When seeking musical inspiration for a post on the NLRB’s joint employment standard, look no further than the Barenaked Ladies’ 1994 album, Maybe You Should Drive. Like an on-again, off-again relationship, the Board keeps changing its joint employment standard. Between 2015 and today, the test has been, at various times:
- Direct control (pre-Browning-Ferris, 1984-2015),
- Indirect control (Browning-Ferris, 2015-Dec. 2017),
- Direct control (Hy-Brand overrules Browning-Ferris, Dec. 2017-Feb. 2018), and
- Indirect control (Board vacates Hy-Brand, restoring Browning-Ferris, Feb 2018-present).
But with this newest change coming in the form of a proposed regulation, the proposed change can be expected, once it’s enacted, to remain in effect long term.
Cue the Barenaked Ladies, in “Everything Old Is New Again” (1994):
Everything old is new again, everything under the sun.
Now that I’m back with you again,
We hug and we kiss, we sit and make lists,
We drink and I bandage your wrists.
The proposed new standard would make it much more difficult to establish that a business is a joint employer.
The new test will help franchisors, who need to protect their brand and marks, but do not exercise day-to-day control over hiring and scheduling of a franchise owner’s employees. The new test will help businesses that subcontract labor and that want to ensure certain tasks are performed but do not exercise day-to-day control over how the work is performed or over how subcontractor hires, schedules, and supervises its employees.
In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released late last week, the NLRB proposes a new regulation to interpret the National Labor Relations Act. New 29 CFR §103.40,which would define joint employer.
Under the proposed regulation, an employer may be considered a joint employer of a separate employer’s employees only if the two employers share or codetermine the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment, such as hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, and direction. A putative joint employer must possess and actually exercise substantial direct and immediate control over the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment in a manner that is not limited and routine.
There’s a lot packed into that definition:
- The proposed joint employer must share or codetermine the workers’ terms and conditions of employment;
- These terms have to be essential terms of employment, such as hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, and direction;
- It is not enough to have the right to control these terms; the proposed joint employer must actually exercise this control;
- The control must be direct, substantial, and immediate; and
- It is not sufficient to exert control that is limited and routine.
“Limited and routine” control means directing another business’s employees as to what work to perform, or where and when to perform it. Under the new rule, that will not be enough to show joint employment. Control that is not “limited and routine” would include providing direction on how to do the work — in other words, supervision.
For those of you asking, “So what? Who cares?” (my parents, for example), here’s why the change matters.
Under the new rule, a business that retains another company to perform work but has no control over that company’s hiring, compensation, scheduling, or supervision:
- Will no longer be obligated to collectively bargain with that other company’s unionized workers;
- Will no longer be held jointly liable for that other company’s unfair labor practices; and
- Will no longer be drawn into collective bargaining or unfair labor practice disputes with that other company’s employees.
It’s a big deal. Unions won’t like it since the new rule will reduce their influence, but the new rule is a common sense, pro-business proposal that will add predictability and certainty to economic and legal relationships.
So what’s next?
There is a now a 60-day period for comment. The Board will then have the opportunity to consider the comments and revise or reject the proposed rule. The soonest the rule can be implemented is late 2018 but more likely early 2019.
Then, assuming the rule is implemented, we go back to the standard that existed before Browning-Ferris, but with a lot more clarity and permanence. Everything old is new again. But this time, the change should be long-term since it will be memorialized in a federal regulation.
© 2018 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.