- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- Class Actions
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Employment Discrimination
- Employment Liability
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Human Resources
- Labor Law
- Medical Marijuana
- Minimum Wage
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- Right to Work
- Tax Law
- Title IX
- Title VII
- Transgender Issues
- Union Organizing & Relations
- Wage & Hour
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Workplace Harassment
- Wellness Plan Rules Under Attack
- Michigan Governor Signs Paid Medical Leave, Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Acts
- ‘Tis the Season for Religious Accommodations
- Education Department Issues Proposed Title IX Rules Aimed at Balancing Rights of Victims, Accused
- Tax Considerations When Settling Employment Claims
- EEOC Takes on Justice Department over LGBTQ Employee Protections
- ADA vs. Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act – Differences Matter!
- Sales Commissions – A Common Source of Trouble for Employers
- Michigan Legislature Approves Bills to Increase Minimum Wage, Require Employee Sick Leave
NLRB Proposes Rule for Joint Employer Relationships
In a potential win for employers, proposed NLRB rule would again impose more stringent test on joint employer relationships.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is comprised of five members, appointed by the president, who serve for five years. One member’s term expires each year, so the composition of the board changes and so do some of its positions. The board’s position on “joint employers” has changed again, and this time employers can celebrate!
The concept of joint employers is important under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and has real consequence to employers. In 2015, a divided board in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015), overruled long time precedent making it significantly easier to find a joint employment relationship. A petition for review was filed and, in December 2017, a new board majority restored the prior more stringent standard. But, this change was short lived.
In February 2018, that decision was vacated, reverting back to the more relaxed standard for imposing a joint employment relationship. Currently, there is an appeal pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging the board’s authority in adopting the easier standard.
This makes a girl’s head spin. But the dance is not over. The board now proposes to adopt the more stringent standard through rulemaking and issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Comments concerning the Standard for Determining Joint-Employer Status on Sept. 14.
So what are the two standards? Under the more stringent, traditional standard, there must be evidence that the putative joint employer actually exercised ‘“direct and immediate’ control over the essential working conditions of another company’s workers.” Under the Browning Ferris majority’s relaxed standard, “a company could be deemed a joint employer even if its ‘control’ over the essential working conditions of another business’s employees was indirect, limited and routine, or contractually reserved but never exercised.”
Why does it matter? When a joint-employer relationship is found, the board can compel the putative “joint employer” to engage in good faith bargaining with the union that represents the employees who work for the other employer. In addition, both employers can be found jointly and severally liable for unfair labor practices regardless of who committed the act.
Additionally, picketing may occur lawfully at the putative joint employer (whereas if it was not so deemed, the picketing would be unlawful). In short, which standard applies will matter to your company if it, although a non-union employer, is deemed a joint employer with all of the obligations of a union shop and the liabilities for the unfair labor practices of its joint employer.
After 27 pages of background and miscellaneous information, the board’s notice sets out the new proposed rule as follows:
An employer, as defined by Section 2(2) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), may be considered a joint employer of a separate employer’s employees only if the two employers share or codetermine the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment, such as hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, and direction. A putative joint employer must possess and actually exercise substantial direct and immediate control over the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment in a manner that is not limited and routine.
Following the proposed rule are a dozen examples which include situations where employers hire contractors via business contracts, employers use temporary staffing agencies, companies supply line workers to manufacturers, franchisors and franchisees relationships etc. Comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to the board on or before Nov. 13.Tags: Employment Liability, National Labor Relations Act, National Labor Relations Board