Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week: Joint Employer Edition


Yesterday was one of the more noteworthy days in recent memory, in regard to employment and labor law related matters.  With the announcement of H.R. 3441, Congress will consider whether to amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act to establish that an employer will be liable for workplace conditions at another business only if the employer exercised 'direct control' over those conditions.  Readers might recall that a 2015 National Labor Relations Board ('NLRB') decision, Browning-Ferris, expanded the scope of joint employment and held that 'indirect control' was sufficient to establish a joint employer relationship (and thus liability for the employer).  Given the potential ramifications that the passage of this bill could produce (or the continued struggle and uncertainty for employers if this bill does not pass), I wanted to highlight a few articles on the matter.

As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week.


What Exactly Is the 'Save Local Business Act'? A Quick Primer

How about we start with the basics, at the beginning if you will, in regard to H.R. 3441 aka the 'Save Local Business Act'.  I already highlighted the bill yesterday (as well as above), but Press Release Rocket published a great article with gives a rather succinct overview of the bill (along with a defense to a pro business group that explains its rationale for why this legislation is needed).  Call this a primer (or a refresher for those more familiar with the bill) that is worth a quick read.


National Council of Chain Restaurants Champions Attempt to Rewrite Joint Employer Definition

Similar to the reference to the opposition to H.R. 3441 by the Teamsters, below, the National Council of Chain Restaurants (NCCR) coming out in support of the bill should not be much a surprise.  I do highlight this article to draw attention to one of the prevailing themes that has emerged with the announcement of this legislation:  Since the Browning-Ferris decision, a great deal of uncertainty has emerged in the arena of joint employer liability.  Advocates of this bill, including the NCCR, have argued that passage of H.R. 3441 is necessary to reign in the 'regulatory overreach' of the NLRB and. Ring joint employer liability back to the 30 year old standard that had been applied before Browning-Ferris.


Teamsters Announce Opposition to Attempt to 'Rewrite' Joint Employer Definition

To the surprise of very few, the Teamsters announced yesterday their opposition to the 'Save Local Business Act' (aka H.R. 3441 aka the bill announced by members of the House yesterday to do away with the Obama era Browning-Ferris NLRB decision that broadened the scope of joint employers).  While this bill is still in the very early stages (and the Teamster's opposition likely will not noticeably tip things in either direction), this is likely the first of many public efforts by pro-employee and labor groups who will seek to detail the legislation.  I doubt it will have a major impact (as Republicans have majority control in Congress and a Republican President who would likely sign the bill into law), but perhaps these efforts can succeed in pealing off a few Republican members of Congress?


Initial Democratic Opposition to Bill Begins to Emerge

Similar with the opposition by the Teamsters to H.R. 3441, at least one Democrat in Congress had announced his opposition to the bill.  Sean Higgins at The Washington Examiner noted that Democratic Representative Bobby Scott from Virginia criticized the bill on Thursday, pointing out that rewriting the definition of joint employer would insulate franchisers from liability and instead put small franchisees on the hook for their franchisers' actions.  Interesting argument, as it will be interesting to see if other Democrats adopt this defense to the bill.  Of course, note that at least one Democratic Representative, Henry Cueller from Texas, has come out in support of the bill.  Perhaps more Democrats will fall in line behind Cueller?  This is one development I would keep an eye on.


What Readers Can Expect From a President Trump Era NLRB

In full disclosure, while this article from Chris Wolf over at InsideAlerts does not directly address H.R. 3441, it does turn an eye toward the (near) future when the NLRB will likely be comprised of several of President Donald Trump's appointments and what readers could expect in terms of issued decisions.  Remember, the Browning-Ferris decision was issued during the Obama administration and subsequently turned joint employer liability on its head.  Might we see similar decisions from a Trump administration era NLRB?  Quite possible, of course I would expect those decisions to tilt more in the direction of employers...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...

Senator Bernie Sanders To Introduce Bill Requiring Large Corporations To Pay For Federal Assistance Programs

Next week, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is set to introduce legislation which would require large employers such as Walmart, Amazon, and McDonald's to fully cover the cost of food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, and other federal assistance programs that their employees receive.  Senator Sanders has stated that the goal is to force these large employers to pay their employees a living wage and cut back on the nearly $150 billion in taxpayer dollars that go toward funding these federal programs every year. As for the specifics, a 100% tax on government benefits received would be imposed on government benefits received by workers at companies with 500 or more employees.  For instance, if a Walmart employee received $500 in food stamps, Walmart would be taxed $500. To call this proposed legislation groundbreaking would be an understatement.  I would expect that Senator Sanders, an Independent that caucuses with Democrats, is going to face an uphill battle gett...

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations