Tag Archives: Staffing Agencies

07.01.24
by

How Long Can You Retain an Independent Contractor?

Commas are important. See, for example, Let’s Eat, Grandma and the Rachael Ray magazine blurb proclaiming that Rachael Ray finds inspiration in cooking her family and her dog. (The latter, sadly, turned out to be a fake. The real magazine blurb had the commas.)

If I had put a comma in the title above, after How Long, you may have thought this post was intended for Pro Football Hall of Famer Howie Long. It’s not. Howie played 13 seasons with the Raiders but almost certainly does not read this blog.

This post, instead, is intended for anyone who wants to know how long you can retain an independent contractor before that person becomes an employee.

Before I can provide a helpful answer, I’ll need some information first. (Just the basic facts, can you show me where it hurts?)

Question: Is the worker a 1099 independent contractor or a staffing agency’s W2 employee?

We need to know which legal issue to address. If the worker is a 1099 independent contractor, then the issue is independent contractor misclassification. In other words, is the worker really an employee, entitled to the various benefits and protections that the law gives to employees?

But if the worker is employed by a staffing agency and treated by the agency as the agency’s W2 employee, then the worker is already entitled to the benefits and protections of employment. The issue here would be joint employment. Is your business a joint employer?

If your question is about joint employment, an earlier post here addresses that question.

On the other hand, if the worker is a 1099 independent contractor, duration of assignment can be one of many factors that indirectly increases the risk that the worker is really an employee. Factors in the independent contractor classification analysis can include:

  • Is the assignment indefinite in duration, or instead for a specific project or fixed term?
  • Can the assignment be terminated at any time for any reason, or does early termination require cause or some other specified event?
  • Does your business have W2 employees who are performing the same or similar work?

If the assignment is indefinite or can be terminated at will, those are factors that weigh toward employment status. If the worker is performing the same function as employees, then the worker is going to look like an employee, and more so the longer this goes on.

But if the contractor is (1) engaged for a specific project or fixed term, and (2) the work is not something your employees are also doing, then duration is not necessarily a concern. A true independent contractor can be retained for a project that lasts many months or even years. We see this sometimes with implementation of electronic systems, like HRIS or enterprise software. Or there might be a third party contractor you’ve engaged for years to provide a repeating, project-based service that is entirely unrelated to your business, like your plumber or window washer or event photographer.

But if the work relates somewhat to your business, you may have a problem if the long duration is because of mission creep (not Mission CREEP). If the worker finished one project and then is given another and another, that starts to look like indefinite retention, which points toward employment.

If the worker is a 1099 independent contractor, duration of assignment might increase the misclassification risk, but the risk will depend more on how the other questions are answered. Duration is not directly a factor, but a longer duration may be an indication that other factors are starting to point in the direction of employment.

Further analysis would be needed.

The other question you may have is why I haven’t yet referenced the 1974 single by Ace, “How Long (Has This Been Going On),” which will now be stuck in your head the rest of the day, you’re welcome. Turns out, I learned here, that the song is not about romantic infidelity. Vocalist Paul Carrack wrote the song upon learning that bassist Terry “Tex” Comer had been secretly recording with two other bands.

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

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
06.03.24
by

I Wanna Take Your Hire: How to Control a Third Party’s Wages without Becoming a Joint Employer

When Sly and the Family Stone released “I Want to Take You Higher” in 1969, it was originally a B-side. The song took off, though, and became a Top 40 hit anyway.

The song is an upbeat ode to how music can make you feel good. Fun fact: It was used as the theme song in the Canadian children’s show, Hilarious House of Frightenstein, to introduce the show’s disc jockey, the Wolfman, who is either a fictional part-wolf part-man or a human DJ who achieved vocational excellence (and got his own TV show!) despite an untreated case of hypertrichosis.

The Family Stone wasn’t the only band that would like to take you higher. Jackie Wilson went to Billboard #1 in 1967 with “(Your Love Keeps Lifting Me) Higher and Higher.” In 1990, Damn Yankees asked, “Can you take me high enough?” in their song, “High Enough.” And, not to be outdone, Duran Duran, in 1995, released two covers of the Family Stone song, calling the second, “I Want to Take You Higher Again.”

Why all this talk about higher? Because when you’re working with a third party labor provider that provides high-demand, skilled labor, sometimes you’ll want to take their hire. (Heh heh).

