Backfired? New Ruling May Threaten NLRB’s Proposed Rule on Joint Employment

Joint employment bagpipe

The word “backfire” derives from the grooming practices of 15th century Scottish noblemen, who grew beautiful long fiery-red flowing back hair, which they brushed and braided into elaborate patterns, including the “Haggis Flow” and the “Scotch Tape.” Ok, not really. Efforts to rewrite history and change definitions can sometimes fall short of the mark.

The NLRB’s grand strategy for rewriting the definition of joint employment may have just backfired. A Court of Appeals decision issued late last week may jeopardize the Board’s rulemaking authority, even though that was not the issue before the Court.

Before we dive into the December 28, 2018 ruling, here is a quick refresher on how we got here:

  • In 2015, the Democratic-majority Board adopted a vastly expanded definition of joint employment, allowing a business to be deemed a joint employer (1) even if it did not control working conditions but merely retained the right to do so, or did so indirectly, such as through third party subcontracting, and (2) even if the working conditions that could be controlled were non-essential working conditions, not just the key terms and conditions like hiring, firing, and disciplining. This was the Browning-Ferris decision.
  • In early 2018, the newly constituted Republican Board tried to reverse its 2015 Browning-Ferris decision in a case called Hy-Brand, in which the Board enacted a much narrower, pro-business definition of joint employment, requiring direct and immediate control over essential terms and conditions of employment before a company could be deemed a joint employer.
  • Several weeks later, however, the Board reversed itself and rescinded the Hy-Brand decision after conflict of interest questions arose relating to one of the board members (Member Emanuel) who decided Hy-Brand. When the Board rescinded its Hy-Brand decision, the effect was to re-establish the expansive 2015 Browning-Ferris test as the operative definition of joint employer.
  • In light of its failed effort in Hy-Brand, the Board then chose to pursue a two-step Plan B for overruling Browning-Ferris and for narrowing the definition of joint employment.
  • Step 1 would be to enact a new regulation, creating a narrower definition of joint employment that would, in effect, overrule Browning-Ferris prospectively. That process is ongoing. Step 2 was to ask the D.C. Court of Appeals to reopen the otherwise mothballed appeal of the Board’s 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris, which adopted the current broad definition of joint employment.
  • In Step 2, the Board expected the Court of Appeals to find that the 2015 Browning-Ferris decision was an overreach and that the vastly expanded definition of joint employment could not survive. That ruling would have nicely positioned the Board to roll out its new regulation, which would substantially narrow the definition of joint employment, as it tried to do in the Hy-Brand case.

That brings us to this past Friday’s decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (Dec. 28, 2018) and the real meaning of the word “backfire.” Step 2 did not go the way the NLRB had planned.

The Court of Appeals’ Ruling and Its Effect on Joint Employment

According to the 2-1 majority opinion, the question of whether there is a joint employment relationship under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) must be answered by applying the common law test for whether there exists an “agency” relationship.  The Board has no special expertise relevant to defining the common law of agency. Therefore, according to the Court of Appeals, the Board is awarded no deference in this area. In other words, the Board does not have the right to define or redefine joint employment in a way that would be inconsistent with the common law meaning of “agency.”

The Court of Appeals said that the Board’s 2015 ruling in Browning-Ferris — that indirect or reserved control can be considered when determining whether a joint employment relationship exists — was appropriate because it is consistent with the common law of agency.  Under the common law, it is the right to control that matters, even if that control is not exercised. In fact, the Court of Appeals concluded that Board has no authority to prohibit the consideration of indirect or reserved control when evaluating whether there is joint employment. (That’s what the Board is currently trying to do through rulemaking.)  The reason the Board cannot prohibit consideration of indirect or reserved control is that the common law definition of agency examines whether an entity has the right to control how work is performed, regardless of whether that control is exercised. This last point is important for reasons that the D.C. Court of Appeals was not directly addressing. That point — if it hold true — would cast doubt on the Board’s ability to implement its proposed new regulation. The regulation would require a showing of direct and immediate control (not merely indirect or reserved control) before joint employment can be found.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals did not, however, give the Board’s 2015 Browning-Ferris ruling its full backing. Where the Browning-Ferris ruling went wrong, according to the Court of Appeals, was in allowing the consideration of indirect or reserved control over non-essential terms and conditions of employment.  The common law agency test requires control (or indirect or reserved control) over essential terms and conditions of employment (e.g., hiring, firing, disciplining).  The Court therefore ruled that the Board lacks authority to change that definition in a way that make a business a joint employer merely by entering into a standard subcontracting or staffing agency agreement. All such relationships involve some level of control over non-essential working terms, such as defining the type of work to be done by the subcontractor or staffing agency workers and dictating the desired result.

