Remember the good old days, way back in 2014? You recall the time — back when David Letterman was still on the air and it was not yet illegal in New York to take a selfie with a tiger.
Yes, that was life before 2015, when the NLRB waved its magic wand, rewrote the definition of joint employment, and forced several of the planets to spin out of orbit. The Board’s decision in Browning-Ferris erased decades of precedent and caused bloggers everywhere to vomit profuse amounts of text and doomsday predictions.
For those of you who missed the news in 2015 (understandable if you spent the year focused on following the saga of Winston, the Aussie python who swallowed salad tongs), allow me to offer this quick refresher: The 2015 Browning-Ferris decision declared that, under federal labor law, a business would be considered a joint employer if it retained the right to exercise even a teeny tiny bit of control, and even if it never actually exercised that control.
Good news, citizens of earth! The planets realigned on Thursday, when the Board reversed its 2015 decision and reverted back to the old standard. The new standard is the old standard. (Got it?)
Effective December 14, 2017, here is the standard for determining joint employment under the National Labor Relations Act:
For all these reasons, we return today to pre-Browning-Ferris precedent. Thus, a finding of joint-employer status shall once again require proof that putative joint employer entities have exercised joint control over essential employment terms (rather than merely having “reserved” the right to exercise control), the control must be “direct and immediate” (rather than indirect), and joint-employer status will not result from control that is “limited and routine.”
From today forward (or at least until the next administration reconfigures the Board and they go back to the old-new-old Browning-Ferris standard), businesses will not be deemed joint employers under the NLRA unless (a) they actually exercise control, (b) the control they exercise is over essential employment terms, and (c) the control is direct and immediate. Here is the decision, titled Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors.
This is a practical, workable standard, just in time for the holidays. Thank you, Santa.
Now if only we could get Pluto back on the roster of planets.
© 2017 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.