The right to direct hire is often addressed in the vendor agreement. Maybe you’ll pay a finder’s fee if you direct hire within the first 3-6 months. But I was asked a more intriguing question last week that I thought was worth a blog post. (Thanks, P! You know who you are.)

Here’s the scenario, which is most likely to arise in the competition for highly skilled workers, like computer programmers: We want to direct hire, but we don’t control the market. If the third party labor provider pays a premium for in-demand roles, they might pay more per hour than we pay. That would make it hard for us to direct hire to worker.

Which leads to this question: How do we cap the wage paid by the third party labor provider (so we can offer the direct hire a raise, not a pay cut), without dictating the wages paid by the third party, which would create joint employment risks?

Excellent question! The answer is to do it indirectly. Here’s how.

Suppose you want the option to direct hire a chimneysweep but wouldn’t dare pay more than $50/hour for a chimneysweep (other than Dick Van Dyke himself, but only in his prime). Chimneysweeps are in high demand and so third party labor providers may be paying their chimneysweeps $50/hour too so they can get the best ones. It’s a competitive labor market, you know.

You don’t want to tell the third party labor provider what to pay its chimneysweeps. Dictating the wages of a third party worker is a strong indicator of joint employment.

Instead, you should agree to pay the agency $50/hour for its chimneysweeps. Then you know they are paying the chimneysweeps less than $50/hour because the agency has to be making a profit. The markup is probably 35-45%, so you could even pay the agency up to about $65 per hour and be confident the chimneysweep is not taking home more than $50/hour.

Then, if you wanted to direct hire the chimneysweep for which you are paying the agency $60-65/hour, that sweeper is likely only being paid about $42-45/hour and so his sweeping prowess could be yours for the low low price of roughly $50/hour or less. That’s how I would approach this problem.

I don’t think any bands are singing about this issue directly, but if I told you they were really singing “I Want to Take Your Hire,” you just might hear it that way next time you listen.

 

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

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
03.18.24
by

The Rats are High?! Illinois Judge Partially Strikes Down Temp Staffing Law, Granting Win to Staffing Firms and Their Clients

According to this NBC News story, the New Orleans police department headquarters is in such bad condition that not only are there rats everywhere, but the rats are eating the marijuana from the police evidence lockers.

“They’re all high,” the police superintendent testified in a recent hearing. (Skip to 1:45 of the video. Showing great respect, she calls them “major rodents.”)

Staffing firms and businesses in Illinois were saying “Rats!” when Illinois amended its temp staffing law in late 2023, but now they might be feeling a bit of a high.

The 2023 amendment required staffing firms in Illinois to pay their temps wages and provide benefits that were equivalent to those received by similarly situated workers of the client business where they were placed. The law caused a decline in temp staffing use in Illinois, as businesses understandably didn’t want to disclose their wage and benefit structure to staffing firms.

Last week a federal judge provided some relief, entering an injunction that prevents part of the law from taking effect.

A group of staffing agencies had filed the federal lawsuit, arguing that the state law requirement to pay equivalent benefits was unlawful and preempted by ERISA. The judge agreed, finding that ERISA is intended to promote a consistent national approach to employee benefits and that Illinois could not use state law to impose benefit requirements on staffing agencies.

Section 42 of the amended state law is titled “Equal pay for equal work,” and it requires agencies to pay temporary employees who work at a particular site for more than ninety days within a year at least the same wages and “equivalent benefits” as the lowest paid, comparable, directly-hired employee employed by the third-party client. 820 ILCS 175/42. Or, instead of providing equivalent benefits, agencies could pay “the hourly cash equivalent of the actual cost benefits.”

The law also required the staffing agencies’ clients to provide the agencies with “all necessary information related to job duties, pay, and benefits of directly hired employees” to allow agencies to comply.

Illinois businesses using staffing agencies will still be required to disclose pay information, and the requirement that staffing workers receive equivalent pay remains in effect. But the benefits portion of the law will not be enforced.

Action Item: Staffing agency agreements in Illinois may need to be updated to account for the removal of this requirement. Clients of staffing agencies should not longer be required to disclose employee benefit information.

Now about those rats. They’re eating the marijuana in evidence lockers?! I wish they had rat-cam video of that.

