Joint Employment Legislation Needs to Be Expansive — If It’s to Be Effective

IMG_1093On Monday, we wrote about the Save Local Business Act — proposed legislation that, if passed, would create a new definition for joint employment under the NLRA and FLSA. But would that law go far enough?

No. Not at all.

On the bright side for businesses, the law would provide some predictability in that staffing agency workers would most likely be excluded from bargaining units. It would also remedy the current unfairness that results when a staffing agency makes payroll and overtime miscalculations but the company using the workers is held responsible as a joint employer.

But much more needs to be done to provide real clarity and predictability for business owners.

First, the law fails to address who is a joint employer under other federal employment laws, including the Family and Medical Leave Act, Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Vast uncertainty in these areas would remain.

Second, the law does nothing to address the patchwork of standards under state and local laws. Businesses are subject to those laws too, and it’s fairly common that state and local standards for determining joint employment differ from state-to-state and law-to-law.

Businesses that operate in multiple locations would still be subject to different standards under different laws in different locations. The HR Policy Association has recommended that any legislation intended to clear up the messy patchwork of joint employment standards should include federal preemption or a safe harbor provision — something to ensure that businesses can rely on one set of rules to know whether they are a joint employer or not. That would make much more sense.

The newly proposed legislation has a long way to go. It might never even get to a vote. Let’s hope, however, that the introduction of this bill is just a first step, and that through the amendment process or through a Senate bill, its shortfalls will be addressed.

Business deserve the certainty that would come from a more comprehensive piece of legislation.

© 2017 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.

Congress May Rewrite “Joint Employment” Definition

IMG_1092Congress may finally provide some clarity in determining who is a joint employer. In legislation introduced last week, the House proposed a bill that would rewrite the definition of “joint employer” under federal labor law (National Labor Relations Act) and federal wage and hour law (Fair Labor Standards Act).

The Save Local Business Act — despite lacking a fun-to-say acronym — would create a new standard for determining who is a joint employer under these two laws. The proposed new standard would allow a finding of joint employment “only if such person [business] directly, actually, and immediately, and not in a routine and limited manner, exercises significant control over the essential terms and conditions of employment….”

The definition provides examples of what are “essential terms and conditions,” including:

  • Hiring employees;
  • Discharging employees;
  • Determining individual employee rates of pay and benefits;
  • Day-to-day supervision of employees;
  • Assigning individual work schedules, positions, and tasks; and
  • Administering employee discipline.

No longer would a business be deemed a joint employer for exercising indirect or potential control, as permitted by the NLRB in its 2015 Browning-Ferris decision, which is currently on appeal. (Read more about that here.)

The bill would also overrule a recent decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that vastly expanded the scope of joint employment under the FLSA, but only for a handful of Mid-Atlantic states.  Read more on that dreadful decision here.)

As illustrated in this colorful map, the current standard for who is a joint employer varies by which law is being applied and by where you live. The bill, if passed, would provide much-needed clarity in the law — or, at least in some of the laws. The bill would not affect the FMLA, federal anti-discrimination law, or any state or local standards. (In other words, loyal reader, you’ll still need this blog. Ha!)

The bill was introduced by Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.), but already shares some bipartisan support, with co-sponsors including Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) and Luis Correa (D-Calif.).

Here’s the current bill.  It’s short, so don’t be afraid to click.

No one knows whether this proposed law will take effect or will even reach a vote (except perhaps Carnac the Magnificent!).  But we can expect significant support from the business community, which may create some momentum toward consiuderation and passage. The National Association of Home Builders has already issued a press release praising the proposed legislation.

If Congress wants to make a positive impact on businesses large and small, this bill could do it. So now let’s all sit back and watch how they screw it up.

© 2017 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.

Two Key Developments in Joint Employment are Expected This Week

IMG_1091.JPG

This could be a busy week for developments in the joint employment area.

1) Congressional Republicans have begun drafting legislation that could change the definition of joint employment, Bloomberg BNA reports. Presumably the goals of a new bill would be (a) to add clarity to the standards for deciding who is a joint employer, and (b) to make it more difficult for workers or unions to claim they are jointly employed.

The scope of the proposed legislation is yet to be determined. It would most likely roll back the NLRB’s Browning-Ferris decision and restore the prior test for joint employment, requiring more substantial evidence of control. House Republicans have also hinted that they may broaden the scope of the proposed bill and address the standard for joint employment under federal wage and hour law (FLSA) and health and safety (OSHA) as well.

