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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT