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 The opinions expressed are those of the author.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.