Skip to main content

Save Local Business Act Clears Another Hurdle in Congress


Last Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Save Local Business Act by a 242 - 181 vote in favor of the legislation.  The legislation (H.R. 3441) would redefine the definition of "joint employer" under the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act and hold that a person or employer would be considered a joint employer only if it directly, actually, and immediately, and not in a limited manner exercised control over the seasonal terms and conditions of employment (such as hiring employees, discharging employees, determining individual rates of pay and benefits, day to day supervision of employees, assigning individual work schedules, positions, tasks, and administering employee discipline).

Readers might recall that the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") issued a somewhat controversial decision in 2015, Browning-Ferris, which held that an employer can be considered a joint employer with a franchisee, staffing agency, subcontractor, etc, it the employer has either direct or indirect control over that entity's terms and conditions of employment or has reserved authority to exercise such control. Under this expanded definition of joint employer, the NLRB made it more likely that employers would be considered to be joint employers with their business partners (thus exposing employers to unprecedented exposure of potential litigation).

At this point, the Save Local Business Act is still a ways off from becoming law.  The U.S. Senate will now debate and consider the legislation before Senators vote.  I think it is still likely that this legislation will become law (likely sooner rather than later) as Republicans have majority control of Congress and have even been able to pick up a few Democrats to support the bill.

Stay tuned.


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,...

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

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. ...