Food, Folks, and Franchise-Wide Liability: NLRB Signals Intent to Pound Square Joint Employer Peg Into Round Franchise Hole

11 August 2014 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

A big part of what makes the franchise model of business attractive to small business owners is the opportunity to own and operate their own business, but with their entrepreneurial risk backstopped by a known regional or national brand. In turn, the franchisor facilitates the success of its franchisees by providing varying degrees of uniformity to franchise operations as a whole, from which both the franchisor and the franchisees benefit economically. Conceptually and legally however, the franchisor and the franchisee operate separate businesses, and each must achieve success through its own efforts. This longstanding and widely used business model has just come under attack to the possible significant benefit of agitating employees and labor unions.

Late last month, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board issued an advice memorandum directing the Board’s regional offices to treat the franchisor and franchisees of McDonald’s as joint employers in 43 unfair labor practice charge matters pending throughout the country if the charges cannot be informally settled. This directive comes against the backdrop of organized labor’s recent campaign agitating for a $15/hour minimum wage for fast food workers nationwide. Though the General Counsel directive does not at this point have the legal heft of a full Board decision, it is not hard to imagine the current members of the Board – if this issues comes before them – endorsing the General Counsel’s joint employer conclusion in light of the clearly labor-friendly trend the current NLRB has established.

The potential implications of this treatment range far beyond potential joint employer liability for the possible consequences of unfair labor practice allegations, which now at a minimum creates pressure to agree to union-dictated settlements merely because they file unfair labor practice charges. Joint employer treatment also has possible ramifications on union organizing efforts; with the Board signaling that it is about to reverse its Register Guard decision and open up all company email systems for union organizing use, it is not difficult to imagine what unions might do with access to a franchise email system, even if many employees do not have company email accounts. Unions would also have more options to include in their organizing strategy, and could focus on one franchisee or pursue a much larger employee group within the franchise network. Conceivably, the joint employer requirement could even be extended outside the NLRB’s umbrella in an effort to assert discrimination or wage and hour claims against a national franchisor.

While the General Counsel’s directive only technically applies to McDonald’s, it is highly likely the Board would take a similar view with respect to other national restaurant franchises, and then beyond the fast food industry after that. Not surprisingly then, both restaurant industry and business organizations immediately reacted to the General Counsel’s directive, calling it a change to decades of established U.S. franchise law that will jeopardize the entire franchise model in the country. For its part, McDonald’s has called the joint employer assertion “wrong” and vowed to fight it.

This issue will certainly merit close attention as it continues to develop. At this stage however, one thing is clear: the franchise model in the U.S. has become the latest battleground where federal agencies are looking to create onerous new employee protections and opportunities for organized labor to exploit.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights