Darden Restaurants, Inc. GMRI, Inc. Yard House USA Inc., Yard House Northridge, LLC.

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Aug 18, 2016

31-CA-158487 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 18, 2016)

JD(NY)-26-16
Northridge, CA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC.; GMRI, INC.;
YARD HOUSE USA, INC.; YARD HOUSE
NORTHRIDGE, LLC
and Case No. 31-CA-158487
FILBERTO MARTINEZ, An Individual
Eric Brooks, Esq., Counsel for the General Counsel.
Matthew Matern, Esq., Matern Law Group, Counsel for the Charging Party.
Anthony Martin, Esq., Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Counsel for the
Respondent.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Joel P. Biblowitz, Administrative Law Judge: The parties herein waived a hearing
and submitted this case directly to me by way of a Joint Motion and Submission of Stipulation of
Facts and Exhibits dated June 28, 2016, and by Order Granting Joint Motion, Approving
Stipulations of Fact, Reassigning ALJ and Setting Due Date for Briefs dated June 29, 2016,
Associate Chief Judge Gerald Etchingham approved the Joint Motion. The parties agree that
the following Stipulations of Fact are true for this matter only, although they do not concede the
relevancy of these facts:
1. On August 20, 2015, the Charging Party filed the charge and copies were served by U.S. mail
on Respondent Darden, Respondent GMRI, Respondent Yard House USA, and Respondent
Yard House Northridge on August 21, 2015.
2. On February 26, 2016, the Acting Regional Director for Region 31 issued a Complaint and
Notice of Hearing, and a copy was served by U.S. mail on Respondent Darden, Respondent
GMRI, Respondent Yard House USA, and Respondent Yard House Northridge on the same
day.
3. On March 11, 2016, Respondent Darden, Respondent GMRI, Respondent Yard House USA,
and Respondent Yard House Northridge filed their Answers to the Complaint.
4. (a) At all material times, Respondent Darden has been a Florida corporation and through its
direct and indirect ownership of various subsidiaries has a place of business in Los Angeles,
California, where it has been engaged in operating public restaurants selling food and
beverages.
(b) In the calendar year ending December 31, 2015, Respondent Darden through its direct
and indirect ownership of various subsidiaries has derived gross revenues in excess of
$500,000 and has purchased and received for its California location, goods valued in excess
of $5,000 directly from points outside the State of California.
JD(NY)-26-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
(c) At all material times, Respondent Darden has been an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
5. (a) At all material times, Respondent GMRI has been a Florida corporation, and through its
direct and indirect ownership of various subsidiaries, has a place of business in Los Angeles,
California, where it has been engaged in operating public restaurants selling food and
beverages.
(b) In the calendar year ending December 31, 2015, Respondent GMRI through its direct and
indirect ownership of various subsidiaries has derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000
and has purchased and received for its California location, goods valued in excess of $5,000
directly from points outside the State of California.
(c) At all material times, Respondent GMRI has been an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
6. (a) At all material times, Respondent Yard House USA has been a Delaware corporation, and
through its direct and indirect ownership of various subsidiaries, has a place of business in
Los Angeles, California, where it has been engaged in operating public restaurants selling
food and beverages.
(b) In the calendar year ending December 31, 2015, Respondent Yard House USA has
derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and has purchased and received for its
California location, goods valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points outside the State of
California.
(c) At all material times, Respondent Yard House USA has been an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
7. (a) At all material times, Respondent Yard House Northridge has been a California
corporation with a place of business in Los Angeles, California, where it has been engaged in
operating public restaurants selling food and beverages.
(b) In the calendar year ending December 31, 2015, Respondent Yard House Northridge has
derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and has purchased and received for its
California location, goods valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points outside the State of
California.
(c) At all material times, Respondent Yard House Northridge has been an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
8. Employees employed by the Respondents, including the Charging Party, are not represented
by a labor organization.
9. At material times, Respondent Yard House Northridge, Respondent Yard House USA, and
Respondent GMRI have required employees, including the Charging Party, to submit
employment related and compensation related disputes to arbitration. The terms of the
agreement are described in the Dispute Resolution Process (DRP). The DRP states that
examples of legal claims covered by the DRP include, but are not limited to: claims that arise
out of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Americans With Disabilities Act, Fair Labor Standards Act,
Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Family Medical Leave Act.
