The Dishes Go Where? NLRB Reverses Major Joint Employer Ruling. Again.

text8-1-2020

– Me, to my mostly adult kids, on Friday (and the day before that, and the day before that, and the day before that…)

The text above should be no surprise to any of you who have elected to reproduce. Our offspring live in the stone ages. They do not understand the concept of an electric dishwasher. They are pre-Edison old school. If everything goes in the sink, they know that I will be the washer of the dishes.

For years, I have been sending the same message, usually face-to-face. It never gets through. But I keep trying and maybe, just maybe, one day we’ll get to the right result.

Same goes for the National Labor Relations Board and its repeated efforts to unravel the 2015 Browning-Ferris decision on joint employment.

Ah, yes, remember the Browning-Ferris case? Remember how in 2015, the Dem-controlled Board tried to rewrite the test for joint employment? The Board rejected 30 years of Board law and decided that indirect and reserved control would be enough to make someone a joint employer.

In 2017, the Board later tried to undo the Browning-Ferris decision but failed and — sorry, my bad — had to reinstate it. The case went to the Court of Appeals and then came back to the Board. But the Board it came back to is a more pro-business, Republican-controlled Board than the 2015 Board that issued the original decision.

Last week, the Board (for a second time) retracted the 2015 Browning-Ferris ruling. This time, the Board ruled that it had been “manifestly unjust” for the 2015 Board, after making up its new test, to apply that new test retroactively to Browning-Ferris Industries.  Cheers to that!

In last week’s ruling, the Board did not formally revoke the 2015 test, but it didn’t have to.

That’s because in February 2020, back in an era when mankind could roam the earth freely without hiding their lips, the Board issued a new test. The new test requires direct and immediate control before a company can be deemed a joint employer.

More information about NLRB’s new test is here, including a Q&A. For now, this is the test for joint employment under the National Labor Relations Act. A finding of joint employment requires direct and immediate control.

Before you go back to your home office all content and happy that you learned something already today and it’s not even coffee o’clock yet, remember — the NLRB test is not the full story when it comes to joint employment. The DOL has a different test for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) disputes, summarized here.  And the courts may or may not apply either of these agency-created tests. As discussed here, there’s a lawsuit filed by 18 states that challenges the legitimacy of the DOL test.

So the Browning-Ferris case may be finally done (or maybe not). At least for now, it seem done. But what’s not done is the jousting and pivoting over the various tests for determining who is a joint employer. That battle rages on.

Much like my personal battle to fill the dishwasher at home.

© 2020 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

2018_Web100Badge

 

Up North, Uber Can’t Make Drivers Go to Amsterdam to Sue. (Wait, What?)

exposI bought a Montreal Expos t-shirt last week. Why? I needed some new work clothes.

I’ve been emailing with a friend in Ontario about the difference between the U.S. and Canada when it comes to coronavirus precautions, and we both agree it’s a good idea to keep the border closed for now. Did you see the Maid of the Mist pictures showing the Canadian boat with six well-distanced (and undoubtedly polite) passengers and the American boat packed like it’s 2019. Canada has hardly any cases. Anyway, I digress. As usual.

While Canada is on my mind, I’ll share a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. The ruling will allow a proposed $400 million class action against Uber to proceed in Ontario on the issue of whether drivers are misclassified as independent contractors.

At issue was the validity of Uber’s arbitration agreements for drivers in Canada. The agreement required drivers to arbitrate any disputes in Amsterdam, following the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce and Netherlands law. Wait. What? Yes.

And there’s this: Filing a case would cost a driver US $14,500 in up-front administrative fees.

The Court’s opinion called the arbitration clause “unconscionable,” and Uber responded by confirming to The Star that it planned to update its arbitration agreements accordingly.

Gig economy platforms are under attack in Ontario, much like in the U.S. Think of Ontario as Canada’s version of California or Massachusetts but with better access to poutine.

