Skip to main content

NLRB Chairman Issues Letter Ahead of Expected Joint Employer Rulemaking


Recently, National Labor Relations Board Chairman John Ring sent a letter to several Senators to address ‘concerns’ they have over the expected joint employer rulemaking that the National Labor Relations Board (‘NLRB’) is set to undertake this summer. In the letter, Chairman Ring states that a majority of the NLRB is committed to engaging in rulemaking in regard to the joint employer standard.  (Of course the Chairman is likely only referring to the three Board members appointed by Republican Presidents. The other two Board members were appointed by a Democratic President).  

But first, let us take a step back for a minute to get the big picture here.  Readers will recall that after Republicans gained majority control of the NLRB, the Board issued a decision in Hy-Brand which reverted the joint employer standard back to its ‘original’ form:  Employers would only be liable for the labor law violations of their contractors if the employer exerted direct control over the terms and conditions of employment of that contractor.  This was met with rousing support by employers and business groups alike that detested the President Obama era NLRB Browning-Ferris decision which imposed joint employer liability on employers for either direct or indirect control.  However, the Hy-Brand decision did not stand for long as it was soon held that one of the Board members should have recused himself from the decision making process in Hy-Brand because of a conflict of interest.  That meant Browning-Ferris went back into place. 

Not long after this all occurred, Board members and pro-business groups began to look at whether another joint employer case could be brought before the Board to again undo Browning-Ferris.  However, questions still arose as to whether other Board members would have to recuse themselves from subsequent joint employer cases (which would likely lead to Browning-Ferris remaining in place as Republican appointed Board members likely would not have enough votes to undo Browning-Ferris).  As a result, attention turned to whether the NLRB could instead engage in rulemaking to issue a new rule that would undo Browning-Ferris. With Chairman Ring’s recent letter, he indicates that not only is the Board interested in pursuing this avenue, but in fact the Board is already set to engage in the process sometime this summer.  Now this does not necessarily mean that Browning-Ferris will be undone...but with majority control of the Board, after the comment period on the proposed joint employer rule is over, I would expect the Board will issue a new rule that reverts the joint employer standard back to only direct control.

For the time being, I would expect labor unions & Democratic Congressmen and Congresswomen to escalate their criticism of the Board’s joint employer rulemaking process.  Stay tuned.


For a copy of Chairman Ring’s letter:  https://www.nlrb.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/news-story/node-6695/nlrb_chairman_provides_response_to_senators_regarding_joint_employer_inquiry.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more