JD(NY)-26-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
10. The DRP also states:
Class, Collective, and Representative Actions
There will be no right or authority for any dispute to be brought, heard or arbitrated by
any person as a class action, collective action or on behalf of any other person or entity
under the DRP. The arbitrator has no jurisdiction to certify any group of current or former
employees,or applicants for employment, as a class or collective action in any arbitration
proceeding.
11. Employees, including the Charging Party, must agree to abide by the terms of the DRP as a
term and condition of employment.
12. The Charging Party signed the following acknowledgement on or about February 23, 2013:
This agreement contains the requirements, obligations, procedures and benefits of the
Dispute Resolution Process (DRP). “I acknowledge that I have received and/or have
had the opportunity to read this arbitration agreement. I understand that this
arbitration agreement requires that disputes that involve the matters subject to
the agreement be submitted to mediation or arbitration pursuant to the arbitration
agreement rather than to a judge or jury in court. I agree as a condition of my
employment, to submit any eligible disputes I may have to the DRP and to abide by the
provisions outlined in the DRP. I understand this includes, for example, claims under
state and federal laws relating to harassment or discrimination, as well as other
employment-related claims as defined by the DRP. Finally, I understand that the
Company is equally bound by all of the provisions of the DRP.” (Emphasis in original.)
13. The Charging Party was employed at Respondents’ Northridge, California facility from
November 8, 2012 until May 28, 2013.
14. The DRP is a condition of employment of all employees who are employed by any of the
Respondents.
15. On or about March 2, 2015, the Charging Party filed a class-action lawsuit in Case No. BC-
574043, captioned Filiberto Martinez, et al. v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., et al., (Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles), alleging that the Respondent
Darden, Respondent Yard House Northridge, Respondent Yard House USA, and Respondent
GMRI violated the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and the
California Business and Professional Code.
16. On or about May 6, 2016, Charging Party and Respondent Darden, Respondent Yard
House Northridge, Respondent Yard House USA, and Respondent GMRI jointly submitted a
Joint Initial Status Conference Class Action Response Statement to the Superior Court.
17. On or about May 7, 2015, Respondent Darden, Respondent Yard House Northridge,
Respondent Yard House USA, and Respondent GMRI, acting jointly1, filed a Notice of

1 “Acting jointly” refers to the fact that all four Respondents jointly asserted in litigation that
Charging Party’s lawsuit should be removed to federal court and that Charging Party was
required to submit his wage and hour claims to arbitration under the terms of the DRP. Counsel
for the General Counsel does not allege, and the parties do not stipulate, that the four
Continued
JD(NY)-26-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
Removal of Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332, 1441, and 1446, Case No. 2:15-cv-
3434 (U.S.D.C., C.D. Cal., herein the U.S.D.C.).
18. On or about May 8, 2015, Respondent Darden, Respondent Yard House Northridge,
Respondent Yard House USA, and Respondent GMRI, acting jointly, submitted a Motion to
Compel Binding Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities to the U.S.D.C.
19. On or about June 4, 2015, Charging Party submitted its Opposition to Respondents’ Motion
to Compel Arbitration to the U.S.D.C.
20. On or about June 5, 2015, Respondent Darden, Respondent Yard House Northridge,
Respondent Yard House USA, and Respondent GMRI, acting jointly, submitted it’s Reply to
the U.S.D.C.
21. On or about August 13, 2015, U.S.D.C. Judge George H. Wu issued his Order granting
Respondent Darden, Respondent Yard House Northridge, Respondent Yard House USA, and
Respondent GMRI’s Motion to Compel Binding Arbitration.
22. Charging Party and Respondents filed a Joint Status Conference Statement Regarding
Arbitration, in Case No. 2:15-cv-3434 (U.S.D.C., C.D. Cal.) dated February 18, 2016.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES IN THIS CASE:
Without waiving objections to the materiality or relevance based on the foregoing factual
stipulations, the Parties agree and stipulate to the following issues presented in this matter:
1. Whether Respondent Yard House Northridge’s, Respondent Yard House USA’s, and
Respondent GMRI’s maintenance of the DRP interferes with, restrains, and coerces
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. Whether Respondent Yard House Northridge’s, Respondent Yard House USA’s, and
Respondent GMRI’s requirement that employees, including the Charging Party, sign the
DRP as a condition of employment interferes with, restrains, and coerces employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
3. Whether Respondent Darden’s, Respondent Yard House Northridge’s, Respondent Yard
House USA’s, and Respondent GMRI’s filing of its May 8, 2015 Motion to Compel Binding
Arbitration of Charging Party’s class action lawsuit interferes with, restrains, and coerces
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. Whether Respondent Darden or Respondent Yard House USA are proper parties to this
matter.
