Category Archives: Tests

04.16.18
by

New California Law Aims to Punish Contractors for Wage Violations They Did Not Commit. Huh?

EA9758A9-CA27-4BE3-B11B-53338CF1CEB1

Suppose you are a general contractor, hired to erect a monument to honor Carlos Santana’s monument-worthy performance of the national anthem during last year’s NBA Finals. Because the monument will be so tall (to house the many awards he should win for it), you need to hire subcontractors. Suppose the subcontractors cheat their employees, though, and don’t pay them a proper wage.

Under a new California law, the general contractor is strictly liable for the sub’s wage violations.

There’s no balancing test. No Right to Control Test. No joint employment finding needed. It’s strict liability. Call it the Jerry Brown corollary to Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn Rule. Someone else breaks it, you own it.

I hear you: “Not fair!” But as we all know, fair is not a required feature element of employment law in California. (Fair may still be an element of due process, however, for those who may seek to challenge the constitutionality of this law.)

The new law, cleverly titled “Section 218.7,” took effect January 1, 2018.

To try to protect themselves, contractors may require their subs to show proof of payment by the subs to its employees. They may also tell noncompliant subs, “you’ve got to change your evil ways, baby, before I start loving you.” But most contractors probably won’t say that.

© 2018 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

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

 

04.12.18
by

NLRB Roller Coaster Ride on Joint Employment Rolls On

roller-coaster-NLRB joint employment test

I used to go to summer camp in Georgia, and the highlight of the summer was always a trip to Six Flags, where we would ride the Mindbender roller coaster. My coaster days are over, thanks to two back surgeries and a desire to remain upright and mobile, but watching the NLRB lately brings back memories of the sharp turns, fast drops, and tight spirals.

Yesterday, the Senate approved John Ring’s nomination as the third NLRB member, returning the Board to a Republican majority. (The vote was 50-48, like halftime in the NBA.)

With three Republican members, we can expect the Board to quickly find another opportunity to overturn Browning-Ferris and return the joint employment test to a more rational standard that requires a finding of direct, material control before a company can be deemed a joint employer.

There are a few ways this might happen.

Plan A is that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals could help. In an unusual move, the Court of Appeals agreed late last week to re-open the Browning-Ferris appeal.

The Court of Appeals had dismissed the appeal several weeks ago as moot, after the NLRB issued its Hy-Brand decision, which overturned Browning-Ferris. But after the NLRB said “my bad” and vacated its Hy-Brand decision, the Board asked the Court of Appeals to take the case back and to issue a ruling on what the proper joint employment standard should be. On Friday, the Court of Appeals re-opened the case and will soon issue a decision.

If the Court of Appeals says the Browning-Ferris case was wrongly decided by the Obama Board, then the newly constituted NLRB can hop on that bandwagon and decide to adopt that decision as its new test.

On the other hand, if the Court of Appeals affirms Browning-Ferris, the NLRB will just ignore the decision and move to Plan B or C.

Plan B would be to get Hy-Brand back on the books as good law. That would mean reinstating the Hy-Brand test as the proper standard for determining joint employment. The Hy-Brand test would require direct and material control before a business can be deemed a joint employer under labor law. The NLRB’s General Counsel recently chastised the Board for vacating its own Hy-Brand decision without following the usual rules for recusal.

If that fails, there’s Plan C, which seems more viable now that John Ring has restored the NLRB to a 3-2 Republican majority. The Board can find a new case — other than Hy-Brand — and adopt the revised business-friendly joint employment test that the NLRB tried to adopt in Hy-Brand.

Plan C would require finding a case that allows Board Members Ring and Emanuel to dodge any conflict issues, as they both come from large law firms with lengthy client lists, which is precisely the problem that led to Hy-Brand being vacated in the first place. Too many potential conflicts. They will need to find a clean case with no apparent conflicts, but that can be done.

Meanwhile, this has been a roller coaster ride. The NLRB will eventually settle on a new joint employment standard (I expect), just like the Mindbender eventually settles back down on a straightaway and slows down to let off the riders — who, like NLRB-watchers, are now dizzy and disoriented.

