Search form

Congress Proposes Legislation to Overturn NLRB Ruling on Joint Employer Liability

  • December 1, 2015

Lawmakers have introduced identical legislation in both chambers of Congress to overturn a landmark decision by the National Labor Relations Board intended to broaden joint employer liability. By including employers who may only indirectly affect employees’ terms and conditions of employment, or have the right to affect such terms and conditions, the controversial Board decision has swept many more businesses under the “joint employer” umbrella and increased labor union bargaining power.

Under the new standard, control of employment terms and conditions can be direct or indirect, such as through an intermediary or through contractual provisions that preserve the right to control, regardless of whether that right is ever exercised.

Prior to the 3-2 ruling in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (Aug. 27, 2015), a joint employer relationship existed only where an employer could meaningfully affect matters relating to the employment relationship, such as hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, and direction. The essential element in the new analysis is whether a putative joint employer, under the Board’s elastic analysis, “possesses sufficient control over employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment to permit meaningful bargaining.” (For details of the decision, see our article, Labor Board Sets New Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status.) The NLRB ruling overturned three decades of precedent and is expected to immediately affect independent staffing services, subcontractors, distributors, and franchisees.

Shortly after release of the NLRB decision, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration moved to adopt the change for its statutory purposes by directing inspectors to collect information from franchisors and their franchisees to determine whether a joint employer relationship exists for purposes of OSHA liability. Previously, OSHA had indicated it would regard temporary service employers and host employers as joint employers in certain instances.

A concerned Congress quickly introduced bills designed to overturn Browning-Ferris and reinstate the old standard. Introduced in the House on September 9, the Protecting Local Business Opportunity Act, H.R. 3459, would amend the definition of “employer” in the National Labor Relations Act by adding a sentence at the end stating that two or more employers are to be considered joint employers “only if each shares and exercises control over essential terms and conditions of employment and such control over these matters is actual, direct, and immediate.” Senate Bill 2015 is the counterpart legislation in the Senate.

Both bills are popular on Capitol Hill. As of November 11, the House bill, which was introduced by Education and Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-Minn.), had 108 co-sponsors, including three Democrats. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, introduced the Senate version, which has 48 Republican co-sponsors. The bills are under consideration in their respective committees.

In a joint statement, Alexander and Kline said, “The NLRB’s new joint employer standard would make big businesses bigger and the middle class smaller by discouraging companies from franchising and contracting work to small businesses. Our commonsense proposal would restore policies in place long before the NLRB’s radical decision – the very same policies that served workers, employers, and consumers well for decades.”

©2015 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

August 8, 2018

New York Steps Closer to Legalizing Recreational Marijuana Use with Creation of Drafting Workgroup

August 8, 2018

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is setting the stage to begin debate over the legalization of marijuana for recreational use during the 2019 Legislative Session. The current marijuana program, restricted to medical marijuana usage, was signed into law in 2014. On August 2, 2018, Governor Cuomo announced the creation of a workgroup to... Read More

August 8, 2018

Missouri Right-to-Work Rejected by Voters

August 8, 2018

Missouri voters have rejected the state right-to-work law. Senate Bill 19, which would have made Missouri the nation’s 28th right-to-work state, was passed by the Missouri legislature on February 2, 2017, and signed into law by then-Governor Eric Greitens. Labor organizations and their supporters gathered enough signatures to keep the... Read More

July 19, 2018

Top Five Labor Law Developments for June 2018

July 19, 2018

Public sector employees who are non-members of a union cannot be legally required to pay agency or “fair share” fees as a condition of employment, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in a 5-4 ruling. Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, No. 16-1466 (June 27, 2018). The Court decided that a state’s enforcement of a provision in a collective... Read More