_________________________
Respondents are joint employers under current Board law and the Act. However, this does not
prevent any party from raising this theory and/or arguing joint employer status in any other
proceeding or civil litigation related to the DRP.
JD(NY)-26-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
5. Whether the remedies sought by the General Counsel in this case are appropriate.
6. Whether the charges are time barred under Section 10(b) of the Act.
7. Whether the Board and/or Martinez are estopped from pursuing this particular matter.
The relevant portions of the DRP are as follows:
This document is the Dispute Resolution Process (DRP) agreement between the
Employee and his/her employer ("the Company") , which is a direct or indirect subsidiary
of Darden Restaurants, Inc. The DRP is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (9
U.S.C. §§I et seq.). The requirements, obligations, procedures and benefits in this
booklet are binding on the Employee and the Company during and after the period of the
Employee's employment. The mutual goal of DRP is to resolve eligible work related
problems, concerns and disputes between the Employee and the Company in a prompt,
fair and efficient way that protects the legal rights of both the employee and the
company.
This agreement is used throughout the United States. The DRP is always to be
used and interpreted consistently with applicable law. If any provision of the DRP is in
conflict with applicable law, that provision may be severed or revised to make the DRP
valid and enforceable. The severed or revised provision, will not affect the remaining
provisions of the DRP. Additionally, the DRP may be updated from time to time as
required by applicable law.
INTRODUCTION
Occasional differences may arise between the Company and an Employee, both during
and after employment. The mutual goal is to resolve work-related problems, concerns
and disputes in a prompt, fair and efficient way that protects the legal rights of both the
Employee and the Company. To accomplish this goal, the Dispute Resolution Process
(DRP) is comprised of a four-step process: Open Door, Peer Review, Mediation and
Arbitration. The DRP, instead of court actions, is the sole means for resolving covered
employment related disputes. Disputes eligible for DRP must be resolved only through
DRP, with the final step being binding arbitration heard by an arbitrator. This means
DRP-eligible disputes will not be resolved by a judge or jury. Neither the Company nor
the Employee may bring DRP eligible disputes to court. The Company and the
Employee waives all rights to bring a civil court action for these disputes.
What is covered under DRP?
The Open Door, as described on page 4, Is the first step in DRP and is always available
to Employees or the Company to use to discuss any issues or resolve any disputes
relating to their employment.
Steps two and three of DRP - Peer Review and Mediation-apply to all employment
related disputes or claims brought by the Employee against the Company or the
Company against the Employee other than those limited "Exceptions listed below.”
Some examples of disputes which are covered by the first three steps of DRP include,
but are not limited to: disputes about compensation earned, termination, discrimination
and harassment. Only disputes which state a legal claim may be submitted to
JD(NY)-26-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
Arbitration, which is the fourth and final step of DRP. The arbitrator has the authority to
dismiss disputes that do not state a legal claim. Examples of legal claims covered by
DRP include but are not limited to: claims that arise under the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
Americans With Disabilities Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, and Family Medical Leave Act.
What are the exceptions to DRP?
The DRP is not available to resolve disputes:
related to Workers Compensation or Unemployment Insurance benefits;
that are legally required by controlling federal law to be arbitrated or resolved under a
different process;
claims for employee benefits under any benefit plan sponsored by the Company and
covered by Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 or funded by insurance,
unfair competition , violation of trade secrets, any common law right or duty, or any
federal, state or local ordinance or statute; or
regarding wage rates, wage scales or benefits, performance standards or ratings, work
rules, food quality and service standards , or company policies and procedures ,
including whether to open or close operations; unless these disputes are brought
pursuant to a specific federal or state statute, or other applicable legal standard.
What are the exceptions to Arbitration?
The final step of DRP- Arbitration -is not available to resolve disputes:
• that do not state a legal claim under applicable law;
• that by controlling federal law cannot be subjected to mandatory arbitration ; or
• that are legally required under controlling federal law to be arbitrated or resolved under
a different process.