The 2015 Browning-Ferris case is now being remanded back to the Board to take another shot at it. That would be fine and dandy with the now-Republican-majority Board, except for the fact that the Board may now be impotent to make a meaningful pro-business change in this case, since Member Emanuel might be precluded from participating in the decision due to Littler’s representation of Leadpoint, the staffing agency in the Browning-Ferris dispute (or maybe he is not precluded now, since the one-year conflicts period has now lapsed). Member Emanuel was a shareholder in the Littler firm before his appointment to the Board in September 2017. Further complicating the possible recusal issue is the fact that Trump required his appointees to sign an Ethics Pledge that provided a two-year conflict of interest period, rather than the standard one-year period.

The most lasting effect of this Court of Appeals decision is likely to be that it calls into question whether the Board can, through rulemaking, redefine joint employment in a way that eliminates consideration of indirect or reserved control by a putative joint employer.  If the definition of joint employment under the NLRA is determined by the common law of agency, and the Board — according to this Court of Appeals — lacks the expertise to interpret the common law of agency, then the Board would lack authority to change the definition in the way it proposes.

On the other hand…

On the other hand, it may be that this decision has no lasting impact at all on the definition of joint employment under the NLRA. This was a 2-1 decision by U.S. Court of Appeals, not by the U.S. Supreme Court. The two judges in the majority were Obama appointees. The full D.C. Circuit could be asked to reconsider the issue in an en banc proceeding.  Or the matter could go to the Supreme Court (which seems unlikely).

Or, if past practice is any indicator of future behavior, the Board might just ignore the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, on the basis that there are 12 Circuit Courts and they often disagree. The Board is required to follow rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, but it often ignores legal opinions issued by the individual Courts of Appeal. The Board must, of course, follow the D.C. Court of Appeals’ ruling as it relates to this particular dispute, but it will not necessarily take the Court of Appeals’ broader rulings as controlling authority on what the Board can or cannot do.

So where are we?

We’ll see. But two things are certain.  First, the definition of joint employment will continue to evolve; and second, the definition of backfire has nothing to do with Scottish nobleman or their back hair.

And at the end of the day, joint employment continues to be a messy, messy situation.

© 2019 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.

2018_Web100Badge

 

Disco Meets “Permanent Temps”: NLRB Decides a New Joint Employment Issue

disco-297670__480On New Year’s Eve, Sister Sledge will be playing at the Seminole Casino in Coconut Creek, Florida. (You can buy tickets here.  You’re welcome.) The sisters will, of course, play the 1979 single, “We Are Family,” which is a disco song that it’s ok to admit you like. I don’t know what else they’ll play though.  It could be a long night.

“We Are Family” is also what happens when a company retains staffing agency temps for so long that they become, in that company’s words, “permanent temps.” It’s joint employment deluxe.

A recent decision by the NLRB examines what happens when a joint employer fails to apply a collective bargaining agreement to those “permanent temps.”

Orchid Paper Products Company in Pryor, Oklahoma, produces — wait for it — paper products. Their workforce is unionized and they make frequent use of staffing agency temps. The temps frequently remain on-site for long periods of time, at which point they acquire the status of “permanent temps.”

These workers are supervised and controlled by Orchid Paper, even though they are paid by their staffing firm. The Board found that under any test — Browning-Ferris or otherwise — they are joint employees.