© 2018 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

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

 

04.09.18
by

NLRB Joint Employment Fiasco Grows More Fiasco-ey with General Counsel’s Brief

tennis image NLRB general counsel brief hy-brandWhen watching tennis, it’s best to sit on one of the ends of the court. If you sit in the middle of the court, your head will swivel back and forth on every shot, eventually causing your neck to detach from your shoulders. (Disclaimer: I am not a doctor.)

Watching the NLRB wrestle with joint employment in real time is like watching a long rally from a seat in the middle of the court. My neck hurts just reading this stuff.

The latest development is that the NLRB’s General Counsel, a Presidential appointee who acts as the Board’s chief prosecutor, filed a brief with the Board asking for a decision that the Board’s recent decision to reverse the decision that reversed the Browning-Ferris decision should be reversed. Got that?

Let’s review.

In December 2017, in a case called Hy-Brand, the NLRB reversed the “indirect control” test for joint employment that had been established in the 2015 Browning-Ferris case. The Hy-Brand decision was issued by a 3-2 vote, along party lines.

In February 2018, the NLRB Inspector General (IG) released an opinion suggesting that Member Emanuel should have recused himself from the Hy-Brand decision. Had Emanuel not participated in Hy-Brand, the vote would have been 2-2, and Browning-Ferris could not have been overturned.

The timing of Hy-Brand was important too, since it was issued just before Member Miscimarra stepped down. When Miscimarra stepped down, his absence temporarily left the Board without a Republican majority, which is where things sit today, pending confirmation of John Ring to replace Miscimarra in the third Republican seat.

A few days later, after squinting into my defective crystal ball, I wrote that the IG’s argument in favor of recusal was a bunch of hooey, that Member Emanuel’s participation in the Hy-Brand decision was appropriate, and that the chances of the Board vacating the the Hy-Brand decision was roughly equivalent to the Cleveland Browns’ chances of an undefeated season in 2018. (Ok, I didn’t go that far, but close.)

Hours after my post, the Board vacated the Hy-Brand decision, prematurely ending my lifelong aspirations of becoming a fortune teller. (I really liked the post too. I even commented on the origins of the “The” in The Ohio State University. Click here to satisfy your curiosity.)

The order vacating Hy-Brand was entered into by three members of the Board, without participation by Member Emanuel. He was in time-out. 😢

Ok, now we’re caught up.

The General Counsel’s Brief, filed April 5th, argues that the decision vacating Hy-Brand was bungled and should be undone.

First, he argues that the proper procedure for considering whether a member should recuse himself is for the member at issue to decide whether to recuse himself. That’s been the procedure for approximately forever, except in this instance. Same thing in federal court. That’s how it works. But the normal procedure was not followed.
Second, the GC argued that Hy-Brand (the company) was entitled to a hearing before the full 5-member Board, meaning that Member Emanuel had a duty not to recuse himself.

Got all that?

Now, are you ready for the icing on the pile of poo? 💩

Guess who gets to decide whether three of the four Board members acted improperly when they vacated the Hy-Brand decision without consulting Member Emanuel and without allowing him to evaluate whether he should recuse himself? Yes, this decision will be made by the three members who vacated Hy-Brand, plus Emanuel. Should they recuse themselves? Can they? Should Member Emanuel recuse himself from deciding whether the Board should have allowed him to consider whether to recuse himself earlier?

This is fun!

Go Browns!

© 2018 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

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

 

03.22.18
by

Will Recusals Sink the NLRB’s Pro-Business Agenda?

6AEEC9D2-D576-4264-AE48-A0512A656B37

“Recuse.” Verb, meaning to cuse again.

Sorry, it doesn’t mean that at all. We’ve heard a lot about recusal in the news lately, relating to a certain Attorney General and one of the former Soviet Republics (the big one).

The NLRB is dealing with recusals too. And recusals within the Board may affect your business.

Of the soon-to-be-majority Republican Board members, two are from big defense firms. The Board recently vacated its important Hy-Brand decision that attempted to restore sanity to the joint employment test, after the NLRB’s Inspector General determined that Member Emanuel should have recused himself. That conclusion was based on the fact that his prior law firm, Littler, represented a party in the Browning-Ferris case, which Hy-Brand tried to reverse. Littler’s extensive client list of big businesses means this issue is likely to come up again. Emanuel could find himself disqualified from participating in other important Board cases, including other joint employment cases.