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

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
03.04.24
by

Don’t Horse Around: Here Are Three Agreements You Should Have on Your Shelf

Police in Wejherowo, Poland arrested a 19-year-old man for stealing a horse. The man was caught after neighbors reported that he was trying to lead a horse up the stairs to his third floor apartment.

Why would someone do that? Apparently he was trying to conceal the horse and thought his apartment would make a good hiding place. (After all, who would look in a third-floor walk up for a missing horse?) But getting the horse to the apartment was the man’s undoing.

He didn’t think through his plan. Don’t be like that man. Today’s post is to help you think through your plan in advance, but in the context of retaining non-employee labor, not stealing a horse.

I generally recommend having three types of agreements in your stable of documents. (Heh heh, see what I did there?) Each serves a different purpose and contains different features, even though there is often some overlap.

1. Independent Contractor Agreement. This should be crafted for use with solo independent contractors (1099s), regardless of whether there’s a single member LLC or a sole proprietorship.

The goal here is limit the risk of misclassification, that is, a finding that the worker is really your employee.

The agreement should identify and memorialize the facts that support IC status, such as that the company retains no right to control how the work is done, where it’s done, when it’s done, steps, sequence, etc.

If there are lots of ICs doing the same thing, individual arbitration agreements with class waivers can be highly useful to include too, as they reduce the downside risk of misclassification.

2. Vendor Outsourcing Agreement. This document is for when a function is entirely outsourced, such as in the hospitality industry, where it is common to outsource the housekeeping function.

There are two goals here.

One goal is to memorialize the facts that will help avoid a finding of joint employment. These workers should be managed independently of your company’s employees and should not be directly supervised by your managers.

The second goal is make it difficult for a disgruntled worker of the vendor to allege joint employment, and there are various tools in the toolbox to help accomplish this objective.

3. Staffing Services Agreement. This document is to be used when a third party provides staff augmentation services or other workers who are commingled with your employees or supervised by your managers. In this scenario, there’s a reasonable risk of joint employment.

We want to use the contract to build defenses.

First, we want to lay the groundwork for a claim against the vendor if the vendor fails to pay its employees in accordance with the law.

Second, we want to throw obstacles in the way of anyone who might want to bring a joint employment claim. Individual arbitration agreements with class waivers are helpful in that regard.

If you’re working with a staffing agency, the form they provide you is not likely to help limit your legal risks. It’s always better to start with your own form.

Don’t Horse Around

Agreements provided by your vendors are unlikely to provide you with any meaningful protections. Different agreements have different purposes, and these three agreements should each be used in different situations.

It doesn’t work to use a staffing agreement with outsourced employees, and it doesn’t work to use an independent contractor agreement with outsourced labor employed by the vendor. Those workers aren’t independent contractors at all; they’re employees of the vendor. The legal risk you’re trying to address is whether you’re a joint employer. That’s a very different legal question than whether the worker is misclassified.

So be sure to use the right kind of agreement for the right kind of situation.

That means planing ahead and having the right forms on hand, ready to go. As our friend in Wejherowo learned the hard way, you’ve got think all the way through your plan in advance.

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

© 2024 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
12.18.23
by

How to Handle Background Checks for Staffing Agency Workers (and Avoid a Stinky Mess)

After a stolen SUV crashed in Wisconsin and its four occupants fled, one made the unfortunate decision to hide in a golf course port-a-potty. A golfer watched the events unfold and decided to take action, flipping the port-a-potty on its side, door facing down, to trap the car thief inside. (Oh, crap!) Police then arrived on the scene and arrested the now-stink-covered occupant.

Today’s tip is to help you avoid a stinky situation when requiring vendors to background check their workers.

When working with staffing agencies or other vendors supplying labor, you’ll often want to require background checks. But you have a few competing interests, so it matters how you impose this requirement.

First, you probably don’t want to do the background check yourself. For joint employment reasons, you don’t want to play a role in hiring and selection and, for practical reasons, you don’t want to adjudicate background check results on all of the vendor’s candidates. Require them to do the initial screening.

Second, it would be easy to provide the vendor with a list of automatic exclusions, but you don’t want to go there either. Background checks laws generally require an individualized analysis to be done. Avoid creating a “no hire” matrix.