Class, Collective and Representative Actions
There will be no right or authority for any dispute to be brought, heard or arbitrated by
any person as a class action, collective action or on behalf of any other person or entity
under the DRP.The arbitrator has no jurisdiction to certify any group of current or former
employees, or applicants for employment, as a class or collective action in any
arbitration proceeding.
Other Actions
The DRP does not prevent an Employee from exercising statutorily protected rights to
file any administrative charge or complaint with administrative agencies. Such
administrative claims include, without limitation, claims or charges brought before the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the
National Labor Relations Board. Nothing In the DRP will preclude or excuse the
Employee from bringing an administrative claim before any agency in order to fulfill the
obligation to exhaust administrative remedies before making a claim in arbitration.
JD(NY)-26-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This agreement contains the requirements, obligations, procedures and benefits of the
Dispute Resolution Process (DRP). I acknowledge that I have received and/or have
had the opportunity to read this arbitration agreement. I understand that this
arbitration agreement requires that disputes that involve the matters subject to the
agreement be submitted to mediation or arbitration pursuant to the arbitration
agreement rather than to a judge or jury in court. I agree as a condition of my
employment, to submit any eligible disputes I may have to the DRP and to abide by the
provisions outlined In the DRP. I understand this includes, for example, claims under
state and federal laws relating to harassment or discrimination, as well as other
employment-related claims as defined by the DRP. Finally I understand that the
Company Is equally bound to all of the provisions of the DRP. [Emphasis supplied]
[Space for signatures]
In addition to these stipulations, certain uncontradicted facts are set forth in the court documents
of the Charging Parties' lawsuit and the Respondents' Notice of Removal and Motion to Compel
Binding Arbitration. The DRP has been in effect since at least 1995 and the Charging Party
executed the agreement in February 2012. The Charging Party's "Class Action Complaint" was
for the alleged failure to provide required meal periods and rest periods, failure to pay overtime
wages and minimum wages, failure to timely pay wages and to pay all wages due to employees
who quit or were terminated and failure to maintain required records and to furnish accurate
itemized statements. The court documents state that neither Darden, YH USA (Yard House
USA, Inc.), nor YH LLC has any employees in the State of California and that GMRI, Inc. is "the
only proper defendant... as the employer of record for Plaintiff." GMRI is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Darden and Darden is the sole shareholder of GMRI. YH USA is a wholly owned
subsidiary of GMRI and YH LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of YH USA. Darden acquired YH
USA on August 29, 2012 and from that time GMRI has been the employer of the employees at
the locations involved herein. Prior to that date, YH USA was the employer at the location
involved as well as all the Yard House restaurants throughout the country.
Analysis
Initially, I note that as the Complaint does not allege that the Respondents violated the
Act by maintaining a mandatory arbitration agreement that employees would reasonably believe
bars them from filing charges with the Board and/or restricts their access to the Board's
processes, I need not determine that issue. The initial issue therefore is whether the
maintenance of the DRP and the requirement that prospective employees sign it as a condition
of employment violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and I find that it clearly does.
This is another case in line with D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB 2277 (2012), Murphy Oil
USA, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 72 (2014) and Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC, 362 NLRB No. 27
(2015). The DRP requires the employees to utilize arbitration to determine any dispute and
prohibits class, collective or consolidated actions. Horton applied the test as set forth in
Lutheran-Heritage Village- Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004), which stated that the initial inquiry is
whether the rule at issue explicitly restricts activities that are protected by Section 7 of the Act; if
so, it is unlawful. If not, the finding of a violation is dependent upon a showing of one of the
following: employees would reasonably construe the rule to prohibit protected activity or the rule
has been applied to restrict the exercise of this activity. The Board, in Horton, found that
"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. In
JD(NY)-26-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
Murphy Oil, supra, the Board stated that although Horton was rejected by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and was viewed as unpersuasive by the Second and Eighth
Circuits: "We have independently reexamined D.R. Horton, carefully considering the
Respondent's arguments, adverse judicial decisions, and the views of our dissenting
colleagues. Today we reaffirm that decision. Its reasoning and result were correct..."