And he’s not the only one.

John Ring, the third Republican appointee to the Board (scheduled for confirmation hearings shortly), is from the large law firm Morgan Lewis, which also represents many large businesses. Ring recently submitted his potential conflicts list. It’s long, and it includes lots of well-known corporate names.

So he could find himself disqualified too.

The newly reconsitituted Trump-appointed Board is expected to issue plenty of 3-2 party-line pro-business decisions, reversing Obama-era decisions. Is that still possible, if two of the three Republican members could be conflicted out of the most significant cases?

It’s a tough question, and the answer remains to be seen. Trump could have appointed pro-business Board members from small employer defense boutique firms instead of choosing lawyers from two of the largest firms in the U.S. Had lawyers from smaller firms been selected instead, the likelihood of recusals would have been much smaller.

With important decisions to be made at the NLRB about the test for joint employment and other significant union-management issues, the Trump Administration’s decision to appoint two big firm lawyers could threaten its anticipated pro-business agenda.

For more information on independent contractor issues and other labor and employment developments to watch in 2018, join me in Cincinnati on March 28 for the 2018 BakerHostetler Master Class on Labor Relations and Employment Law: A Time for Change. Attendance is complimentary, but advance registration is required. Please email me if you plan to attend, tlebowitz@bakerlaw.com, and list my name in your RSVP so I can be sure to look for you.

© 2018 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

03.19.18
by

Selling Hot Dogs: Why the DOL Thinks It’s 2008 Again

Dol wage and hour guidance hot dogs

The year 2008 doesn’t seem that long ago. Flo Rida was atop the Billboard charts, No Country for Old Men won the Oscar for Best Picture, and Episode 1 of the 2008 season of Celebrity Apprentice (titled, “Selling Hot Dogs” [yes, really]) featured the judging panel of Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Ivanka Trump. More on Episode 1 below.

The DOL must be longing for the good old days. Earlier this month, the Wage & Hour Division quietly withdrew its 2014 Fact Sheet advising businesses how to differentiate employees from independent contractors under the FLSA.

Instead, they reposted the 2008 version. In practical terms, there’s probably no real effect. The statute and the regulations that would govern the analysis haven’t changed between 2008 and 2014. But the 2014 version (cached copy here) also included some Obama-DOL commentary, advising that “most workers” are employees under the proper analysis. The old/new 2008 version doesn’t say that.

In any event, what businesses need to know is that courts apply an Economic Realities Test when deciding Who Is My Employee? under the FLSA.

The FLSA is the federal statute requiring non-exempt employees to be paid minimum wage and overtime. It does not apply to independent contractors, which is one reason why misclassification matters. If you thought your worker was properly classified as an independent contractor, then the minimum wage and overtime requirements did not apply. If the worker was misclassified and was really an employee, your business may be held liable for failing to pay minimum wage and overtime.

And for those of you who read all the way to the end of this post hoping to be rewarded with more information about the outcome of Episode 1: Selling Hot Dogs, there’s this from Wikipedia:

Winning team: Hydra, with total sales of $52,286.
Reasons for win: Hydra used their celebrity status to drastically up-sell the hot dogs and Gene Simmons used his contacts to put impressive numbers. Piers Morgan also came up with an idea whereby anyone who paid $100 or more for a hot dog would get to have their picture taken with one of the celebrities, encouraging passers-by to make more substantial donations.

Good job, Piers. You should be proud.

For more information on independent contractor issues and other labor and employment developments to watch in 2018, join me in Cincinnati on March 28 for the 2018 BakerHostetler Master Class on Labor Relations and Employment Law: A Time for Change. Attendance is complimentary, but advance registration is required. Please email me if you plan to attend, tlebowitz@bakerlaw.com, and list my name in your RSVP so I can be sure to look for you.