So how can you make sure the vendor conducts an appropriate review of the results and doesn’t send you a worker with a concerning criminal history?

Here’s the strategy I prefer:

1. Require the vendor/staffing agency to perform the background check.

2. Require that they adjudicate the results.

3. But, also require that if they want to place anyone with a prior conviction for theft or violence, they must first notify you and provide a copy of the report and any additional information provided by the candidate.

4. Require that the vendor/staffing agency follow all background check laws.

5. Require that the vendor/staffing agency obtain consent from each candidate to share the results of any background check with your company. They should incorporate that concept into their consent document.

Here’s why I like this process:

First, as a practical matter, a vendor with this arrangement is very unlikely to send you anyone with convictions for theft or violence. They’ll prescreen those out because they know that’s a concern for you.

Second, if the vendor wants to advance someone with one of these convictions, it means one of two things: (a) there may be mitigating factors with this candidate that would support allowing the person to work, or (b) the vendor is being lazy, sending everyone through without running the first level adjudication you’ve required.

If (a), that’s good information. Conduct a second level adjudication. Consider mitigating factors. See how the candidate responds to a pre-adverse action notice. Avoid automatic exclusions and consider whatever facts the candidate provides.

If (b), you need to have a talk with the vendor because they’re not performing the first level adjudication that you’ve required. If you didn’t have this kind of notice process, you might never have known the vendor was being lazy in the adjudication process.

There are several decision points in drafting this kind of clause, but the points listed above are the main items to cover. Variations in drafting may focus on the timing of the convictions, the types of convictions to identify, whether to include drug testing or motor vehicle records checks, and which party performs various tasks related to pre- and post-adverse action notifications.

You’ll also want your contract to make clear that any decision you make that a candidate cannot be placed at your company is not a decision about their overall employment status with the agency. The agency can do what it wants with the person’s employment. All you’re saying is that the agency can’t assign that person to work for you.

By including a process like this in your agreements with staffing agencies and other vendors that supply laborers, you can stay on the right side of the background check law, manage joint employment risks, and still have the opportunity to block candidates who have a criminal history that creates unacceptable risk.

It’s too bad that future background check results for the car thief who got stuck in the port-a-potty won’t include that level of detail. Not that it would make a difference in screening out someone who steals cars, but it would be a fun detail to know. Yuck!

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

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
11.13.23
by

No Unions? No Escape: NLRB’s Joint Employer Rule Imposes New Risks on Businesses Without Unions

TikTok star Matthew Lani earned a substantial following as a 27-year old medical prodigy, having graduated high school at age 16 before becoming a doctor. He posted videos of himself walking through a South African hospital, dishing out medical advice to his followers or selling them medication.

Lani, however, turns out not to be a doctor at all. When the ruse was uncovered and authorities went to arrest him, he said he had to pee and then tried to escape through a bathroom window. TikTok later banned his account.

The NLRB’s new joint employer rule has many employers trying to figure out whether they need a doctor or whether they can avoid the rule’s reach by escaping through a bathroom window.

Today we’ll answer questions about how the new joint employer rule affects non-union businesses.

We have no unions. Does the rule apply to me?

Yes, 100% yes. In fact, companies without unions may be most at risk here. If your business has vendors, suppliers, business partners, or even customers with employees, pay attention.

The point of the rule is that if your business exerts any control over any of the listed seven terms or conditions of employment, you’re a joint employer. In fact, the rule makes you a joint employer even if you merely have the right to exert control over one of these seven terms, even if you never do.

The listed terms and conditions are broader than the usual suspects, and they include control over health and safety matters.

If the other company’s workers are ever in your building while doing their jobs, you might be exercising control over their terms and conditions of employment without realizing it. Read more here.

What if the vendor’s employees don’t have a union?

Still yes. The rule may still directly affect your business’s rights and legal obligations.

What happens if I have no unions but am deemed a joint employer of someone else’s employees?

If you are a joint employer under the new rule, here’s what that means:

(1) If the other company’s employees form a union, your business would be required to participate in the collective bargaining process.

You’d be required to bargain regarding any term or condition that you have the authority to control. That could include your site-wide health and safety rules.

(2) If the other company’s employees have complaints about terms or conditions that your business can control, you cannot retaliate against them for raising these concerns.

Under federal labor law, all employees — including those not in unions — have the right to engage in protected concerted activity without being retaliated against.

Protected concerted activity can mean just about anything that involves more than one employee, including actions by one employee that are intended to seek support from other employees. Like an Instagram post or a Glassdoor review. Ending their assignment or asking the vendor to remove them from the project could be considered unlawful retaliation.

But these are not my employees? Why would I have to do these things?

Because joint employment.

The concept of joint employment is that more than one person can be the employer. If your business is deemed a joint employer of another company’s employees, then under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), you’re also their employer.

What about wage and hour law, unemployment compensation, and workers comp? Would I be a joint employer under those laws too?

No. The new NLRB joint employer rule applies only to the NLRA. Other laws have other tests for determining who is a joint employer.

You can be a joint employer under the NLRA and not a joint employer under other laws. But a finding of joint employment under one law could make it more likely that your business is deemed a joint employer under other laws — particularly if you comply with the new NLRB rule by, let’s say, participating in collective bargaining.

Do I need a real doctor, or will a TikTok doctor be good enough?

All businesses should pay attention to the new NLRB joint employer rule, even if you don’t have unions.

Proactively evaluate your risk of joint employment under the new rule. The whole point of the law is that you may be an employer of other workers without realizing it.

And you can’t escape the reach of the rule by climbing through a bathroom window.

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

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
11.06.23
by

This Will Not Do! Health and Safety Rules May Create Joint Employment under New NLRB Rule

Ginsberg’s Theorem is a parody of the laws of thermodynamics. Generally attributed to the poet Allen Ginsberg, it goes like this:

  1. There is a game.
  2. You can’t win.
  3. You can’t break even.
  4. You can’t even get out of the game.

That’s the conundrum businesses now face when trying to comply with both the NLRB’s new joint employer rule and OSHA requirements (or general safe workplace practices).

Last week we looked at the new NLRB rule on joint employment. This week I want to focus on the most troubling part of that rule — the NLRB’s decision to include “Working conditions related to the safety and health of employees” as an “essential term and condition of employment” for purposes of determining joint employer status.

Businesses often have site-wide, plant-wide, or company-wide health and safety requirements. If you enter this building, you must follow the health and safety rules that apply in this building. For example, you must wear steel-toed shoes to enter the manufacturing floor. Or, you must not enter this high-voltage area without permission. Or, you must walk only on designated pathways to avoid the risk of being hit by a forklift.

Some of these rules are driven by OSHA compliance, some by other governmental regulations, and some by a general desire not to cause grievous injury to other human beings.

Those motivations may now cause your business to be joint employer. The reasoning goes like this:

  1. You have a site-wide safety rule, and anyone in the facility must comply.
  2. Employees of vendors work onsite.
  3. Employees of vendors must comply.

Under the new NLRB joint employer rule, the exercise of control over “working conditions related to the safety and health” of a vendor’s employees would automatically create a joint employment relationship.

More absurd, merely reserving the right to exert control over health and safety conditions would create a joint employer relationship, even if such control is never actually exercised. In other words telling a vendor, if your employees enter our facility, they will will have to follow our site safety rules, would also seem to make you a joint employer.

The NLRB’s position ignores reality and creates a conundrum for businesses: If you comply with health and safety laws, or if you take steps to protect human beings from injury, and those humans are not your employees, the NLRB would now apparently say you’re a joint employer. Beware of showing feelings, showing feelings of an almost human nature.

Queue Pink Floyd “The Trial” from The Wall:

Good morning, Worm your honor
The crown will plainly show
The prisoner who now stands before you
Was caught red-handed showing feelings
Showing feelings of an almost human nature
This will not do
Call the schoolmaster

What to do?

Could the NLRB and OSHA be teaming up to jointly enforce this conundrum? Well, yes.

It just so happens that the NLRB and OSHA have teamed up, and on October 31 — less than a week after the NLRB released its final rule on joint employment — the two agencies jointly released a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). In the MOU, the agencies commit to sharing information and working together to enforce their respective laws, including notifying workers who make OSHA complaints of their NLRA rights, and notifying workers who make NLRA complaints about health and safety of their OSHA rights.

So what are businesses to do?

