In Contract Labor Agreements, This Simple Clause Can Be Your Pillow

Joint employment contract clauseFor humans, some things are essential. Like a good pillow. For non-humans, the anti pillow sometimes works too. Not sure how. But the non-human in this picture generally sleeps like this.

For businesses contracting for labor, some things are essential too. One clause you are likely to have in contract with a supplier of labor is the right to remove a bad apple from the project.

The bad apple clause typically reads something like this: “We have the right to remove any individual supplied by contractor from the project for any reason at any time.”

That’s useful, but does it create an argument that your business is taking control over the individual’s employment in a way that could make your business an employer (or joint employer) of an individual you remove?

Here’s a simple fix to improve your contracts and limit the viability of that argument:

“We have the right to remove any individual supplied by contractor from the project for any reason at any time. We do not, however, have any right to control the individual’s employment status with contractor. Contractor retains the sole right to make all decisions regarding the hiring, termination, and other conditions of employment for all individuals assigned to the project or removed from the project.”

Consider the addition of that extra sentence or two to be a fluffy pillow.  It will help you sleep better if faced with a misclassification or joint employment claim.

2018_Web100Badge

© 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!  

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

 

A New Smell: Ninth Circuit Rejects ABC Test for Determining Joint Employment

Joint employment dogsWhere I play tennis, there’s a lake with a beach that is open all summer. Like most places in the Midwest, it closes for the season on Labor Day. The weekend after Labor Day, they open it up for everyone to bring their dogs to run around, jump off the high dive (I wish!), and sniff each other’s butts. Because dogs are not typically allowed at the lake, these dogs are unfamiliar with each other, so there’s even more butt-sniffing than you might normally see at a canine networking event. 

My daughter captured this gem of a photo — a five-dog sniffing train.

An unfamiliar smell wafted our way from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week too. And this was a more pleasant scent for California businesses than usual.

The case was a joint employment case involving a franchisor. A local franchisee was accused of miscalculating overtime and failing to provide sufficient meal and rest breaks. The plaintiff-employees settled with the franchisee but continued to go after the deeper pockets, the franchisor. They made several arguments.

Two were of the most interest to me.

First, they argued that the Dynamex ABC Test should be used to determine whether the franchisee’s employees were also the franchisor’s employees. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the Dynamex ABC Test applies only to the question of whether someone is an independent contractor or an employee. To determine whether someone is a joint employee, a different test is used.

Second, they argued that under California’s broad definition of employ, the franchisor “permitted” the franchisee’s employees to work and therefore was a joint employer and jointly liable for the franchisee’s mistakes.

The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument too. To determine whether someone is a joint employer under California wage and hour law, the Court said you look at three alternative definitions of employ: control, “suffer or permit to work,” and the common law S.G. Borello balancing test. If any of these three tests is met, there’s joint employment. The “suffer or permit to work” definition is the broadest and is the one that is most likely to tag a company with joint employer status.

The Court determined that even that broadest of definitions could not be met. The franchisor had no control over day-to-day operations, hiring, firing, scheduling, or worker pay.

For California businesses, the key takeaways from this case are (1) that the ABC Test is used only to determine independent contractor misclassification, not to determine joint employment, and (2) that the test for joint employment is relatively easy to meet but it’s not automatic, even for a franchisor.

The Court acknowledged that the nature of a franchisee-franchisor relationship necessarily involves franchisor control over the product, but that does not mean it controls the employees. It is the franchisor’s relationship with the franchisee’s employees that must be looked at to determine whether there is joint employment.

We have seen plenty of decisions from of the federal and state courts in California that have threatened to expand joint employment and threatened the franchise business model. But this decision smells good, even if a bit unexpected — like an unfamiliar but friendly dog at the beach.

2018_Web100Badge

© 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!  

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

 

The Monster with Three Eyes Can Help You Avoid Claims of Joint Employment

Some monsters are scary. There’s Godzilla, who terrorized Tokyo and whose name in Japanese translates roughly to gorilla-whale. (Thanks, wikipedia!) There’s Frankenstein’s monster, Dracula (also Count Chocula), and the Creature from the Black Lagoon, which was filmed in terrorizingly implausible black and white 3-D.

