The EmpLAWyerologist Firm

The Employer's Legal Wellness Professional

  • Home
  • About
    • About Janette Levey Frisch
    • How Can A Employer’s Legal Wellness Professional Help?
  • Our Services
    • Consulting
    • Investigations
    • Training
    • Keynote Speaking
    • Employment Practices Wellness Check-Up
  • Webinars & Seminars
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Schedule Your Free Consultation Today
You are here: Home / Co-Employment / What’s the Likely Impact of the NLRB’s Joint Employment Ruling?

What’s the Likely Impact of the NLRB’s Joint Employment Ruling?

September 10, 2015 by theemplawyerologist 8 Comments

We are back with our discussion of the NLRB case, Browning-Ferris Industries of California–and all the nlrbjointemploymentdoomsday predictions that seem to come with it. Now, I don’t mean to unduly minimize any concerns about how this ruling will impact businesses. I do, however, get a bit suspicious of broad, sweeping statements.  At the same time, what is the likely impact? Who is likely impacted by the ruling, and how? it What’s the big picture? This sounds like something to tackle after the jump. See you there!

Since the ruling deals with joint employers — or potential joint employers–let’s first figure out who is potentially a joint employer. We know staffing companies are potentially impacted, because: a) Browning-Ferris involved a staffing company; and b) staffing companies usually are joint employers, who supply employees to other companies– who are often joint employers. This also means that companies that contract with staffing agencies to augment their workforce are potentially impacted. Contractors and sub-contractors–and companies that use them– for similar reasons could also be impacted. Finally the other group(s) that may be affected are franchisors and franchisees.

How exactly would or could these groups be impacted?  Browning-Ferris now means that even in those instances where a client company leaves all the control of temporary employees to the staffing company, franchisee or contractor/sub-contractor the client company/franchisor/general contractor could be held liable for unfair labor practices committed by the staffing company/contractor/sub-contractor/franchisee and vice versa if those companies have the right to control those workers. Also, client companies might have to deal with a bigger bargaining unit, consisting not only of their direct employees but also the staffing company’s employees.

Now, before you decide to stop using staffing agencies or other outside contractors or sub-contractors,  or before you decide to get out of the staffing or contracting business, let’s take a closer look at the likely impact, and let’s get some perspective. The NLRB ruling only impacts those issues or charges governed by the NLRB.  The standard for determining joint employment for all other non-NLRA issues still requires the actual exercise of control. The fact is, most companies with temporary staff do in fact exercise sufficient control — direct and actual–to be joint employers under, say Title VII, FMLA, ADA, etc. Only those companies that actually pay the staffing company or the contractor to supply on-site supervision have the chance to escape joint employment liability over the employees in question. If client companies are already exercising actual, direct control, then they are already joint employers regardless of Browning-Ferris, and regardless of whether the issue is an unfair labor practice or other allegation.

With respect to unionization, the threat tends to be greater in situations involving large companies that use staffing agencies or other outside contractors or sub-contractors on a long-term basis. Those employees, who may be doing the same work as the client company’s direct employees but whose benefits or other conditions are not as favorable may be interested in joining a union. Many staffing company or outside contractors’ employees are on the client company’s work-site on a short-term basis. Will it make sense to try including those employees in a bargaining unit when tomorrow they may not even be on site? If the specific project for which the temporary employee(s) were hired is finished, it is doubtful that even the NLRB could compel a staffing company to continue employing their contingent workers — especially if they do not have another placement for them immediately following the end of a project.

Getting back to how most staffing/contracting arrangements work: If in most situations, the client company is already a joint employer under the direct-control standard, then, in most situations, this ruling may not change much at all–except in one aspect. Unions, having the explicit backing of the NLRB may more aggressively recruit such workers. Will those workers actually join? Time will tell–if an appellate court doesn’t change things first.

What about general and sub-contractors? How vulnerable are these companies — or the companies that use them? A In a typical owner-contractor relationship the owner often does not retain the right to control the essential employment terms of the contractor employee’s employment. Often the general contractor will not retain a right to control essential terms of the sub-contractor employee’s employment either. To that extent Browning-Ferris may once again have little impact.

With respect to the franchisor-franchisee model, the NLRB separately ruled on that issue in a case involving McDonald’s, and it looks like McDonald’s will appeal that ruling. For that matter, an appeal of Browning-Ferris sounds like a reasonable possibility.  What this really amounts to at this time are a whole lot of maybes.

Wait a minute. Aren’t Professional Employer Organizations (PEO’s) also joint employers? Yes, but typically they do not retain control over the employees’ essential working conditions. PEO’s do not have a right to control the means, method and manner of work that the leased employees perform, nor do they control the work environment, and most often they do not determine benefits, privileges, scheduling, etc. The PEO generally takes care of the administrative functions, such as paying the payroll, administering pre-determined benefits, record keeping and the like. The typical PEO arrangement does not appear to be vulnerable as a result of this ruling.

So where does that leave employers who use staffing agencies or general contractors? For that matter where does it leave the staffing agencies or contractors or sub-contractors? The truth is we don’t know. It’s too soon to tell–especially if you factor in the likely appeals. So what should you all do? First, don’t panic. Second, determine if you really are someone who is likely to be impacted by the ruling. If not, you need not to anything different at all. If you are, then yes, for now, you may want to consult with competent employment counsel to explore your options–and keep your eye out for new developments!

Join The EmpLAWyerologist for regularly scheduled programming, which in this case is the originally promised mini-series on different issues posed by non-competes. Cheerio!

Disclaimer: This post and all its contents are for educational/informational purposes only, are not intended as legal advice, do not create an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to replace consultation with competent employment counsel in the state(s) in which you employ people.

If you want to really be up to date on hot-button employment law topics, with a monthly EmpLAWyerology Alert subscription and learn about upcoming webinars, email janette@theemplawyerologist.com or sign up by visiting our website, www.theemplawyerologist.com.

Watch The EmpLAWyerologist Firm’s new video clip.

“Like” The EmpLAWyerologist on Facebook, by clicking here.

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)

Related

Filed Under: Co-Employment, Joint Employment, National Labor Relations Board Tagged With: Browning-Ferris Industries, co-employment, collective bargaining, franchisor-franchisee, general contractor-sub-contractor, joint employer, joint employment, labor unions, National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, owner-contractor, staffing agencies, union organization

Comments

  1. Andrew Karpie says

    September 10, 2015 at 10:25 am

    Janette, Would you be able to clarify “if you really are someone who is likely to be impacted by the ruling.” ? Thanks

    Reply
    • theemplawyerologist says

      September 10, 2015 at 10:47 am

      Hi Andrew. Thank you for your question. If your company is one that already met the “joint employer” definition under the prior standard, this ruling will not really change much — or anything for you. If your company does not using staffing firms or outside contractors, then for sure the ruling does not impact you. If your company is either a staffing company or uses staffing companies for short-term assignments the ruling may not impact you, because a union may not feel its worthwhile to try to include staffing company employees in a bargaining unit. If your company uses outside contractors or staffing companies but maybe is too small or for some other reason is simply not an attractive prospect for a union, then here too, your company may not be so impacted by this ruling. These are just a few examples. My point really is that often when an NLRB ruling, EEOC position statement or court case comes down, we will hear and see a lot of sweeping statements as to the impact. For some people this ruling may in fact have significant impact. For many it may have little or no impact at all. Hope that helps.

      Reply
      • Andrew Karpie says

        September 10, 2015 at 11:04 am

        Thank you, Janette. That helps very much. One additional question about one specific case: If I am a large company that uses staffing firms extensively, then has NLRB increased my risk of co-employment and the consequences (being liable for staffing firm poor labor practices, unionization)? Thanks. Andrew

        Reply
        • theemplawyerologist says

          September 10, 2015 at 11:18 am

          Hi Andrew. Does the extensive use mean that you have long-term projects for which the staffing firms provide you long-term temps? Also, what does your contract with the staffing firm say? Do you retain the right to control the temps’ working conditions? Does the staffing firm provide on-site supervision? It’s very possible that your company was already a joint employer even before the NLRB relaxed the standard. The other point — which I admit is not in my post–is that your company if it would be jointly liable, would only be liable as to employment practices as they relate to the temps on your site and not other people that the staffing company provides to other clients. The other point with joint liability is that in the event of litigation, you would still be able to present evidence as to your role vis a vis the temps versus that of the staffing agency to apportion actual liability. In a worst case scenario even if temps sued only your company you could either add the staffing company as a co-defendant or file suit separately against the staffing company for contribution — i.e. reimburse you in the amount that represents their share of liability. Regarding unionization, according to the American Staffing Association, the NLRB has issued rulings that have made it easier for temps to either organize or to be inlcuded in bargaining units in the past and that has not resulted in a demonstrable increase in unionization of temps. So, again, it’s really not clear at this time whether this ruling really will result in an actual, significant increase in unionization among contingent workers. Also, this case is unlikely to be the last word on the subject. I suspect that the ruling will be appealed. There is also the McDonald’s case–and McDonald’s has indicated that it will appeal. So again, we need to stay tuned.

          Reply
  2. Andrew Karpie says

    September 10, 2015 at 12:45 pm

    Thank you, Janette. Very helpful!

    Reply
    • theemplawyerologist says

      September 10, 2015 at 12:49 pm

      Always glad to be of help! Thanks for writing in!

      Reply
  3. cards chennai|wedding cards in chennai|cheap and best wedding cards in chennai|wedding cards shop chennai|wedding cards design with price in chennai|wedding cards at chennai|best wedding cards in chennai|creative wedding cards chennai|wedding cards shops says

    September 17, 2015 at 2:05 am

    I do not know whether it’s just me or if perhaps everyone else experiencing issues with your site. It appears as if some of the text within your content are running off the screen. Can someone else please comment and let me know if this is happening to them too? This may be a problem with my web browser because I’ve had this happen previously. Cheers|

    Reply
    • theemplawyerologist says

      September 17, 2015 at 10:18 am

      Anyone else out there having the same problem? If so, please give a “shout” and I will try to get it addressed from this end. Thanks!

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Tags

ADA ADAAA ADEA Americans with Disabilities Act Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act Civil Rights Act of 1964 co-employment disability discrimination Discrimination DOL EEOC employee leave employment discrimination Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Fair Labor Standards Act Family Medical Leave Act FLSA FMLA FMLA interference FMLA retaliation harassment Independent contractor joint employer joint employment National Labor Relations Act National Labor Relations Board NLRA NLRB overtime Pre-Employment Screening reasonable accommodation reasonable accommodations religious discrimination retaliation sex discrimination sexual harassment sexual orientation discrimination Title VII US Department of Labor US Supreme Court wage and hour worker misclassification workplace harassment workplace safety workplace violence

Join Our Community

Join hundreds of other successful professionals and receive monthly updates and alerts regarding must-read employment law updates as well as invitations to our upcoming webinars.

Connect With The EmpLAWyerologist

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Register for this Webinar

How We Can Help

  • Consulting
  • Training
  • Investigations
  • Keynote Speaking
  • Employment Practices Wellness Check-Up

CONTACT US

Law Office of Janette Levey Frisch
"The EmpLAWyerologist" Firm - The Employer's Legal Wellness Professional
300 Carnegie Center Drive - Ste 150
Princeton, NJ 08540
(732) 902-0728
theemplawyerologist.com

All rights reserved. Copyright The Emplawyerologist Firm. Crafted with by 3P Creative Group.

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.