One consequence of being a joint employee in a union environment is that the joint employer, Orchid Paper, has to follow the requirements of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) as to those workers, even though they’re staffing agency workers. When Orchid Paper failed to follow the CBA as to those workers, it engaged in an unfair labor practice. So far, no big surprise.

The issue to be decided here, though, was the scope of the remedy that could be imposed.

As a result of an unfair labor practice, could the Board order a a remedy that held Orchid Paper to the entire CBA for its temps?

The Board said no, ruling that only certain parts of the CBA can be applied. In other words, “We Are Family, but Maybe Only Like Third Cousins.”

The Board ruled that an order intended to remedy an unfair labor practice had to be limited. The Board could only order the joint employer to apply the CBA provisions to the joint employees that related to the working conditions that Orchid Paper controlled.

My research in preparing this blog revealed that Sister Sledge, in fact, had two other Top 20 hits in 1979 — “He’s the Greatest Dancer” and “Lost in Music.” Those of you who remember those two songs will thoroughly enjoy the New Year’s Eve Show. Bring your platform soles.

© 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.

2018_Web100Badge

 

What does the NLRB’s Proposed New ‘Joint Employment’ Rule Mean for Businesses?

360 degrees joint employment NLRB new rule

True story. Late 1980s. Early days of fantasy baseball. One of my high school buddies — we’ll call him The Beast — finishes last but decides he’s ready to turn things around. The Beast stands up at the next year’s draft and announces his new team name, intending to show us that he’s about to reverse last year’s standings: 360 degrees.

No one had the guts to say it. Only later did someone tell him he probably meant 180 degrees. He finishes last again. The Beast no longer plays fantasy baseball but lives a comfortable life as a tax lawyer in Florida.

A complete turnaround may now be in the works when it comes to defining “joint employment.” Recent actions by the National Labor Relations Board signal an upcoming 180-degree shift.

Click here to read the rest of the story, recently published in Westlaw’s Journal Employment and Practitioner Insights.

© 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.

 

New Definition of Joint Employment Still Appears Likely, Despite Efforts to Smack NLRB Chair in Face with an Octopus

octopus kayaker seal joint employment NLRB nature-3262715_1920

When this kayaker was slapped in the face by an octopus wielded by a seal, he just laughed it off. It didn’t seem to hurt, and I guess that’s just a thing that seals sometimes do.

Q. Now, Lebowitz, how are you going to work that intro back into something related to joint employment?

A. Watch this!

Similarly, it didn’t take long after the NLRB proposed a new regulation that would redefine joint employment (see this post) for two prominent Democrats to try to octo-seal-slap the NLRB’s Chair into backing off. Not gonna happen. The Board will not abandon its kayak.

Last week, Senator Patty Murray and Representative Bobby Scott sent a letter to Board Chair John Ring, arguing that there is “scant research or analysis” to support the Board’s call for a new joint employment standard. Um, so everything in the joint employment world has been peaches and cream? Heck, there’s so much uncertainty in the joint employment world right now that someone could devote a whole blog just to that topic!

In an effort to stall the rulemaking process, Murray and Scott asked the Board to extend the comment period on the proposed new rule by another 60 days (because no one saw this coming?) and demanded that the Board produce of all sorts of records relating to joint employment cases filed over the past several years. They also tried to re-raise concerns that there might be a conflict of interest affecting two of the three Republican Board members. The letter demanded the production of 21 categories of documents within 12 days, including asking for the name and case number of every joint employment case during the past six years fitting into various categories.

Let’s be realistic. This letter is basically outreach by Sen. Murray and Rep. Scott to labor unions, showing that they’ve got their back on the joint employment issue (to the detriment of businesses). I expect the letter will have no real effect on the process for rulemaking or on the timetable for adoption.

While few people may read that letter, the Go-Pro video of the seal smacking the kayaker in the face with an octopus has received a boatload of hits. I highly recommend watching. It is far more entertaining than this blog.

© 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.