Key supporters of the proposed legislation include Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.), House Education and the Workforce Committee member, and Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), chairman of the Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is involved in this effort as well.

A committee hearing entitled, Redefining Joint Employer Standards: Barriers to Job Creation and Entrepreneurship, has been scheduled for July 12, at 10:15 am.  It can be live-streamed on the web. Click here for more information.

2) On the following day, July 13, hearings are scheduled on the nominations of William Emanuel and Marvin Kaplan to join the NLRB. The hearings will take place before the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee. If recommended by the committee, the full Senate would then vote on the appointments.

If confirmed, these two new members would return the Board to a 3-2 Republican majority for the first time since the beginning of the first Obama administration.

The newly configured Board is likely to roll back the expansive Browning-Ferris decision, which made it substantially easier for workers to claim they are joint employees under federal labor law. Last week’s post about these nomination contains more detail.

I’ll provide further updates as new developments take place.

© 2017 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.

The DOL Wants You to Know Its Opinions (Here’s Why That’s Good News!)

IMG_1087

Everybody has an opinion, so why not share?

This week, Labor Secretary Alex Acosta announced that the WHD will resume its prior practice of issuing opinion letters to advise on difficult wage and hour issues. This is good news for companies and employees because it increases predictability.

An opinion letter is an official, written opinion by the WHD of how a particular law applies to a specific set of circumstances presented by an employer or employee. The benefit to the general public is that opinion letters are published and may be relied upon.

The practice of issuing opinion letters had persisted for more than 70 years before being discontinued in 2010, when the WHD began issuing occassional general guidance memos instead.

The return of the opinion letter means more predictability and less “Gotcha!

If the proper public role of the DOL is to promote voluntary compliance (as it should be!) and not merely to sack wrongdoers, then this announcement is a big step in the right direction.

This announcement comes shortly after Secretary Acosta’s recent decision to withdraw the WHD’s 2015 and 2016 general guidance memos on independent contractor misclassification and joint employment. Presumably, these would be topics that are now ripe for new opinion letters.

With a new Labor Secretary, employers can expect a shift toward more business-friendly interpretations that respect the existence of independent contractor relationships and decrease the incidence of joint employment findings. As discussed here, the determination of Independent Contractor vs. Employee under the wage and hour laws (e.g., the Fair Labor Standards Act) is made using an Economic Realities Test.

Employers can click here or here to see whether prior opinion letters have been published on any particular wage and hour topic.

© 2017 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.

Labor Dept Withdraws 2015-16 Joint Employment, Independent Contractor Guidance

IMG_1084

Did the new Labor Secretary of Labor finally throw employers a bone? I think so, but it’s too early to tell whether it’s delicious bacon-flavored or some generic processed meat flavor.

On June 7th, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced it was withdrawing the 2015 and 2016 informal guidance on joint employment and independent contractors.

Read the full post here, on BakerHostetler’s Employment Law Spotlight blog.

Can an Intern be an Independent Contractor? (Answers revealed in James Bond movies)

IMG_1068Among James Bond films, Rotten Tomatoes ranks Never Say Never Again 18th out of 26, with a mediocre 63% rating. (Bond movie quiz at the end of this post, for patient readers.)

It’s a cliche saying, I know, but my first reaction when asked this question was, “I’d never say never, but it’s hard to imagine a scenario where that would work.” (That was also my second reaction and my third. Let’s just say that’s my reaction.)

Let’s run this through the gauntlet. Remember, it’s not your choice whether an intern is an independent contractor or an employee. The law decides that for you, based on the nature of the relationship.

Test #1: Economic Realities Test. Under federal wage and hour laws, an independent Continue reading

New Florida Law Grants Independent Contractor Status to App-Based Drivers

IMG_1064In December 1965, the Beatles released Rubber Soul, which led with Drive My Car.  (“Asked a girl what she wanted to be/She said Baby, can’t you see?/I want to be famous, a star on the screen/But you can do something in between.”) You can thank me later for getting that song stuck in your head all day.

Under a new Florida law, online ride hailing service are singing “Baby you can drive my car, and maybe I’ll love you.” If certain easy-to-meet conditions are satisfied, drivers for online ride hailing services are declared independent contractors by law, not employees. This new law protects Uber, Lyft, and similar services from misclassification class actions brought under state law.

The requirements for being granted independent contractor status under the new law are simple. Continue reading