According to The Star, the Ontario labour relations board ruled earlier this year that couriers for a food delivery app were not true independent contractors and therefore had the right to join a union. Drivers using the Uber Black platform are also challenging their classification as contractors. American expats are challenging the use of a superfluous U by the labour relations board.

Lesson: If you’re going to require arbitration, be reasonable. Amsterdam might be a nice place to visit (see the Vondelpark!), but it’s too much of a stretch to require an Ontario rideshare driver to go there to file a claim. Next time, try Greenland?

© 2020 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

2018_Web100Badge

 

Do Not Break Glass: Arbitration Clauses May Shatter in Agreements with Independent Contractor Delivery Drivers

largest-glass-blown-sculpture

Photo: CGTN/CFP

When your kids were little, did they ever run around in places they shouldn’t, causing you to fear what would happen if they broke something? Well you’re not alone. The world’s largest glass-blown sculpture sits in a museum in Shanghai. At least it did until recently. On May 30, two children accidentally broke it while running through the museum playing. There was a protective belt to try to prevent this sort of thing, but the kids ran right through it.

The moral of the story is that protective belts are not always good enough. The same is true when it comes to independent contractor agreements. One of the most useful protective belts we can install to protect against misclassification claims is a well-drafted arbitration clause with a class action waiver. That forces any independent contractor who claims to be an employee to fight that battle on an individual basis in front of an arbitrator. No court, no class action.

But this protective belt doesn’t always work, especially in the transportation industry.

Arbitration agreements with class action waivers work well in most industries. Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), these agreements are generally enforceable, and they’ve saved many a large company from having to face gigantic misclassification class actions.

But the FAA has an exception. It doesn’t apply to transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. There’s been lots of litigation over what that means and how broad the exception is.

A pair of decisions last week tried to address this question with respect to last-mile delivery drivers.

Both cases assumed the last-mile drivers were transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce, even though they generally did not cross state lines.  (We don’t know how the US Supreme Court would rule on that question). Since the FAA did not apply, the question then became whether the arbitration clauses and class action waivers were enforceable under state law.

Two courts, two cases, and two states resulted in two very different outcomes.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that arbitration agreements with delivery drivers are enforceable under New Jersey Arbitration Act, even if not under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

But a federal appeals court took the opposite view of the same issue under Massachusetts law, ruling that a class action waiver in an arbitration clause is void because it is contrary to Massachusetts public policy.

So what does this mean for companies who use independent contractors in the transportation industry?

Depending on the facts and the court, the FAA might or might not apply. If the FAA does not apply, the question of whether the arbitration clause and class action waiver can be enforced will depend on state law.

That means companies need to be very careful in drafting their choice of law provisions and their severability clauses. If parts of the arbitration clause are unenforceable because of the class action waiver, will the whole clause be cut or just the class action waiver? If a court severs only the class action waiver, could you end up in class arbitration? The contract should also anticipate that possibility, and the arbitration clause should contain language prohibiting the arbitrator from hearing a class action. The effect of that clause would be to force the class action back to federal court. Most companies, if faced with a class action, would prefer to defend class claims in court rather than in arbitration.

These two cases highlight the importance of considering these issues when drafting independent contractor agreements in the transportation industry. While different state laws may lead to different outcomes, your contract should plan for the worst and be written to protect against the least desired outcome.

And if you are put in charge of security at a museum, try a better protective belt.

© 2020 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

2018_Web100Badge

Travel, Quarantine and Joint Employees: What Can You Require?

flying shark

Travel looks different now than ever before — especially for this shark. Last month in Myrtle Beach, a large bird plucked a shark out of the water and flew around with it. And best of all, there’s video! (Thanks @RexChapman for always keeping me entertained.)