Five Things You Should Know About Joint Employment

Everyone knows that two’s company but three’s a crowd. Except, of course, for Three’s Company with Jack, Janet, and Chrissy (or Cindy or Terri). But how many of you recall that one is the loneliest number that you’ll ever do? Two can be as bad as one. It’s the loneliest number since the number one. I know this because of Three Dog Night.

For musical tastes, the number four can mean Tops, Seasons, or Non Blondes.

But today’s number is FIVE.  Here are Five Things You Should Know About Joint Employment.  (click here to download the PDF.)

Five things You Should Know About Joint employment - page 1 screenshot

Five things You Should Know About Joint employment - page 1 screenshot

© 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.

NLRB Proposes New Definition of Joint Employer; 60-Day Comment Period Starts Now

NLRB logoWhen 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.

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

 

Is It Legal to Subcontract Out Union Work? (Ask a Song Title)

Subcontract union workI like similar but contradictory song titles. Pink Floyd has Wish You Were Here. But REO Speedwagon has Wish You Were There.

For one Puerto Rican company in the injection-molded products business, the message to its union was Wish You Were Gone (that’s Cosmo Pyke, 2017).  The company decided to outsource a portion of its injection mold production to a subcontractor but otherwise stayed in the business. The union filed an unfair labor practice charge.

The union won. The NLRB recently ruled that the company could not subcontract out work that had traditionally been performed by the union — at least not until the company had bargained over it and reached impasse. The Board ruled that once the union is performing a certain kind of work, a company’s decision to reconsider who performs this work is a mandatory subject of bargaining, so long as the company was remaining in the business. (The result likely would have been different if the company was getting out of that line of work.)

The Board noted that the company “remained an active participant in the production of injection-molded products, owned the machinery that manufactured the product, and continued to sell the product directly to the customers it served prior to its transfer of production to Alpla [the subcontractor].”

The moral of the story here is that — whether you wish the union were here, there, or gone — you need to bargain with it before subcontracting out its work. Exceptions may apply, depending on the facts and circumstances, but be cautious.

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

To nominate WhoIsMyEmployee.com for 2018 best ABA Blawgs, click here: http://www.abajournal.com/blawgs/web100/
Thank you for your support! (Nominations close on Aug 7)

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

 

Pink Floyd or The Who?: NLRB Extends Deadline for Public Input on Important Misclassification Decision

pf photo 1 for nlrb post velox

Roger Waters & the boys, smiling pretty for the camera

Pink Floyd or The Who? Tough call for me, but I generally go with Pink Floyd, unless we’re listening to Tommy. Songs from both bands came to mind last week as I read the NLRB’s update on an important issue relating to independent contractor misclassification.

Who Are You (The Who, 1978)? In this post, we discussed a 2017 ruling, in which an ALJ found that the misclassification of independent contractors, by itself, is a violation of the federal labor law. This decision rejected the pickup basketball rule, “no harm, no foul.” Misclassification was deemed to be an unfair labor practice.

Join Together (The Who, 1990). The full Board then decided to reconsider that decision and invited public input on the question. Non-parties were asked to submit briefs to assist the Board in making its decision. Trade associations and labor groups are filing briefs on both sides of the issue.

Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd, 1975). The Board temporarily lost its 3-2 Republican majority after Member Miscimarra stepped down, but earlier this month, the Senate confirmed John Ring as the third Republican member, restoring a majority and a pro-business slant.

Time (Pink Floyd, 1973). Last week the Board extended the deadline for briefing to April 30th. Any business or trade organization that wishes to provide input to the NLRB on this important issue still has an opportunity. Here are instructions for filing.

Careful with that Axe, Eugene (Pink Floyd, 1969). This is an important issue for businesses using independent contractors. If misclassification by itself violates the NLRA — even with no actual harm to the worker — then businesses may face unfair labor practice charges, even where there’s no union and, even stranger, those ULP charges can come from workers you didn’t even think were your employees.

Take It Back (Pink Floyd, 1994). Hopefully for businesses, the full Board will reverse the ALJ and reinstate the pickup basketball rule. I have High Hopes (Pink Floyd, 1994).

© 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.

 

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.

 

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.