Skip to main content

NLRB Reported to Be Considering New Option to Overturn Browning-Ferris


As readers are likely aware, the President Obama era National Labor Relations Board (‘NLRB’) issued a decision, Browning-Ferris, which was met with much disdain from pro business groups and employers alike.  Much of the criticism focused on the new, relaxed joint employer standard that was created which held that employers could be liable for labor violations of a contractor or franchisee if the employer exercised direct or indirect control.  Prior to Browning-Ferris, the joint employer standard had been only direct control.  However, once Republican appointed Board members gained a 3 - 2 majority vote of the NLRB, a December 2017 decision was issued, Hy-Brand, which reversed Browning-Ferris and reverted the joint employer test back to its orignial standard.

That ‘victory’ for pro-business groups and employers was short lived, however, after the NLRB vacated its decision in Hy-Brand in February on the grounds that one of the Republican appointed Board members, William Emanuel, should have recused himself from the decision making process because of an apparent conflict of interest.

Are you following along so far?

After the Board vacated its decision in Hy-Brand, attention has quickly turned to whether (or more likely when) the Board will find another case in which it can issue a decision to reverse Browning-Ferris.  There has been some concern among NLRB observers that the Board might again struggle to find a case in which at least one of its newly appointed Board members would not have to recuse themselves.  If that were to happen, a Board decision would likely be 2 - 2...which means Browning-Ferris would remain in place.

However, it now appears the NLRB might have found a way around that potential conflict of interest matter.  It has been reported that the NLRB is now considering engaging in rulemaking to establish a joint employer standard (presumably the ‘direct control’ joint employer standard), rather than trying to find another case to reverse Browning-Ferris.  In doing so, this proposed joint employer regulation would overturn Browning-Ferris and elminate the possibility of a similar Hy-Brand/conflict of interest scenario.  While this idea is still in the early stages, I would expect it to start picking up steam in the months ahead.


For additional information:  http://www.insidesources.com/fed-labor-board-looks-undo-obama-era-rule/

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