Joint Employer Rule: Is Guidance on the Way?

21 November 2016 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Paul R. Monsees

As we have previously discussed, in its 2015 “Browning Ferris” decision, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) set a new standard for determining whether two entities are joint employers under federal labor law.  Since then, employers have faced a rocky road in trying to understand the implications of this standard.  Long-awaited guidance may finally be on the way.

The NLRB, Browning-Ferris, and other interested parties have just finished filing briefs relating to NLRB decisions announcing and applying the new joint employer standard. This is a critical case with potentially widespread impact for companies, including key decisions about how to structure their relationships with staffing companies, franchisees, vendors, and more. The matter is now in the hands of a District of Columbia federal court that will hopefully bring clarity to a very muddled issue.

To recap, Browning-Ferris (B-F) owns a waste recycling facility in California. It contracted with an entirely separate company, Leadpoint (LP), to staff certain functions at the recycling facility, and LP managed the HR issues for its employees. For example, B-F required that LP not pay its employees more than B-F employees who performed comparable work, and B-F and LP collaborated with respect to OSHA safety requirements. However, LP handled hiring, firing, training, scheduling, determining compensation, and administering benefits for its employees through LP’s own benefit plans and policies. LP also had its own administrative space at the B-F site, held meetings with its employees, and evaluated them based on LP’s standards.

The dispute arose because a union sought to hold an election that involved both B-F and LP employees, contending that the companies were joint employers. The NLRB regional director decided that they were not joint employers, finding that LP controlled its own employees and that B-F did not “share or co-determine” with LP important terms of the individuals’ employment.

The full NLRB decided differently however, holding that B-F and LP were joint employers because B-F supposedly had “indirect” or “reserved” control, meaning B-F could potentially exert control over important aspects of LP employees’ work terms and conditions, even if B-F did not actually exercise that control.

B-F contends that the NLRB completely changed, with no legal basis for doing so, a long-standing test for determining joint employer status that had required direct and immediate control over employees. Perhaps more important, B-F claims that the Board has now created confusion and ambiguity by treating limited and routine interaction with a vendor or contractor as if it was day-to-day control, such that companies will now operate in an “amorphous, unworkable fog.”

Hopefully, the court helps clear the fog, and soon. For example, the NLRB decision was not unanimous, and the dissent highlighted some practical problems with the “indirect” approach, including that companies often have many service providers. Are the companies all at risk to be characterized as joint employers for all the service providers’ employees? And how will joint employer status really be determined? The NLRB did not quantify the type or amount of indirect or reserved control, or the circumstances in which such control occurs, factors that may tip the scale against an employer as opposed to mere oversight or other activity that may not. How far can a franchisor, for example, set standards to protect its brand without crossing the line? Many issues are at stake.

Absent clear guidance about these and similar questions, companies are in the dark about how to structure vendor relationships to manage this risk and establish compliance. The court should take the opportunity to develop a clear standard to eliminate the uncertainty.

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