably be understood to prohibit employees’ 25
rights to file unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board or
to access the Board’s processes.
(c) Maintaining and/or enforcing its Arbitration Agreement as a condition of employment
containing language that would reasonably be understood to prohibit employees’
rights to discuss their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment 30
with others by restricting employees from publicly disclosing the terms of arbitration
awards.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
35
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Rescind the mandatory and binding Arbitration Agreement or revise it to make clear
to employees that the Arbitration Agreement does not constitute (1) a waiver of their
right to maintain employment-related joint, class, or collective actions in all forums, 40
whether arbitral or judicial, (2) a prohibition of access to the National Labor Relations
Board or its processes, and (3) does not preclude discussion of wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment.

14 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.
(b) Notify all current and former employees who were required to sign the Arbitration
Agreement that it has been rescinded or revised and, if revised, provide them with a
copy of the revised agreement.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at all of its locations nationwide
where notices to employees are customarily posted, copies of the at5
market “Appendix.15
Director for Region 32, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 cons
days in conspicuous places including all pl
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall 10
be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an 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
ensure that the notices are not al
the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone 15
out of business or closed the facilities involved in these proceedings, the Respondent
shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current
employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since July
26, 2014.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn 20
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. December 1, 2015
25

30

15 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the
notice reading “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD” shall read
“POSTED PUSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNIVTED STATE
ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.”
JD(SF)
11
tached notice
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Region
aces where notices to employees are
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In
____________________
Mary Miller Cracraft
Administrative Law Judge
S COURT OF APPEALS
–48–15
al
ecutive
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 a mandatory Arbitration Agreement that requires you, as a condition
of employment, to waive the right to maintain joint, class, or collective actions in all forums
whether arbitral or judicial.
WE WILL NOT maintain a mandatory Arbitration Agreement that you would reasonably
understand prohibits you or restricts your right to file charges with the National Labor Relations
Board or to use the processes of the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT maintain a mandatory Arbitration Agreement which states that you agree that
you may not publicly disclose the terms of any arbitration award because this language would
reasonably be understood to prohibit you from discussing such things as the facts of the case,
circumstances surrounding the case, tactics of the parties, or the outcome of the arbitration
proceeding in violation of your right to discuss your wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment with others.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain or coerce you in the
exercise of your rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL rescind or revise our Arbitration Agreement
 to eliminate the waiver of your right to maintain joint, class, or collective actions in all
forums whether arbitral or judicial;
 to eliminate language which would reasonably be understood to restrict your rights to file
charges with or to use the processes of the National Labor Relations Board; and
 to eliminate language which requires confidentiality of the arbitration agreement and is
reasonably understood to prohibit discussion wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment.
WE WILL furnish all current employees with written notice that the unlawful provisions have
been rescinded or revised and furnish them with copies of any such revisions.
JACK IN THE BOX, INC.
(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.
Oakland Federal Bldg., 1301 Clay Street, Room 300-N, Oakland, CA 94612-5211
(510) 637-3300, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-145068 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, (510) 637-3253.