Travel is different for people now too. Several states require people to quarantine if they travel to certain hot spots. New York, New Jersey and Connecticut require a 14-day quarantine if you return from any of 19 states, including popular summer vacation spots like Florida and South Carolina (Visit S.C.: We’ve Got Flying Sharks!). Other states with mandatory post-travel quarantines are listed here (as of 7/10/2020).

What to do when your employees vacation to a spot that requires post-visit quarantine? And what if temps, employed by a staffing agency, travel to a hot spot and want to return to work? Can you impose the same rules?

Let’s start with employees. Sometimes travel to a hotspot may be appropriate (visit a dying relative, attend funeral, military training). But personal vacation presents a problem. Employees should not be allowed to turn a one-week vacation into a three-week boondoggle.

Decide on a policy, then provide advance notice. You can remind employees of mandatory post-travel quarantine rules and, during a pandemic, you are allowed to ask employees where they are going on vacation. This is a matter of public health and employee safety.

Consider posting a notice that urges employees to avoid any personal travel to a hotspot, advising that they will not be permitted back in the workplace for 14 days (if your state requires). Let them know that if they are unable to work from home, this 14-day period is not an excused absence. Advise employees that normal attendance rules will apply, and two weeks of unexcused absences may subject them to termination. Or let them use and max out vacation and PTO during the 14-day period. Or apply normal attendance rules but cap the discipline at a final written warning.

You can impose different rules for employees who can work from home. Let them work from home. The policy I suggest above is for people who are expected to be onsite to work. The point is that you’re giving them one week off, not three.

You have many options, but be sure to notify employees in advance of the consequences of their voluntary travel decisions. You can require employees to sign the notice when they request vacation time or before they leave.

Can you do the same with your temps who are employed by staffing agencies? You might funnel the notice through the staffing agency but, in principle, yes. This is a matter of public health, and you should not have individuals onsite if your state has ordered that they be quarantined. You can ask your temps where they are going, and you can warn them that you will ask the staffing company to end their assignments if they take a vacation that subjects them to mandatory quarantine.

So if you go to South Carolina and live in selected states, be prepared to lose your job upon returning home. But at least while you’re gone, you may be able to watch flying sharks.

© 2020 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

2018_Web100Badge

Silver Linings? DOL Looks to Adopt New Independent Contractor Test Before Year End

canoe

The past few months have included many silver linings — more family time, a Lake Michigan vacation, and professional cornhole on TV. I’ve also learned new things — governors have more power than I thought, remote work is more doable than many of us thought, and there’s such a thing as professional cornhole.

Now the Department of Labor wants us to learn something new too — about independent contractor status. (Too many long dashes so far? I’m flagging myself for excessive use.)

Last week the DOL published a notice that it intends to fast-track a new regulation covering the test for independent contractor vs employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

What would that test look like? The DOL gave no hints, but here is my educated guess.

The test for independent contractor status under the FLSA is an Economic Realities Test.  That is a court-created test, it’s well-established, and it’s not likely to change. If the DOL did try to change it, I don’t think the courts would follow the new regulation anyway. So the DOL is going to have to work more around the edges.

I expect the regulation to define more precisely the factors to be taken into account under the Economic Realities Test. Right now, different courts use different versions of it. Some uniformity would be helpful.

I also expect some examples to help illustrate how the factors should be applied. Look for sample fact patterns that seem like close calls but perhaps would be deemed supportive of independent contractor status under a new DOL interpretation.

We can expect the DOL will gently place its fingers on the scales, making it a bit easier to maintain independent contractor status under the FLSA. Don’t expect a full rewrite of the test.

The DOL will want to implement the new rule quickly, in case a new administration takes over in January. Look for a proposed regulation shortly, a quick public comment period, and a new regulation on the books late this year.

Hopefully by the time we see a final rule, we can watch real sports on TV and demote cornhole to livestream only. That way both people who care could still watch.

