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

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,...

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...

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