With apologies (and props) to the great Yogi Berra, it’s deja vu all over again at the National Labor Relations Board. The Board has extended the commenting period on its proposed joint employer rulemaking for a second time. Comments to the proposed rule may
My esteemed colleague Tami McKnew today filed the following comment on the NLRB proposed joint employer rulemaking, 83 FR 46681:
The proposed rule specifically acknowledges the effects of the 2015 shift in joint employer analysis evident in the Board’s decision in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186 (“Browning-Ferris”). Following the Browning-Ferris decision, franchisors, temporary
In a major policy announcement, on Friday, September 14, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) proposed a new regulation establishing the standard for determining whether two employers, as defined in Section 2(2) of the National Labor Relations Act (the “NLRA”), are a joint employer of a group of employees under the NLRA.
Under
I attended the International Franchise Association’s Franchise Action Network (“FAN”) Annual Meeting last week in Washington D. C. Basically, this is an educational event culminating in the participants being sent out to the “Hill” to lobby their senators and representatives on issues effecting small businesses – and especially franchised businesses. Speakers from the Hill, this
In Lomeli v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc., the United States District Court in the Central District of California held that the plaintiff, Luis Lomeli (“Lomeli”), had submitted enough evidence to hold the franchisor (“Jackson Hewitt”) vicariously liable for potential class actions due to a franchisee’s preparation and submission of fraudulent tax returns. The most concerning
The fight against joint employment of franchisors and franchisees took a small hit when the Western District of Pennsylvania (“Court”) chose to allow a franchisee’s employee’s suit to proceed. In Harris v. Midas, et. al., the plaintiff, Hannah Harris (“Harris”), convinced the Court that she had proffered enough evidence to allege a plausible basis
In December, we wrote that the NLRB had issued a decision overturning Browning-Ferris’ joint employer test and returning to the previous standard for determining joint employment. That decision in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors was seen as a return to sanity by employers and pro-business groups.
Unfortunately, the NLRB announced today that it had vacated the Hy-Brand
Yesterday afternoon, the NLRB issued a decision in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors that caused a collective sigh among employers. The decision rolls back the joint employer standard to what it was before Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No 186.
The Browning-Ferris decision was greeted with alarm by most employers, especially franchisers and franchisees, as it made
The U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce recently approved the “Save Local Business Act” (HR 3441 – Byrne). If enacted, the Act would limit joint employer liability by reversing the rule announced by the NLRB in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186. The Browning-Ferris decision departed from 30 years
Another case has been decided adding to the back and forth in the legal world on the issues of a joint employer relationship of a franchisor and its franchisee and vicarious liability and agency between a franchisor and franchisee.
In Harris v. Midas, (2017 WL 3440693 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 10 2017)) a federal court