© 2020 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

2018_Web100Badge

 

Here’s a Question I Was Asked Three Times This Week (and the Answer)

Zippy sunset Charlevoix

Zippy on vacation

The word “sunset” can be used to signify many things. My personal favorite is the one pictured here. That’s Zippy enjoying the view this past weekend in Charlevoix, Michigan.

Another meaning of Sunset” is to fade out or to discontinue. That’s the meaning I’m after here.

One question came up multiple times this week, with some slight variations. Here it is, along with the answer.

Question:  When the pandemic began, we laid off an employee. We now have some work for that employee, but not as much as before. Can I bring back the employee as an independent contractor?

Answer:  Sunset that idea. Let it fade away. Discontinue that thinking. Probably not.

Any time the same individual receives a W-2 and a 1099 in the same calendar year, red flags go up. It’s a strong indicator of misclassification. If the worker’s work was employment before the pandemic, it’s almost certainly employment now — even if the hours are reduced or the recall is for a limited time.

Remember, the Employee vs. Independent Contractor question is answered by looking at the facts related to the work and how it is performed, regardless of what the parties call the relationship. If you’re bringing back an employee to perform similar work, you should probably be bringing that employee back as an employee.

In the IRS’s handbook for Worker Classification Determinations, the Service instructs its agents that when a worker has received a W-2 and a 1099 in the same year, the agent is to perform a full status review. It’s a likely sign of misclassification. Also, you probably don’t want the IRS to do a full anything.

There may be situations where it’s ok, such as if the laid off worker quickly established her own business, advertised to the public, secured other clients, and wants to bring on your business as a new client. But it’s pretty unlikely all that has happened since March.

The pandemic has given us all enough to deal with. Let’s not add a misclassification claim to the list of concerns.

Remember, it’s ok to bring back an employee as a part-time employee, or for a limited time with a projected end date. But retain the worker’s status as an employee.

And for those looking to get away during the pandemic, I highly recommend finding a beach house on Lake Michigan. Can’t beat these views!

© 2020 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

2018_Web100Badge

New Seattle Sick Pay Law for Gig Workers: Squishy or Full of Venom?

jellyfish

Horrifying images not intended to scare children. Thanks, PBS Learning.

I learned this week that a species of jellyfish found off the coast of China, Japan, and Korea can weigh up to 440 pounds. There’s a video here, and the size of this thing is terrifying.

In Finding Nemo, I learned that you can bounce on the fleshy heads of jellyfish without getting stung, and this creature has an abundantly fleshy head. The tentacles, though, are a different story. There are a lot of them. So the lesson here is that when approaching a Nomura’s Jellyfish, as they are called, be thoughtful in how you approach.

Which brings me to the City of Seattle. Seattle has been relentless in looking for ways to provide gig workers benefits of some kind, without getting caught up in the Independent Contractor vs. Employee question. The city has been aiming to grant gig workers certain rights, whether they are employees or not.

Seattle’s strategy is to aim for the jellyfish’s head, not wanting to get caught up in the tentacles of a dispute over whether the gig workers are employees or not.

In its latest head shot, Seattle has enacted an ordinance requiring transportation network companies and food delivery network companies (app based) to provide paid sick time to gig workers who perform services in Seattle. The requirement applies regardless of whether the workers are contractors or employees. The law was signed on June 12, 2020.

This move may signal a new strategy for states and localities that wish to provide benefits to gig workers. They can require benefits for gig workers, regardless of whether the workers are deemed employees.

This approach, if it works, may introduce other problems for app-based companies.

If companies start providing benefits such as paid sick leave to workers they consider to be independent contractors, that fact could be used against them as evidence the workers are being treated as employees.

In other words, this ordinance sets a trap. App-based companies will still be able to argue that they are providing sick leave only because they are required by local law, but surely the plaintiffs’ bar will argue that providing sick leave is evidence of employment status.

It’s a dangerous game, trying to bounce of the heads of the squishies while avoiding the sting. We’ll see how it plays out. In the meantime, obey beach hazard signs and try to avoid getting stung.

© 2020 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

2018_Web100Badge

 

New Joint Employment Decision: Poo Paint or Just Poo?

poo rainbow

Sitting outside this weekend I was thinking about things I wish I had when my kids were toddlers, things that would have helped to keep them occupied. The first things that came to mind were all electronic — iPhone, iPad, Netflix. But then I came upon this. And it’s good that I didn’t know about it a decade ago.

https://www.poopaint.net/home-1

From the website:

Inspiration found in a bathroom stall!
PooPaint allows kids to wipe using toilet paper that feels as if they were playing with a colouring book.
Making potty time into a positive and fun experience!

Yes, my friends, it’s a coloring book for poo, like color by numbers but with only one color — brown. Or maybe for some, a beautiful mahogany. Square 3 is an exact reproduction of Cleveland winters: fill in the whole page, leaving gray at the top for sky.

Anyway, the case I want to talk about today is a joint employment case from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. For potential joint employers, the decision is like potty time with poopaint — “a positive and fun experience!” For workers, it’s just poo.

In this case, a physical therapist assistant named Thomila worked in a nursing home. The operator of the nursing home contracted with a third party to provide staff.  The third party did the hiring, firing, controlled pay, provided benefits, supervised the workers, and scheduled them.

Thomila worked for the third party. At one point Thomila accused her supervisor, also a third party employee, of sexually harassing her. The third party investigated and fired him. So far, so good.

But then the nursing home operator — which apparently liked the supervisor — decided that Thomila was no longer a “good fit” for the nursing home and asked the third party to remove her. It did.

Thomila sued the nursing home operator, claiming that its request to remove her (after she complained of sexual harassment) was retaliation in violation of Title VII. Although she was employed by the third party, she claimed that the nursing home operator was a joint employer and therefore could be liable under Title VII’s anti-retaliation rule.

But the case was thrown out on a motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that the nursing home operator was not a joint employer under the test used for determining joint employment under Title VII.

The test for joint employment under Title VII is whether the alleged joint employer has the ability to:

  • Hire and fire,
  • Discipline,
  • Affect compensation and benefits, and
  • Direct and supervise performance.

(At least, that’s the test in the Sixth Circuit, which includes OH, MI, TN, and KY. You’d think the test would be the same everywhere since this is a federal law, but it sometimes varies a bit.)

Anyway, back to Thomila. The third party controlled all of these things, so the nursing home operator was not a joint employer. Since it was not a joint employer, it has no duty to Thomila under Title VII. The anti-retaliation provisions in Title VII did not apply. Case dismissed.

Thomila tried one other claim too, and this may have been her stronger argument. She alleged that by firing her, the nursing hone operator interfered with her access to employment opportunities. That’s a separate kind of claim. But the court ruled that the nursing home operator was not liable under that claim either, since the third party had offered Thomila other placement opportunities (but all were out of state). On this claim, the decision was 2-1, with the dissenting judge arguing that the interference claim should have been allowed to go forward. The interference claim does not require a finding of joint employment.

The lesson here for employers is that the test for joint employment is technical. The facts matter a lot. The risk of joint employment can be minimized if the relationship is carefully structured so that the third party retains control over the factors listed above. The contract should be drafted carefully, detailing who is responsible for what.

A poorly drafted contract is not worth the paper it’s written on. Kind of like that specific kind of paper advertised here as “Inspiration found in a bathroom stall!” And that should not be the kind of paper you’re looking for when drafting your contracts.

So draft wisely and, for “a fun and positive experience!“, choose your paper carefully.

© 2020 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

2018_Web100Badge

 

NSFW? Not Quite. But 18 States Say DOL’s New Joint Employment Rule Is Inappropriate.

Zippy Michigan

Zippy sunbathes in the nude.

Some things sound inappropriate, but they’re not. For example, I sometimes post naked pictures on my blog. But only of my dog. She’s immodest and doesn’t seem to mind. (Her fur coat doesn’t count.) So, you see, that’s not inappropriate.

