Skip to main content

NLRB General Counsel Proposes (More) Stringent Joint Employer Standard


Readers will recall that the President Barack Obama era National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) turned things upside down when a decision was issued in Browning-Ferris which established that a company could be held to be a joint employer (of a contractor or another business) if the company exerted direct or indirect control over the terms of the worker’s job.  This changed the ‘traditional’ joint employer standard which stipulated that direct and immediate control was required for joint employer liability to exist.  Since the Browning-Ferris decision, which allowed for indirect control to also be an avenue to establish joint employer liability, employers and business groups began to urge the NLRB to revert the joint employer standard to its traditional form, prior to Browning-Ferris.

After several false starts, including the Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd. decision which was vacated due to ethical concerns over the involvement of NLRB Board Member Emanuel in the Hy-Brand decision, the NLRB decided to invoke a rule making procedure to codify the change to the joint employer standard and avoid other potential conflict issues with subsequent decisions.  In September, the NLRB published in the Federal Register a proposed joint employer standard which provided an employer would be considered a joint employer of a separate employer’s employees only if the two employers shared or co-determined the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment, such as firing, discipline, supervision, and direction.  As well, the putative joint employer would be required to exercise substantial, direct, and immediate control over the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment that is not limited and routine.  Consequently, this proposed rule would do away with the Browning-Ferris direct or indirect joint employer standard.  For the most part, employers and business groups hailed this proposed codification as suitable.

Well pump the brakes.  Last week, the NLRB’s General Counsel, Peter Robb, surprised many when he suggested that the NLRB’s proposed joint employer standard did not go far enough as he felt it would improperly force certain companies to bargain with unions.  Robb instead has argued that an employer would not have to bargain with a union unless it controls “all listed essential terms and conditions of employment.”  As well, Robb noted that an employer should be liable for a co-emoloyer’s unfair labor practices only if it participated in the unlawful conduct.  These comments from Robb have the potential to drastically push the joint employer standard even further from what many thought would be approved by the NLRB.  Notably, Robb’s inclusion of “all” would make this proposed rule extremely friendly toward employers and make establishing joint employer liability much more difficult for labor unions and employees.

At this point, the NLRB has to respond to Robb’s proposed reformulation of the joint employer standard. This could result in the NLRB amending its proposal to coincide with Robb’s and/or choosing to open the public comment period again to solicit further opinions.  For the time being, the proposed codification of the joint employer standard will be (potentially significantly) delayed while the NLRB reviews things further.  In any event, the General Counsel’s suggested changes to the current proposal under review should serve as a warning to labor unions and their supporters that big changes are likely afoot in regard to the joint employer standard that are potentially much less favorable than what would have taken effect following the Hy-Brand decision.

Stay tuned.


For additional information:  https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/nlrb-general-counsel-joint-employer-proposal-falls-short-1

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