Skip to main content

NLRB Chairman Issues Letter Ahead of Expected Joint Employer Rulemaking


Recently, National Labor Relations Board Chairman John Ring sent a letter to several Senators to address ‘concerns’ they have over the expected joint employer rulemaking that the National Labor Relations Board (‘NLRB’) is set to undertake this summer. In the letter, Chairman Ring states that a majority of the NLRB is committed to engaging in rulemaking in regard to the joint employer standard.  (Of course the Chairman is likely only referring to the three Board members appointed by Republican Presidents. The other two Board members were appointed by a Democratic President).  

But first, let us take a step back for a minute to get the big picture here.  Readers will recall that after Republicans gained majority control of the NLRB, the Board issued a decision in Hy-Brand which reverted the joint employer standard back to its ‘original’ form:  Employers would only be liable for the labor law violations of their contractors if the employer exerted direct control over the terms and conditions of employment of that contractor.  This was met with rousing support by employers and business groups alike that detested the President Obama era NLRB Browning-Ferris decision which imposed joint employer liability on employers for either direct or indirect control.  However, the Hy-Brand decision did not stand for long as it was soon held that one of the Board members should have recused himself from the decision making process in Hy-Brand because of a conflict of interest.  That meant Browning-Ferris went back into place. 

Not long after this all occurred, Board members and pro-business groups began to look at whether another joint employer case could be brought before the Board to again undo Browning-Ferris.  However, questions still arose as to whether other Board members would have to recuse themselves from subsequent joint employer cases (which would likely lead to Browning-Ferris remaining in place as Republican appointed Board members likely would not have enough votes to undo Browning-Ferris).  As a result, attention turned to whether the NLRB could instead engage in rulemaking to issue a new rule that would undo Browning-Ferris. With Chairman Ring’s recent letter, he indicates that not only is the Board interested in pursuing this avenue, but in fact the Board is already set to engage in the process sometime this summer.  Now this does not necessarily mean that Browning-Ferris will be undone...but with majority control of the Board, after the comment period on the proposed joint employer rule is over, I would expect the Board will issue a new rule that reverts the joint employer standard back to only direct control.

For the time being, I would expect labor unions & Democratic Congressmen and Congresswomen to escalate their criticism of the Board’s joint employer rulemaking process.  Stay tuned.


For a copy of Chairman Ring’s letter:  https://www.nlrb.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/news-story/node-6695/nlrb_chairman_provides_response_to_senators_regarding_joint_employer_inquiry.pdf

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