What about the DOL’s new joint employment test, which went into effect in March? Was that inappropriate? Eighteen Democratic state attorneys general seem to think so, and they’ve filed a federal lawsuit to try to undo the rule. For those of you keeping score at home, they claim the new rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act and is not consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Last week, a federal judge in New York rejected the DOL’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, meaning the case moves forward. The DOL argued that the states lacked standing to challenge the new rule. Lack of standing means they can’t sue because they’re not harmed by the new rule.

But the judge found that the states “plausibly alleged” that they have standing to sue. He noted that the new rule could reduce the total amount of wages paid to employees in their states, which could lead to a reduction in tax revenues. The loss of tax revenues and the anticipated increased expense in enforcing state wage and hour laws would be enough. The states can proceed.

The ruling does not address whether the lawsuit has any merit, just that it may proceed.

While no one would claim the new rule is NSFW, these states argue that the content of the new rule and the way it was passed was inappropriate. But like the naked photo above, you need to see the full picture before drawing any conclusions about what’s proper and what’s not. 

For now, the DOL’s new rule remains in effect.  That means it’s more difficult to establish joint employment than it was before. It’s also difficult, by the way, to get a dog to wear a hat. But we did it. And Zippy looks ready for college football season. 

© 2020 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 
2018_Web100Badge
 

 

New Rules for Drivers? California’s ABC Test Could Change Again in 2021

Worst parking.jpg

Rebellious? Indifferent? Clueless? I’m still trying to understand how this car thought it was ok to take up FOUR parking spaces in the parking lot at a Walgreens near my house.

Any one of the spaces seems suitable for a car of ordinary proportions. I have parked in most of these four spots before, and my experiences were uniformly positive. I’d give four stars to each spot. Reliable, met expectations. Near enough to the store entrance. Picking just one of the four would be an excellent way to start your shopping experience.

When people don’t like the rules they’re expected to follow, one approach is to try to change the rules. That’s what ride share and delivery app companies are doing in California.

Late last month, these companies achieved an important milestone, reaching the 625,000 signature threshold for a November ballot initiative that, if passed, would change the test in California for determining Employee vs. Independent Contractor. The measure will now appear on California ballots, giving voters the chance to override A.B. 5 for ride share and delivery app companies.

If the initiative passes, the new ABC Test would not apply to workers in the app-based rideshare and delivery business. Instead, those workers could stay classified as independent contractors, but the app-based companies must ensure that the drivers receive a predetermined level of compensation and benefits, including:

  • Earnings Minimum. The measure would require app-based companies to pay at least 120 percent of the minimum wage for each hour a driver spends driving—but not time spent waiting for requests.
  • Health Insurance Stipend. The measure would require rideshare and delivery companies to provide a health insurance stipend of about $400 per month to drivers who regularly work more than 25 hours per week (not including waiting time). Drivers who average 15 driving hours per week but less than 25 driving hours would receive half as much.
  • Medical Expenses and Disability Insurance. The measure would require that companies buy insurance to cover driver medical expenses and provide disability pay when a driver is injured while driving.
  • Rest Policy. The measure would prohibit drivers from working more than 12 hours in a 24 hour period for a single rideshare or delivery company.
  • Other. The measure would require that rideshare and delivery companies have sexual harassment prevention policies and conduct criminal background checks and safety training for all drivers. It also would prohibit discrimination in hiring and firing.

The measure would also prevent cities and counties from passing further restrictions on driver classification.

I wrote more about this bill here, leading the post with a harrowing flight selection option offered on my United app.

So if you‘re reading this post from the Left Coast, get out and vote in November. You can make a meaningful change in the way that California approaches the question of Who Is My Employee? In the meantime, drive safe, wear your mask, and park within the lines.

© 2020 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

2018_Web100Badge