The answer can’t be to ignore health and safety rules or to waive these rules for non-employees. But the NLRB needs to recognize that exercising control over health and safety conditions does not — or should not — convert a company into a joint employer. Certainly this aspect of the rule will be tested in court, as it seems to go well beyond the bounds of the common law definition of joint employment, and the common law test is supposed to be the joint employer test under the NLRA.

One option for businesses to consider is to tie site-wide health and safety rules to legal requirements whenever possible. Compliance with the law is not supposed to be the type of control that is taken into account under the common law joint employer test. But that approach creates a conundrum too. Be careful that you don’t go too far and say that the law requires something when, in reality, it doesn’t.

Another option might be to revise how site-wide health and safety rules are drafted. Try to try to thread the needle, protecting everyone onsite, but not explicitly setting working conditions for vendor’s employees. It might be possible to draft this way; it might not be. But it’s worth looking at your policy language.

In the meantime, let’s keep an eye on how this new factor is interpreted by administrative law judges and the Board when actual disputes are adjudicated. Let’s also see if court challenges to the new joint employer rule will knock out this troubling provision.

This will not do. Call the schoolmaster!

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

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
11.06.23
by

This Will Not Do! Health and Safety Rules May Create Joint Employment under New NLRB Rule

Ginsberg’s Theorem is a parody of the laws of thermodynamics. Generally attributed to the poet Allen Ginsberg, it goes like this:

  1. There is a game.
  2. You can’t win.
  3. You can’t break even.
  4. You can’t even get out of the game.

That’s the conundrum businesses now face when trying to comply with both the NLRB’s new joint employer rule and OSHA requirements (or general safe workplace practices).

Last week we looked at the new NLRB rule on joint employment. This week I want to focus on the most troubling part of that rule — the NLRB’s decision to include “Working conditions related to the safety and health of employees” as an “essential term and condition of employment” for purposes of determining joint employer status.

Businesses often have site-wide, plant-wide, or company-wide health and safety requirements. If you enter this building, you must follow the health and safety rules that apply in this building. For example, you must wear steel-toed shoes to enter the manufacturing floor. Or, you must not enter this high-voltage area without permission. Or, you must walk only on designated pathways to avoid the risk of being hit by a forklift.

Some of these rules are driven by OSHA compliance, some by other governmental regulations, and some by a general desire not to cause grievous injury to other human beings.

Those motivations may now cause your business to be joint employer. The reasoning goes like this:

  1. You have a site-wide safety rule, and anyone in the facility must comply.
  2. Employees of vendors work onsite.
  3. Employees of vendors must comply.

Under the new NLRB joint employer rule, the exercise of control over “working conditions related to the safety and health” of a vendor’s employees would automatically create a joint employment relationship.

More absurd, merely reserving the right to exert control over health and safety conditions would create a joint employer relationship, even if such control is never actually exercised. In other words telling a vendor, if your employees enter our facility, they will will have to follow our site safety rules, would also seem to make you a joint employer.

The NLRB’s position ignores reality and creates a conundrum for businesses: If you comply with health and safety laws, or if you take steps to protect human beings from injury, and those humans are not your employees, the NLRB would now apparently say you’re a joint employer. Beware of showing feelings, showing feelings of an almost human nature.

Queue Pink Floyd “The Trial” from The Wall:

Good morning, Worm your honor
The crown will plainly show
The prisoner who now stands before you
Was caught red-handed showing feelings
Showing feelings of an almost human nature
This will not do
Call the schoolmaster

What to do?

Could the NLRB and OSHA be teaming up to jointly enforce this conundrum? Well, yes.

It just so happens that the NLRB and OSHA have teamed up, and on October 31 — less than a week after the NLRB released its final rule on joint employment — the two agencies jointly released a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). In the MOU, the agencies commit to sharing information and working together to enforce their respective laws, including notifying workers who make OSHA complaints of their NLRA rights, and notifying workers who make NLRA complaints about health and safety of their OSHA rights.

So what are businesses to do?

The answer can’t be to ignore health and safety rules or to waive these rules for non-employees. But the NLRB needs to recognize that exercising control over health and safety conditions does not — or should not — convert a company into a joint employer. Certainly this aspect of the rule will be tested in court, as it seems to go well beyond the bounds of the common law definition of joint employment, and the common law test is supposed to be the joint employer test under the NLRA.

