Skip to main content

NLRB Formally Proposes Codification of Hy-Brand Joint Employer Standard


At long last, on September 14th, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") published in the Federal Register the proposed joint employer standard, based upon the vacated decision in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd.  Readers might recall that ever since the NLRB had majority control by Republicans, employers and pro-business groups pushed for a change to the Browning-Ferris joint employer standard (established during the President Barack Obama NRLB era) that stipulated that joint employer liability could exist if an employer exercised direct or indirect control over a separate employer's employees.

Under this proposed rule, an employer may be considered a joint employer of a separate employer's employees only if the two employers share or co-determine the employees' essential terms and conditions of employment, such as firing, discipline, supervision, and direction.  Going one step further, this rule would establish that the putative joint employer must possess and actually exercise substantial, direct, and immediate control over the employees' essential terms and conditions of employment that is not limited and routine.  As a result, this proposed codification would do away with the Browning-Ferris direct or indirect joint employer standard.

It is important to note that this proposed rule is not official and reflects the "preliminary view" of the NLRB that is subject to revision in response to comments.  The comment period is open for approximately 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register.  With Republican appointed Board members having a 3 - 2 majority, I would be surprised if this codification did not take effect soon after the comment period closes.


For a copy of the proposed rule:  http://hr.cch.com/eld/2018-19930.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