But on the other hand, some monsters are friendly and educational, like Cookie Monster, E.T., or, dare I say, Elmo. (“Kids look at these crayons… Kids look at these crayons.”)

This post is about a friendly and educational monster: The Monster with Three Eyes.

If you want to help your business avoid claims of joint employment, remember the Monster with Three Eyes when drafting contracts with staffing agencies or other vendors that supply labor.

Confession: The “three eyes” really should be the letter I three times, but when I try to write that out, it looks like “three is,” which is neither memorable nor a suitable name for a monster, even a friendly and educational one. So we go with three eyes. When I say it aloud — making sure first that no one is listening because why would a person say something like that aloud for seemingly no reason? — it sounds the same.

Here are the three main ingredients you’ll want to include in each contract with a vendor that supplies labor:

1. Identify the sole responsibilities of the vendor with respect to its employees. List these responsibilities. List the various obligations of an employer — things like properly recording all hours worked, paying overtime, paying a minimum wage, handling payroll, reimbursing expenses, providing meal and rest breaks, stuff like that. List these responsibilities specifically in the contract. Don’t just say the agency agrees it is the sole employer. Remember, joint employment is a legal doctrine that holds your business responsible if the vendor failed to do something it’s supposed to do. If your found to be legally liable, you want to be able to point to a specific contractual obligation the vendor failed to satisfy.

2. Indemnify. The indemnification provision needs specificity. It should require the vendor to indemnify your business for any claims of joint employment and for any claims arising out of the vendor failing to comply with any of its contractual obligations. That’s why you’re listing the specific contractual obligations of the vendor. When seeking indemnification, you want to be able to point to a specific contractual obligation the vendor failed to meet, which triggers the indemnification requirement.

3. Insure. Insurance requirements are just as important as indemnity. The indemnity clause is of no value if the vendor goes out of business or is liable for more than it can pay. Vendors who supply labor should be able to demonstrate that they have sufficient insurance so that if there is a joint employment claim and your business seeks indemnity, someone (the insurer) has the ability to pay.

Because joint employment is a legal doctrine that can hold your business fully liable for the misdeeds of a vendor, the key to limiting your business’s exposure is a carefully drafted contract. Even if your business is jointly liable under the law, you want to have a contractual claim against the vendor that failed to do what it was supposed to do, along with indemnity and insurance so that your business can be made whole.

So remember the Monster with Three Eyes when drafting or reviewing your next contract with a vendor that is providing laborers. If the vendor fails to meet its legal obligations, a contract drafted with these lessons in mind will be the gorilla-whale you need to get out of paying for the vendor’s mistakes.

© 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!  

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

2018_Web100Badge

Future of “Joint Employment” Test May Be at Issue, as NLRB Chair Files Complaint Against NLRB’s Inspector General.

F35D8CDD-3497-4FCC-83D8-732CC87B195A

From the county sheriff’s scratch-and-sniff twitter account

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!  

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

2018_Web100Badge

New ABC Test Under Federal Labor Law? Dem-Sponsored Bill Would Make That Change

Independent contractor misclassification NLRB peacock

All eyes on me!

According to The Atlantic, when a peacock spreads and shakes its elaborate feathers, it shakes them at 26 times a second, which creates a pressure wave that is sensed by a female peahen through the crest atop her head. This precise frequency causes the female’s crest to vibrate in a way that is apparently very sexy for peafowl. The male seeks attention and, with just the right vibrations, he lets all the single pea-ladies know that he wants some action. Note to pea-fellas: If you like it, then you shoulda put a ring on it.

In a crowded field of Democratic Presidential hopefuls, something similar is happening, but it’s less pretty, less sexy, and less appealing for businesses across the country.

As Democratic legislators vie for union support in the upcoming 2020 election, they’re making sure to signal to workers and unions that they’ve got pretty feathers and they’re not afraid to use them. A new bill co-sponsored by Presidential hopefuls Kamala Harris (Calif.), Bernie Sanders (Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), and Rep. Tim Ryan (Ohio) would amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to redefine “employee” and “joint employment.”

The Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2019 would impose a strict Dynamex-style ABC Test for determining Who Is My Employee? under the NLRA. A worker would be deemed an employee under the NLRA by default and could only be deemed an independent contractor if all three of the following could be proven:

(A) the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact, and
(B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and
(C) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business.

This is the same strict ABC Test adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex and by the Massachusetts legislature for its state wage and hour claims.

The Act would also redefine joint employment. It would require that an entity be deemed a joint employer under the NLRA if it “codetermines or shares control over the employee’s essential terms and conditions of employment.” So far, so good. But then there’s this: “In determining whether such control exists, the Board or a court of competent jurisdiction shall consider as relevant direct control and indirect control over such terms and conditions, reserved authority to control such terms and conditions, and control over such terms and conditions exercised by a person in fact.”

The Act would stymie the NLRB’s current effort at passing a new regulation that would limit “joint employment” to situations where actual control is exerted (not merely reserved) and where that control is exerted over essential terms and conditions of employment, such as hiring, firing, and pay.

Most damaging of all (but not related to independent contractor or joint employment issues), the bill would fundamentally change the collective bargaining process by imposing binding arbitration on the parties to resolve any disputes in contract negotiation. That change, if it were ever adopted, would change the nature of bargaining as we know it, potentially removing much of the incentive for unions to bargain in good faith.

If the Act emerges from committee, it will likely pass the House but has no chance of success in the Senate. Even if it passed, it would almost certainly be vetoed by Trump anyway.

For now, the Act is a political move intended by the Democratic Presidential hopefuls to demonstrate their pro-worker, pro-union credentials. For a certain audience, the Act looks pretty and may vibrate some crests. But for at least the next two years, this display of feathers is not likely to lead to any action.

Bonus feature: For another peacock-related post, click here.

© 2019 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 

“This is a Cabinet”: DOL Proposes New Definition of Joint Employer, Seeks to Clear Up a Confusing Label

This post was originally published as a BakerHostetler Employment Alert on April 3, 2019. Cabinet joint employmentSometimes it’s obvious what something is, and you don’t need a label. Other times it’s not so obvious, and you do need a label. Then there’s the rare instance when it’s obvious what something is, but someone feels compelled to supply a label anyway. That third scenario is what I saw when I went to my daughter’s volleyball tournament last weekend and snapped this photo of a cabinet in the lobby. The label is small, but if you look closely, you’ll see that it helpfully declares the item to be a “cabinet.” It further announces, in red handwriting, that the item has been “sold,” thereby allaying my concerns that my daughter was spending her Saturday playing volleyball in a den of cabinet thieves.

The second scenario – label needed – is the focus of this Alert. And the territory is familiar ground ‒ joint employment.

It’s rarely obvious what that phrase means, and companies that use workers supplied by other companies have been seeking clarity for some time now. Ignoring Ronald Reagan’s famous quip about the nine most terrifying words in the English language, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced on Monday that it’s here to help.

Continue reading

Too Many Beef Livers? NLRB Addresses How It Will Review 29,000 Comments on Its Proposed Joint Employer Rule

NRLB Ring too many beef livers avocadosToo much of a good thing can be a bad thing. For example, according to this article in Popular Science, consuming 240 avocados in one sitting would put the average man at risk of sudden death by potassium poisoning. (It doesn’t say how many avocados an above-average man could eat, but presumably the number is similar.) 

A similarly bad outcome can result from over-consumption of beef livers, although it would take approximately 431 pounds of beef livers before the toxicity of excessive vitamin A might cause a man to think he should have stopped after 430.

Lots of comments can overwhelm an administrative agency’s internal organs as well. As we discussed here, the NLRB has proposed a new regulation that would make it harder to establish joint employment under the National Labor Relations Act. In response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Board has received nearly 29,000 comments from interested organizations, unions, academics, business owners and individual workers (like Cindy, perhaps) about the proposed new rule.

Continue reading