On May 26, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Jacob
Lewis v. Epic Systems Corporation agreed with the Board and found that these restrictions on
class, collective or representative proceedings violate the Act and affirmed the District Court's
decision to refuse to dismiss the employee's claim based upon the arbitration agreement. The
Court cited a number of Supreme Court rulings in making this finding: contracts "stipulating...the
renunciation by the employees of rights guaranteed by the [NLRA]" are unlawful and may be
declared to be unenforceable by the Board, National Licorice Company v. NLRB, 309 U.S. 350,
369 (1940); "Whenever private contracts conflict with [the Board's] functions , they obviously
must yield or the [NLRA] would be reduced to a futility." J.l. Case Co. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 332,
337 (1944); and Section 7's "other concerted activities" have long been held to include "resort to
administrative and judicial forums ." Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556, 566 (1978). The Court
further stated:
Epic's clause runs straight into the teeth of Section 7. The provision prohibits any
collective, representative, or class legal proceedings. Section 7 provides that
"employees shall have the right...to engage in...concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." A collective representative, or
class legal proceeding is just such a "concerted activity."
The Court concluded that a contract that limits Section 7 rights that is a condition of employment
or of continued employment, interferes with and restrains employees in the exercise of those
rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act . And that is the situation in the instant matter. The
DRP required employees to forego any class, collective or consolidated actions and mandates
that all arbitrations must be brought in an individual capacity. It therefore violates Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act .
An additional issue is which of the Respondents are proper parties herein and are
responsible for the unfair labor practices alleged herein. Although all four entities are listed as
Respondents, I note that Paragraph 9 of the Complaint alleges that Respondents Yard House
Northridge, Yard House USA and GMRI, but not Darden, required employees to execute the
DRP as a condition of employment. ln addition, uncontradicted Declarations that are part of the
Court documents state that since 2012, when the employees were transitioned from Yard
House USA to GMRI, GMRI has been the employer of employees at all Yard House locations
throughout the country, including the location where the Charging Party was employed, and
since that transition, Yard House USA and Yard House Northridge have not employed any
employees in the State of California. I therefore find that only Respondent GMRI violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by requiring its employees to agree to the DRP as a condition of
employment.
It is next alleged that the Respondent's Motion to Compel Binding Arbitration filed on
May 8 interfered with the Charging Party's rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act , in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Stipulation of Facts at Paragraphs 17 and 18 states that on
May 7 and 8 Respondents Darden, Yard House Northridge, Yard House USA and GMRI, acting
jointly, filed a Notice of Removal of Action and Motion to Compel Binding Arbitration. Clearly,
these Court filings had the purpose of having Martinez' lawsuit dismissed and requiring him,
instead, to arbitrate the dispute pursuant to the terms of the DRP. The law is clear that lawsuits
JD(NY)-26-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
which attempt to enforce contract provisions which violate the Act , constitute independent
violations. Bill Johnson's Restaurants v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 747 (1983). By filing these Court
actions on May 7 and 8 to dismiss Martinez' Court action and require him to arbitrate his dispute
pursuant to the terms of the DRP, the Respondents further sought to restrict his right to engage
in protected concerted activity, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Philmar Care, LLC, 363
NLRB No. 57 (2015); Employers Resource, 363 NLRB No. 59 (2015).
The remaining issue is whether the charges herein are time barred by Section 10(b) of
the Act. As the evidence establishes that the Respondent has continued to maintain the DRP, it
constitutes a continuing violation that is not time barred by Section 10(b) of the Act. Employers
Resource, supra, fn. 2.
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondents are each employers within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By requiring employees, and prospective employees, to sign the DRP, whereby they agree to
individual arbitrations to resolve any labor dispute that they had with their employer, thereby
waiving the right to maintain class or collective actions in all forums, Respondent GMRI violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. By bringing Court actions on May 7 and May 8 the Respondents Darden, GMRI, Yard
House USA and Yard House Northridge violated Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act.
REMEDY
The appropriate remedy for the violations found is an order requiring Respondent to
cease and desist from their unlawful conduct and to take certain affirmative action to effectuate
the policies of the Act. Specifically, Respondent GMRI must rescind or revise the mandatory
arbitration employment agreement, notify Martinez and other current and former employees who
executed the agreement, and the Court that it has done so, and inform the Court that it no
longer opposes class Martinez’ action on the basis of the agreement. Respondents must also
reimburse Martinez for all reasonable expenses and legal fees incurred in opposing its unlawful
motion to compel individual arbitration of his class action suit, with interest computed and
compounded daily in the manner prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), and
Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010).See Murphy Oil and Cellular Sales.
