Police officers in Clay County, Missouri were searching for a suspect wanted for felony possession. They brought out the K9 crew. The suspect was hiding and, so far so good. But then…
According to Fox 4 in Kansas City, the suspect passed gas so loudly that he gave his location away. The police sniffed him out and cuffed him. Stinks for that guy.
There’s another search-and-destroy mission going on at the NLRB. It’s a power struggle that could be described as a complicated game of cat vs. mouse vs. cat, and — bizarre as it seems — the result of this internal power struggle may ultimately decide the test for joint employment.
Board Chairman John Ring is trying to sack NLRB Inspector General David Berry, who is trying to disqualify Republican-appointed Board member William Emanuel from participating in two key joint employment cases. Member Emanuel is likely to be the deciding vote in favor of a stricter, more pro-business definition of joint employment in either of two significant joint employment cases before the Board. (The cases are Hy-Brand and McDonald’s.)
According to this piece of excellent reporting by Bloomberg Law’s @HassanKanu, Chairman Ring has filed a formal complaint against Inspector General Berry, seeking to have him removed from his post for inappropriate conduct. The complaint, according to Kanu, alleges that Berry has mistreated agency employees, and it references an EEOC complaint filed againt Berry.
So how does this affect joint employment?
Inspector General Berry has been the driving force behind efforts to disqualify Member Emanuel (R) from participating in two key joint employment cases — the Hy-Brand case (in which the Board tried to overturn the Browning-Ferris joint employment test) and the pending McDonald’s case.
Berry claims that Member Emanuel has a conflict of interest that prevents him from particpating in these two cases, stemming from Emanuel having been a partner at the Littler law firm.
If Berry is removed, a new Inspector General may view the conflict issue differently.
From my point of view, there’s no conflict and Member Emanuel should be allowed to participate. For those of you who like to peek behind the curtain, here is a copy of the amicus brief that I filed on behalf of the Restaurant Law Center. The brief argues in support of McDonald’s position that Member Emanuel should not be recused. (There have been similar efforts to try to recuse Ring too.) But that issue remains unresolved.
If a new Inspector General concludes that there is no conflict, then a three-member Republican majority of the Board is likely to rule, at its first opportunity, that the test for determining joint employment should be changed.
The Hy-Brand decision in late 2017 described the test the Republican majority wants to implement. Read more here. The test the Board wants to implement would make it much harder to prove that joint employment exists under federal labor law. Although the Board adopted the new test in the Hy-Brand case, it later withdrew the Hy-Brand ruling because of the conflict issue. The Board wants to go back to the Hy-Brand test but needs to clear up the conflict/recusal issue first.
If Inspector General Berry is forced out, the recusal obstacle could go away.
The recusal issue could also go away if the Board just sits on the pending McDonald’s case until October. September 2019 marks two years since Member Emanuel was appointed to the Board, and any conflict issue related to his previous role as a partner at the Littler firm should drop off. There are two ethics rules in play. One has a one-year lookback period, and the other has a two-year lookback period. If the Board delays deciding the McDonald’s case, the conflict issue might just go away because of the passage of time. (More detail in the amicus brief, here.)
So where does that leave us? Ring is going after Berry, who is trying to interfere with Ring’s effort to adopt a new pro-business definition of joint employment. Sound complicated? That’s high drama within the NLRB!
Will Berry survive the complaint? Will Ring oust his rival? Will Emanuel be allowed to participate in joint employment decisions? Will the Board find a way to implement its desired new definition of joint employment? Can the whole recusal issue be avoided if the Board just waits until October before doing anything? Can the Board get around the whole recusal issue by relying on the rulemaking process to implement a new test for joint employment?
There’s a lot to keep watching here. A change to the test for joint employment would be welcomed by the business community.
Until then, keep checking here for the latest developments on joint employment, and keep checking Fox 4 in K.C. for the latest developments on suspects who fart away their hiding places.
© 2019 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.
Need training on avoiding independent contractor misclassification claims? Hey, I do that!