Skip to main content

NLRB Vacates Browning-Ferris Joint Employer Decision


Remember back in December when the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") issued a decision that overruled the Obama era Browning-Ferris decision?  (Browning-Ferris 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.  Conservatives and pro-business groups detested this decision and it quickly became a focal point of criticism for the NLRB at the time.)

Of course, once Republicans gained majority control of the NLRB, they overturned Browning-Ferris in a 3 - 2 decision last December.  That decision, Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd., reapplied the "traditional" joint employer test and required that it must be shown that the employer had direct and immediate control over essential employment terms in order to find that multiple entities were joint employers.

However, as Bloomberg wrote, a memo was obtained in which NLRB Inspector General David Berry noted that Board Member William Emanuel should have recused himself because of a potential conflict of interest.  Emanuel sided with the Board's majority to overturn Browning-Ferris in the Hy-Brand decision.  (William Emanuel, a President Donald Trump appointee, had previously worked at Littler Mendelson...a lawfirm that had represented one of the parties in Browning-Ferris.)  The investigation was prompted by several Democratic lawmakers that sought to raise concerns over Emanuel's participation in Hy-Brand.

As a result, last week, the NLRB vacated its decision in Hy-Brand.  Yes, you read that correctly.

This is a monumental move that has the potential to reshape labor and employment law policy for the foreseeable future.  Of course, many are likely wondering now that the NLRB has vacated Hy-Brand, where does that leave us?  Well, in essence, we are back to where we started...with the Obama era Browning-Ferris joint employer standard back in place.  Currently, the NLRB has a 2 - 2 split among Republican and Democratic appointees.  While President Trump has nominated a new Board member, John Ring, to fill the vacant seat, there is no guarantee his appointment would result in another overruling of Browning-Ferris.  (In Ring’s confirmation hearing before a Senate Comittee last week, Democrats made conflict of interest a major focal point.)  Even if Ring is confirmed and another case came before the Board in which Browning-Ferris could be overruled, Emanuel would likely face continued calls for him to step aside and recuse himself.  If that were to happen, unless a Democratic appointee unexpectedly switched "sides", that would leave the Board again split at 2 - 2...and Browning-Ferris would again remain in place.

Could Congress codify Hy-Brand?  Possibly.  The Save Local Business Act is already under consideration.  That bill has cleared the House but now faces some resistance in the Senate.  But it begs the question whether Republicans in the Senate will be able to pass the measure...let alone whether they have an appetite to address an issue that seemingly is not a focal point for many voters (and which Democrats could use as a lightning rod in an attempt to further paint Republicans as turning a blind eye to conflict of interest issues/attempting to improperly circumvent the matter rather than let the NLRB deal with it at a later point.).  I would expect some Democratic Senators, namely Elizabeth Warren, to strongly contest the bill (as noted above, she was a critic of Board member Emanuel not recusing himself in Hy-Brand.)


For a copy of the NLRB's statement on vacating Hy-Brand:  https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-vacates-hy-brand-decision

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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more