One option for businesses to consider is to tie site-wide health and safety rules to legal requirements whenever possible. Compliance with the law is not supposed to be the type of control that is taken into account under the common law joint employer test. But that approach creates a conundrum too. Be careful that you don’t go too far and say that the law requires something when, in reality, it doesn’t.

Another option might be to revise how site-wide health and safety rules are drafted. Try to try to thread the needle, protecting everyone onsite, but not explicitly setting working conditions for vendor’s employees. It might be possible to draft this way; it might not be. But it’s worth looking at your policy language.

In the meantime, let’s keep an eye on how this new factor is interpreted by administrative law judges and the Board when actual disputes are adjudicated. Let’s also see if court challenges to the new joint employer rule will knock out this troubling provision.

This will not do. Call the schoolmaster!

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

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
10.29.23
by

Feeling At Risk? You Might Be, Now That NLRB Issued New Joint Employer Rule

I took this picture on Friday of a window washer at the Hilton across the street.

Late last week, the NLRB issued its new joint employer rule. I’ve listed three takeways below. Don’t be left hanging. Click here for the full Alert.

1) The National Labor Relations Board has issued a Final Rule that changes the test for determining who is a joint employer.

2) The Final Rule rescinds the Rule enacted in 2020 and adopts a test that will vastly expand the circumstances under which a company is a joint employer of the employees of another company.

3) The new rule may cause absurd results, including creating joint employment from the application of worksite safety rules to everyone onsite, including a vendor’s employees. The new rule requires joint employers to participate in the collective bargaining process.

The full Alert explains in more detail. If you are not subscribed to BakerHostetler employment law alerts, let me know and I’ll add you to the distribution list.

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

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
10.23.23
by

It’s Not Lemon Juice: Here’s the One Key Ingredient Missing from Your Staffing Agency Agreements

In 1995, a man robbed two Pittsburgh banks during the day. He wore no disguise and was easily identified by surveillance cameras and arrested. This surprised the man.

The man was surprised because he had covered himself in lemon juice, and he believed that lemon juice made him invisible to video cameras. Obviously, it doesn’t and it didn’t. Lemon juice does not prevent a person from being seen.

Now let’s talk about staffing agency temps and being seen. If your temps are integrated into your workforce, there is a high likelihood you are a joint employer.

If your staffing agency temp improperly pays your temp, and the temp files a wage and hour claim, you can’t just drench yourself in lemon juice and hope not to be seen. Chances are, you’ll be sued too.

If you are a joint employer, you are likely liable for wage and hour violations by the staffing agency, even though you had no control over the staffing agency‘s pay practices. For liability purposes, their mistake is your mistake.

One of the best ways to avoid getting drawn into a class action filed by an agency temp is to require, in your staffing agency agreements, that all temps sign an individual arbitration agreement. All temps should be required, as a condition of being placed at your company, to agree that any claims they have against your company will be resolved in arbitration, on an individual basis, not through a class action.

How do you do this? In three parts.

First, insert in your staffing agency agreement a clause requiring that all temps placed at your facility must first signed an arbitration agreement, a copy of which will be attached to the staffing agency agreement.

Second, draft the individual arbitration agreement exactly the way you want it, and attach it to the staffing agency agreement as an exhibit. Include a class waiver. Consider allowing small claims to be carved out and resolved in small claims court. Consider omitting AAA or JAMS as a designated arbitration administrator, to reduce the risk of mass arbitration filings. You can require arbitration without designating any agency to administer it. The agencies charge high fees, which creates the leverage that makes mass arbitration an effective tool of the plaintiffs’ bar. No arbitration agency = no administrative fees = probably no mass arbitration.

Third, require the agency to maintain copies of these agreements. You want the ability to audit compliance. You can also require the agency to show you a copy of each signed agreement before each temp begins an assignment.

It is frustrating to think that your business could be jointly liable for wage and hour violations by a staffing agency when you have no control over how they pay their employees. But with joint employment, that risk is a reality. You need to prepare for that possibility well in advance.

The staffing agency agreement provides you an ideal opportunity to plan ahead and protect yourself against this possibility.

Lemon juice might be a nice addition to iced tea, but it does not provide any protection against security cameras or class action lawsuits. You’ll need arbitration agreements for that.

Click here for more tips about what should be in your staffing agency agreements.

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

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge