- Parental Leave
- Pay Disparity
- Religious accomodation in the workplace
- Equal pay and prior salary information
- I quit! How to avoid constructive discharge
- You Can't Shred Email
- Navigating Unemployment Claims
- Considering Criminal History in Pre-Employment Decisions
- Defamation Claims from Former Employees
- Mixed Motive Causation
- Requesting Accomodation: Kowitz v. Trinity Health
- Antitrust Law in Human Resources
- An Evolving Standard: Joint-Employment
- What Does At-Will Employment Mean for Employers?
- Let's Talk About Wages
- THE FLSA: CHANGES ARE COMING
- Follow Up: Obesity and the ADA
- The Importance of Social Media Policies
- Is Obesity a Qualifying Disability under the ADA?
- Retaliation on the Rise: The EEOC Responds
- What Motivates You?
- "But I thought ...
- Who’s expecting? And what is he expecting?
- Are You Still Doing Annual Performance Reviews?
- Who is Your Employee?
- The unpaid intern trap Part II
- “We’ve been the victim of a cyber-attack”
- So, a Hasidic Jew, a nun in a habit and a woman wearing a headscarf walk into your office?
- The unpaid intern trap
- Pregnancy in the workplace
- Let's talk about honesty.
- "Did You Know" Series - Part I
- Conducting an Internal Investigation
- What HR can look forward to in 2015!
- The chokehold of workplace technology
- Does your company have trade secrets?
- North Dakota Construction Law Compendium for 2014
- Does the North Dakota baby boom affect you?
- Ban the Box? Why?
- The end of the world as we know it
- Everybody has an opinion
- Changes, Changes, Changes!
- Nick Grant presents at North Dakota Safety Council's 41st Annual Safety and Health Conference
- Email impairment: A potentially harmful condition
- Are Employers Required to Give Stressed-Out Employees Time Off?
- Can you obtain a credit report when investigating employee wrongdoing?
- Can’t we just sidestep the ACA?
- Should Your Employees Telecommute? Part III
- Should Your Employees Telecommute? Part II
- Should Your Employees Telecommute?
- Proper Investigation of Employee Misconduct
- Battles in the Wellness War
- Rules are rules! Aren’t they?
- What's going on in Bismarck
- A glimpse ahead
- Obesity as a disability under the ADA – reweighing the issue
- What’s next for your business under the Affordable Care Act?
- Criminal Background Checks
- Becoming a lawyer is a process, not an event [Section 5 of 5]
- Congress Says Yes To North Slope Energy Jobs Bill
- Test Your Knowledge of Social Media Policies and Employee Discipline
- Becoming a lawyer is a process, not an event [Section 4 of 5]
- What Every Employer Needs to Know About the NLRA
- Will the 2012 Elections Make A Difference
- Where There's Smoke...
- Dress Code Etiquette: Is Casual Friday Becoming Freaky Friday
- The Next Disaster May Be Yours
- Hostile Work Environment Claims
- North Dakota Employment Law Links
- There's An App For That
- Am I a “Business Associate”? Why Should I Care?
- Do You Recognize a Cat's Paw When You See One?
- Cell Phones Can Cost a Lot, Part II
- Becoming a lawyer is a process, not an event [Section 3 of 5]
- Cell Phones Can Cost a Lot, Part I
- The Economy - What HR Professionals Need To Know
- Becoming a lawyer is a process, not an event [Section 2 of 5]
- Three New Challenges For HR Professionals
An Evolving Standard: Joint-EmploymentBy: Allison Mann
Joint-employment is a legal phenomenon whereby a single employee is considered to be employed by two or more employers. The standards for judging joint-employment have been in constant evolution, but almost one year ago, the NLRB issued an opinion that contained a new test in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015).
Before talking about the new standard, it is important to understand the previous standard. A joint-employment relationship would be found if the putative employer could meaningfully affect matters related to the employment relationship, such as hiring, firing, discipline, supervision and direction. However, previous decisions focused on whether that control was “direct and immediate.” In many cases, the NLRB found that there was no joint-employment relationship where the control exercised was indirect or only potential. In other words, a company needed to not only possess the authority to control, but had to also exercise that authority.
The NLRB has now abandoned this position.
The Browning-Ferris Opinion:
In Browning-Ferris there were two employers, BFI and Leadpoint. BFI is a California waste disposal company. BFI’s employees are unionized. Leadpoint is a staffing agency. BFI hired Leadpoint to provide temporary workers to collect recyclables off a conveyor belt in one of the buildings. Because the Leadpoint employees did not work directly for BFI, they were prohibited from joining the union. The union was not pleased, and it petitioned the NLRB for review.
The NLRB revised its old standard. Instead of requiring that the putative employer actually exercise control over the employee, it was sufficient that the employer merely possessed indirect or potential control of the employee. It used a two-part test to make this determination: (1) whether there is a common law employment relationship with the employee in question, and (2) whether the putative joint employer possesses sufficient control over employee’s essential terms and conditions of employment to permit meaningful collective bargaining.
After reviewing the facts, the NLRB found that BFI had “significant control” that was both direct and indirect over hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, direction of work, hours, and wages of employees. That control was sufficient under the common law for there to be an employment relationship. The court then found that this control was significant enough to warrant collective bargaining. Therefore, BFI was a joint employer of the employees hired by Leadpoint. This means that the Leadpoint employees working at BFI have the right to join the union with the BFI employees, and collectively bargain as to those areas where BFI had control including hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, direction of work, hours, and wages.
The NLRB revised its standard “to better effectuate the purposes of the Act in the current economic landscape.” It is the NLRB’s position that the requirement of direct, exercised control served to “significantly and unjustifiably narrow the circumstances were a joint-employment relationship can be found.”
This decision has far-reaching effects. It will likely affect any business that uses independent contractors, companies that outsource work, entities that use staffing agencies, franchisors and companies with parent/subsidiary relationships.
So what should employers look out for today?
First, be aware about the terms and conditions of “employment” contracts with other business entities. It would be helpful to reassess those contracts with a focus on issues of control. Reassess whether there is any direct control (employee must receive a wage of $15 per hour), potential control (ABC Company may adjust employee wages if it sees fit), or indirect control (employee wages will be no more than $20 per hour).
Second, be aware of the changing law. Browning-Ferris has left us with many unanswered questions. It is unclear how this test may be used to apply to certain factual situations. The relative importance of each factor is unclear. It is not clear if there must be some direct control, or if indirect and potential control alone suffice to establish a common law employment relationship. It is likely that we will see answers to these questions in the coming years.
Third, if a joint-employment relationship under the new test does exist, a company is required to collectively bargain in good faith with those employees. Those employees will be permitted to join an existing union, and bargain with that union.
Last, do note that the new decision only affects the standards applied by the NLRB. It is not binding on other federal agencies. There is no indication that other agencies are going to adopt this decision, so as of now, the only real effect is to that of collective bargaining. However, this could change in the future.
Our interest in serving you
My law firm’s goal is to give understandable information and to foster discussion about real-life issues facing human resource professionals. If we are not achieving that goal or if you would like us to address other employment law issues, please email me at email@example.com. We promise to take your comments and ideas to heart.
(Otherwise known as “the fine print”)
I make a serious effort to be accurate in my writings. These articles are not exhaustive treatises, though, so do not consider them complete or authoritative. Providing this information to you does not create an attorney-client relationship with my firm or me. Do not act upon the contents of this or of any article on our homepage or consider it a replacement for professional advice.
Reprinted with permission from an article submitted for publication in the September, 2016 Southwest Area Human Resource Association newsletter.