On these finding of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record, I issue the
following recommended2

ORDER
Respondent, GMRI, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall

2 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(NY)-26-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Maintaining and/or enforcing an arbitration provision 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.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind the DRP arbitration provision in all of its forms, or revise it in all of its forms to
make clear to employees that the arbitration provision does not constitute a waiver of their right
to maintain employment-related joint, class, or collective actions in all forums.
(b) Notify all current and former employees who were required to sign or otherwise become
bound to the mandatory arbitration provision in any form that it has been rescinded or revised
and, if revised, provide them a copy of the revised provision.
In addition
Respondents GMRI, Inc., Darden Restaurants, Inc., Yard House USA, Inc., and Yard House
Northridge LLC, its officers, agents, successors and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Taking any action, in court or otherwise, to restrict or prevent its employees from bringing or
maintaining a joint, collective or class action.
(b) 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify the United States District Court, C.D. Cal. In Case No. 2:15-cv-3434, that Respondent
GMRI has rescinded or revised the mandatory arbitration provision upon which it based its
motion to dismiss and compel individual arbitration of the claims of Filiberto Martinez, and
inform the court that it no longer opposes the lawsuit on the basis of that provision.
(b) In the manner set forth in Murphy Oil, 361 NLRB No. 72 (2014) and Countrywide Financial
Corp., 362 NLRB No. 165 (2015), reimburse Martinez for any reasonable attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses that he may have incurred in opposing the Respondent's motion to compel
individual arbitration.
(c) Within 14 days the Respondent GMRI shall post at each of its facilities, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix A," while each of the Respondents shall post at each of its
facilities the attached notice marked "Appendix B." Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 31, after being signed by the 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 the
JD(NY)-26-16
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material. If 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 all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any
time since February 20, 2015, and any current or former employees against whom the
Respondent has enforced its mandatory arbitration agreement.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for. Region 31 a
sworn 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 August 18, 2016

________________________________
Joel P. Biblowitz
Administrative Law Judge
JD(NY)-26-16
APPENDIX A
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 and/or enforce an arbitration provision that as a condition of
employment requires you to waive the right to maintain class or collective actions for
employment-related claims in all forums, arbitral or judicial and WE WILL NOT bring a Court
action to prevent you from participating in a class or collective action.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of rights listed above.
WE WILL rescind or revise the arbitration provision in all of its 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 current and former employees who were required to sign or
otherwise become bound to the arbitration provision in all of its forms that the provision has
been rescinded or revised and, if revised, WE WILL provide them a copy of the revised
provision.
WE WILL notify the United States District Court, C.D. Cal, that we have rescinded or revised the
arbitration provision upon which we based our motion to dismiss and compel individual
arbitration of the claims of Filberto Martinez, and inform the court that we no longer oppose
collective action on the basis of that provision.
WE WILL reimburse Filberto Martinez in Case No. No.2:15-cv-3434 for any reasonable
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses that he may have incurred in opposing the Respondent's
motion to compel individual arbitration.
GMRI, INC.
(Employer)
Dated:_________________ By: ______________________________________
(Representative) (Title)
JD(NY)-26-16
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
11150 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, California 90064-1824
Hours: 8:30a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
310-235-7352
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/31-CA-158487 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. 310-235-7123.
JD(NY)-26-16
APPENDIX B
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 bring a Court action in order to prevent you from bringing a class or collective
action regarding your employment with us.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain or coerce you in the exercise of your rights as
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL notify the United States District Court, C.D. Cal, that GMRI has rescinded or revised
the arbitration provision upon which we based our motion to dismiss and compel individual
arbitration of the claims of Filberto Martinez, and inform the court that we no longer oppose
collective action on the basis of that provision.
WE WILL reimburse Filberto Martinez in Case No. No.2:15-cv-3434 for any reasonable
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses that he may have incurred in opposing the motion to
compel individual arbitration.
DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC., YARD HOUSE USA, INC. and YARD
HOUSE NORTHRIDGE, LLC
(Employers)
Dated: _____________ By: ____________________________________________
(Representatives) (Titles)
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
JD(NY)-26-16
11150 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, California 90064-1824
Hours: 8:30 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.
310-235-7352
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/31-CA-158487 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, 310-235-7123.