Skip to main content

NLRB Overrules Browning-Ferris Joint Employer Decision


Earlier this month, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") overruled an Obama era NLRB decision, Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., that expanded the definition of joint employer and placed a larger number of employers on the hook for labor law violations that were committed by their subcontractors.  In the NLRB's 3 - 2 decision in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd., a "traditional" test will now be applied when considering whether an employer is jointly liable with a subcontractor for a labor law violation.  Under the traditional test, it must be shown that the employer had direct and immediate control over essential employment terms to support a finding that multiple entities (the employer, a subcontractor, etc.) are joint employers. 

For those unfamiliar with Browning-Ferris, the joint employer tests, etc., this has been a somewhat hot button issue since the Browning-Ferris decision was issued in 2015.  In that decision, issued during President Barack Obama's administration, joint employer liability could be established by showing proof of indirect control, contractually reserved control that had never been exercised, or control that is limited and routine.  Since the Browning-Ferris decision was issued, Republicans and pro-business groups have railed against the new "indirect control test" and claimed that it created uncertainty in day to day operations of many businesses.  An appeal had been filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal the NLRB's 2015 decision (although with the NLRB's decision in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd., the Court remanded the case back to the NLRB on December 22nd...in effect rendering the appeal moot.)  

Perhaps in an effort to circumvent future NLRB decisions that could undermine Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd., Republican backed legislation was introduced in Congress recently which sought to reverse the decision and permanently change the definition of "employer" as defined in the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The legislation, the Save Local Business Act, has managed to clear the House and is now under consideration in the Senate.  With a Republican controlled Congress (at least through the mid term elections next year), it appears that if Republicans can rally around this legislation, they could manage to pass it without any Democratic support.



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