© 2018 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

03.05.18
by

Go Carts or Bumper Cars? NLRB Asks Court to Fix Its Browning-Ferris Blunder

Browning-Ferris joint employment go cartThe two most fun activities at amusement parks (aside from skee-ball) are Go Carts and Bumper Cars. This is scientific fact. Go Carts are fun because you can go fast, weave around, and drive in circles — all without getting honked at. Bumper Cars are fun because, well, you get to bump people.

The NLRB seems stuck on the Go Cart track, going round and round, when it would rather be in the Bumper Cars.

Last week, we reported on the Board’s sudden decision to vacate its important Hy-Brand decision, issued in December 2017. Hy-Brand was important to businesses because the decision restored sanity and workability to the NLRA’s test for joint employment.

But by vacating the Hy-Brand decision, the dreadful Browning-Ferris standard went back into effect, Continue reading →

03.01.18
by

Despite New DOL, Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment Remain Risky

What effect of withdrawal of DOL memos

In June 2017, the DOL withdrew its Obama-era 2015 and 2016 informal guidance on joint employment and independent contractors. The memos covered federal wage and hour law (FLSA). Eight months later, what effect has that decision made?

Essentially none.

Remember, the 2015 and 2016 memos did not change the law on independent contractor misclassification or joint employment. Rather, the memos were an attempt by the Wage & Hour Administrator, David Weil, to summarize existing law – but with a pro-employee leaning. The memos selectively interpreted court decisions that supported Weil’s view of the world, i.e., that most workers are employees. When Weil left, the DOL said goodbye to his interpretations as well.

But … Continue reading →

02.26.18
by

Browning-Ferris Is Back! NLRB Flip-Flops Again, Reinstates 2015 Joint Employment Decision!

989BD1FE-B520-4198-87E3-1A61F3AD50E0Holy smokes, Batman! This morning I wrote that the NLRB’s new joint employment test, from its December 2017 decision in Hy-Brand, was safe.  I was completely wrong.

A few hours ago, the NLRB reversed itself, vacated its order in Hy-Brand, and reinstated Browning-Ferris.  Whaaaaaat?

The NLRB issued this press release today:

The National Labor Relations Board (3-0, Member Emanuel did not participate) today issued an Order vacating the Board’s decision in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd. and Brandt Construction Co., 365 NLRB No. 156 (2017), in light of the determination by the Board’s Designated Agency Ethics Official that Member Emanuel is, and should have been, disqualified from participating in this proceeding. Because the Board’s Decision and Order in Hy-Brand has been vacated, the overruling of the Board’s decision in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015), set forth therein is of no force or effect.

The sudden self-reversal was prompted Continue reading →

02.26.18
by

Is NLRB’s Joint Employment Decision In (“the”) Jeopardy?

CA6A60D6-D787-4806-90DF-E825FBEA4969

[Note to self & readers, 4:45pm 2/26/18: I spoke too soon. Hours after I published this post, the NLRB reversed itself and vacated the Hy-Brand decision, which means the 2015 Browning-Ferris joint employment standard is back. Read more here.]

Here’s the original post, but sadly my predictions below turned out to be wrong…

There are many inspectors whose names we know for their diligent (and entertaining) crime-fighting exploits. There’s Inspector Clouseau, from the Pink Panther series; Inspector Gadget, from the Inspector Gadget series; and now Inspector David Berry, from the “Office of Inspector General” [sic] at the NLRB. (I do not know what happened to the “the” in such Office’s name, but sources tell me it was stolen by Ohio State University. More on that below.)

On February 9, Inspector Berry released a memo arguing that Continue reading →

02.12.18
by

Python vs. Boa: Does the GrubHub Misclassification Ruling Really Matter? (Don’t Believe the Hype!)

Python vs boa - independentr contractor misclassification and grubhubPythons and boa constrictors usually do not fight each other. At least that’s what I learned in herpetology school. The reason they don’t fight each other is that there’s too much risk. The boa risks getting bitten by the python’s lethal fangs. The python risks being constricted to death because that’s how constrictors work.

For roughly the same reason, independent contractor vs. employee disputes rarely go to trial. There’s too much to lose. A company that relies on independent contractors for its business model cannot afford a ruling that all of its contractors are really employees. That’s why these cases almost always settle.

The GrubHub case, however, Continue reading →