Skip to main content

Breaking: Republicans (& a Democrat) Announce Bill to Rewrite Joint Employer "Definition"


A few years ago, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") issued a decision in which it made it easier to hold employers jointly liable for workplace violations committed by their franchisees or contractors.  That decision, Browning-Ferris, dealt with a company that was held to be responsible for the treatment of its employees from a staffing agency (as the company was deemed to have control over wage and working conditions of these temp employees).  In doing so, the definition of "joint employer" was refined to allow for an employee to be considered an employee of both a temp agency and a company where they had been placed, despite the fact that the employee's supervisors lacked the traditional requisite degree of control over the employee.  This expanded, "indirect control" standard to establish joint liability has become a thorn in the side of many employers and pro-business groups around the country ever since the NLRB issued its decision.

With the NLRB not yet having a majority of Republicans on the five member Board, Republicans in Congress have instead turned their attention to a bill that would rewrite the definition of joint employer (and subsequently override the expansive scope imposed by Browning-Ferris).  Today, the 'Save Local Business Act', was introduced by a few members of the House.  Under this proposed bill, a stricter standard would be imposed in which only an employer that wields direct control over another company's employees can be classified as a joint employer that is jointly liable for the other company's employment and labor law violations.

As always, the question is whether Republicans can hold onto their slim majority to push this bill through both the House and Senate (assuming few Democrats sign onto this legislation...which I would not expect to happen in large numbers).  While there is a bit more leeway in the House, the Senate might be the one to keep an eye on.  Republicans hold a 52 - 48 majority.  As a result, if Republicans lose 3 votes from its caucus, that would likely mean the end of this bill becoming law.  With that being said, with many Republicans in Congress eager for a victory (or at least passing legislation to appease its base), I would expect this one to make its way through and become law sooner rather than later.



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

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

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