Search form

U.S. Lawmakers Introduce Legislation to Restore Definition of 'Joint Employer' under National Labor Relations Act

By Philip B. Rosen
  • September 11, 2015

Senator Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and Representative John Kline (R., Minn.), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, introduced legislation to curtail the National Labor Relations Board’s expansive new standard for determining “joint employer” status set forth Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (Aug. 27, 2015).

Before Browning-Ferris, a joint employer relationship existed only where “two separate entities share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment.” The essential element in this analysis is “whether a putative joint employer’s control over employment matters is direct and immediate.” Airborne Express, 338 NLRB 597, 597, n.1 (2002). Browning-Ferris broadened the standard to include employers who may only affect employees’ terms and conditions of employment indirectly. (For additional information regarding Browning-Ferris, please see our article, Labor Board Sets New Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status.)

The proposed legislation, "Protecting Local Business Opportunity Act," S. 2015, H.R. 3459, 114th Cong. (Sept. 9, 2015), would amend the National Labor Relations Act’s definition of employer to restore it to pre-Browning-Ferris status. The amendment states: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, two or more employers may be considered joint employers for purposes of this Act 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." The bills' sponsors stated that the legislation is intended to protect small businesses and entrepreneurs and to restore policies in place long before the Board’s decision, “the very same policies that served workers, employers, and consumers well for decades.” Lamar Alexander, Press Release (2015), Legislation Will Roll Back Labor Decision that “Threatens to Steal the American Dream from Owners of the Nation’s 780,000 Franchise Businesses and Millions of Contractors.

The bills were referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and House Committee on Education and the Workforce, respectively, for consideration.

Please contact the Jackson Lewis labor lawyer with whom you regularly work if you would like to discuss the implications of Browning-Ferris and the proposed legislation in more detail.

©2015 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 that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

September 17, 2019

Access to Private Property: Labor Board Rules Girl Scout Cookies and Union Protesters are Different

September 17, 2019

A nonemployee’s solicitation for charitable or civic causes on an employer’s property is not the equivalent of a nonemployee union representative’s engaging in a protest soliciting customers to boycott an employer or in union organizing on the property, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has held. Kroger Limited Partnership, 368... Read More

September 13, 2019

Top Five Labor Law Developments for August 2019

September 13, 2019

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found an employer did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by misclassifying its employees as independent contractors. Velox Express, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 61 (Aug. 29, 2019). Velox engaged drivers classified as independent contractors to transport medical samples to hospitals and... Read More

September 12, 2019

Labor Board Adopts ‘Contract Coverage’ Standard in Unilateral Change Cases, Overturns Precedent

September 12, 2019

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has made it easier for employers to defend against unfair labor practice charges alleging a unilateral change in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). As suggested by Chairman John Ring and Member Marvin Kaplan in E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 368 NLRB No. 48 (Sept. 4,... Read More