ILNews

Gruber: NLRB announcement shakes up joint-employer standard

August 13, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Andrew Gruber

It is ironic that the week after Burger King’s new CEO is heralded for a profitability plan designed around the increase of franchises and the reduction of company-owned locations, the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board directed officials to treat McDonald’s USA as a “joint employer” with its franchisees for purposes of the National Labor Relations Act. Some say that it is the juxtaposition of these two storylines that underscores the tension between the business community and the current administration. Nonetheless, this new direction by the board may impact everything from wages to potential unionization for franchises, staffing companies and subcontractors.

gruber-andy.jpg Gruber

Over the past two years, union-supported McDonald’s workers have waged the “Fight for $15” – a coordinated attempt to increase wages in the fast food industry and call attention to perceived work-related concerns. Such efforts have dovetailed with the social and political push for an increase in the minimum wage and the still-beating Occupy Wall Street movement. McDonald’s workers have engaged in a number of walkouts, protests and rallies – each designed to bring publicity to their movement.

These efforts have the “natural” effect of creating tension between management personnel at the restaurants (many of which are franchise owned and operated) and local workers. This has resulted in the filing of unfair labor practice charges with the board, alleging that management has interfered with workers’ rights protected by the Act. At last count, there were 181 charges pending before the board, at least 43 of which involved allegations that McDonald’s USA was a joint employer with its franchisees, sharing responsibility for the treatment of the workers and the resulting liability.

Richard Griffin Jr., who effectively serves as the board’s chief prosecutor, announced July 29 that the board will seek to hold McDonald’s USA liable for its franchisees’ employment practices. In so doing, he is construing the board’s “joint- employer” standard far broader than the standard the board has followed in years past. Griffin aligns closely with the board’s pro-labor majority, which means the board will likely accept his position.

Indeed, the board is currently contemplating a revision to its joint-employer standard across a broader spectrum. In Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. et al. v. Sanitary Truck Drivers and Helpers Local 350, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the board is currently accepting amicus briefs from interested parties on whether to alter the board’s position on joint-employer liability. For decades, the board has determined that legally separate entities qualify as a joint employer only when they share basic employment functions (hiring, firing, supervision). See TLI Inc., 271 NLRB 798 (1984); Laerco Transportation, 269 NLRB 324 (1984). Without such control, a company which contracts its labor force is not a joint employer of such workers – avoiding collective bargaining requirements and liability for violations of the Act.

While the review in Browning-Ferris Industries of California is pending, Griffin’s directive concerning McDonald’s USA shows that certain board officials see a sweeping change on the joint-employer standards. Griffin’s directive is not published and is not binding law, so his underlying analysis of this situation is unknown. However, the Teamsters in Browning-Ferris Industries of California have given insight into what is likely the prevailing thought-process:

“(T)he NLRB’s current standard for defining joint employer status makes it overly difficult to establish joint-employer status. The current test does not address the realities of the modern workplace, where facility operators frequently rely on labor contractors to supply workers, while retaining control over both their and their labor contractor’s workforce. The current standard allows contractors and facility operators to avoid, as a practical matter, the basic legal obligation to recognize and bargain with workers’ chosen representatives, because such employees cannot engage in meaningful bargaining when the party that exercises control and influence over their working conditions is not required to participate or bargain.”

Griffin’s directive with McDonald’s USA shows an apparent willingness to lump the franchisor/franchisee relationship into the labor contractor pool at issue in Browning-Ferris Industries of California. Thus, it is not a stretch to assume that the board’s joint-employer standard will be broadened, and that such standard will reach franchises of nearly all sorts, staffing companies and labor subcontractors. A broadened joint-employer standard would also give unions potentially more support and opportunity for growth. Combined with the board’s new micro-unit rules, unions who could not otherwise organize a geographically diverse workforce would be provided greater opportunities to organize employees across multiple locations, or in a limited number of job classifications, whichever gives it the best chance to succeed.

Businesses are wise to address this issue now – reviewing their labor structure and subcontracts for protections and indemnification – otherwise they may be surprised to learn “who’s the boss.”•

Andrew Gruber is a partner in the Labor and Employment Practice Group of Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP out of its Indianapolis office. He can be reached at agruber@bgdlegal.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

ADVERTISEMENT