Search form

Congress Reacts to Obama Administration Moves on Joint Employer Liability

By Tressi L. Cordaro
  • February 9, 2016

The Republican leadership of a congressional oversight committee has started investigating inter-agency communications in response to the Obama Administration’s attempts to hold business franchisors accountable for labor law violations of their franchisees.

Last August, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a highly controversial decision that expanded the definition of employer to include those with indirect control over many employment decisions. The ruling came after Richard Griffin, NLRB’s General Counsel, asserted that a national fast-food chain was a joint employer with various franchises. That same month a draft confidential memorandum surfaced within the Department of Labor (DOL) that proposed criteria in which a franchisor could be held liable as a joint employer with its franchisees for violations of Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards. DOL has described the contents of the document as “an investigatory tool” designed for information collection by OSHA’s compliance officers.

In response, in a letter in October 2015, the House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce requested information from DOL on what the Committee deemed was a proposed change in health and safety enforcement, as outlined in the draft memorandum. The request included information on the interaction between OSHA and other DOL agencies regarding modifications to OSHA’s multi-employer citation policy, DOL’s communications with NLRB, and DOL’s legal justification for the changes.

The DOL responded in a letter the following month, which, in part, stated that there had been no coordination between DOL and NLRB on OSHA’s draft memorandum. “The Department did not coordinate with the Board [NLRB] in crafting the tool provided for CSHOs [OSHA’s Compliance Safety and Health Officers],” wrote Adri Jayaratne, DOL’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs.

However, in correspondence dated January 19 to Secretary of Labor Tom Perez, Committee leadership accused DOL of being non-responsive to its information request. In addition, based on information the Committee obtained separately from NLRB, lawmakers contended that three communications between DOL and NLRB last summer raised concerns “about the veracity of the Department’s November 18 response.” The interactions involved alleged invitations for Griffin to participate in a video conference and a panel discussion with members of DOL’s Office of the Solicitor, and an email exchange in which a DOL attorney specializing in occupational safety and health asked Griffin for an NLRB contact who had knowledge of ongoing NLRB multi-employer liability litigation.

“This new information — and the Department’s unwillingness over a period of months to fully cooperate with the Committee’s request — calls into question the Department’s respect for Congress’s constitutional oversight authority,” wrote co-authors Representative John Kline (R-Minn.), Committee Chairman, and Representative Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), Chairman of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee. The congressmen gave Perez until January 26 to provide all the information previously sought by the Committee as well as all materials related to the three engagements between the two federal agencies.

Meanwhile, on January 20, DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) released its interpretation of joint employer liability. WHD Administrator David Weil said joint employment exists when a person is employed by two or more employers in a way that the employers are responsible, both individually and jointly, for compliance with a statute. Under both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, a worker could be employed jointly by two or more employers who are both responsible, simultaneously, for compliance, Weil said. (For more on this, see our article, U.S. DOL Issues Guidance on Joint Employment under the FLSA and MSPA.)

Taking note of the WHD policy, Congressman Walberg said in a statement, “This is part of a larger effort that will threaten the livelihoods of small business owners and destroy opportunities for workers and entrepreneurs to succeed in today's economy.” He predicted the effect of the Administration’s “outdated policies” on entrepreneurs will be to “hold them back.”

The Administration’s aggressive actions on joint employer liability are fraught with far-reaching legal ramifications. For that reason, employers operating on multi-employer worksites or as franchisors should seek guidance from knowledgeable counsel on just how to respond.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer inquiries regarding this and other workplace developments.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. For more information, visit www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

February 28, 2019

New York Labor Department No Longer Pursuing Call-In Pay Regulations

February 28, 2019

The New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) is no longer pursuing regulations on “call-in pay,” or predictive scheduling, that would affect most New York employers. The regulations would have required employers, among other things, to provide call-in pay (ranging from two to four hours at the minimum wage) if: Employers do... Read More

February 26, 2019

New York City Council Seeks Further Protections for Fast Food Industry Workers

February 26, 2019

The New York City Council introduced two bills to extend protections from workplace terminations to fast food employees. These two bills (Intro 1396 and Intro 1415) are the latest in a series of legislative actions by the City Council relating to the fast food industry. Fast Food Workers as a Specific Class The New York City... Read More

February 1, 2019

New York Legislative Update — 2019 Starts With a Roar

February 1, 2019

The New York State Legislature gaveled in for the 2019-2020 Legislative Session on January 9, 2019, with Democrats in control of all three chambers of New York State government for the first time since the 2008-2009 session. As expected, the Democrats are flexing their muscles and progressive legislation traditionally stalled in a... Read More