the nlrb's new joint-employer test: what you need to know regarding its likely impact
TRANSCRIPT
The NLRB’s New Joint-Employer Test:What You Need to Know Regarding its Likely Impact
Presented by: Derek Barella
Joseph Torres
September 3, 2015
2
Today’s eLunch Presenters
Derek BarellaPartnerChicago
+1 (312) 558-8002
Joseph TorresPartnerChicago
+1 (312) 558-7334
3
Agenda
• Historical areas of concern• Likely joint employer scenarios• Browning-Ferris – the new test• Browning-Ferris – key facts• Implications of joint employer status• Possible responsive strategies• Concluding thoughts on NLRB’s agenda
4
Historical Areas of Concern
• Liability• Exposure to alleged wrongdoing of a third-party
• Not limited to the ULP context
• Organizing• Risk of union organizing a third-party’s employees who work in your facility
• Either as a discrete “jointly-employed” unit or a broader “mixed” unit
• At times, the mixed-unit scenario was barred by the “consent” rule
• Secondary pressure• Generally, primary employer protected
5
Joint Employer Status• Potentially arises in variety of contexts:
• User/supplier
• Lessor/lessee
• Contractor/subcontractor
• Franchisor/franchisee
• Parent/subsidiary
• Predecessor/successor
6
The Historical Test
• When do two employers “share or codetermine” essential terms and conditions of employment?• Actual control must be shown
• Hypothetical, unexercised control not enough
• TLI, Inc., 271 NLRB 798 (1984)• Contract gives user employer sole and exclusive responsibility for
“maintaining operational control, direction, and supervision over drivers”
• User employer instructs drivers regarding deliveries, files incident reports with supplier, maintains driver logs and records
• Board holds contract language not sufficient absent evidence user employer “affected terms and conditions of employment”
• Board concludes actual supervision/direction was “limited” and “routine”
7
The New Test
• No longer limited to actual control• Indirect control can be enough
• E.g., third-party firm raises wages based on contractual increases
• E.g., scheduling of work flow controls third-party scheduling
• Potential control can be enough, depending upon:• Reserved contractual rights, even if unexercised
• Core vs. non-core nature of the work
• Integration of the work
• Economic commercial leverage in the relationship
• Technological oversight
8
Key “Control” Facts
• Management structure• Separate supervisors/leads/HR
• Hiring practices• Contractual right to reject
• Meet/exceed BFI’s selection procedures and tests
• Discipline and termination• Right to discontinue use
• Wages and benefits• Cost-plus contract
• Agency wages cannot exceed BFI wages
9
Key “Control” Facts
• Scheduling and hours• Control over speed of work streams/productivity standards
• Authentication of hours worked
• Work processes• Assign specific tasks through agency supervisors
• Training and safety• All safety rules applicable
• Limits on duration of employment• Never exercised
10
Implications
• Decision not limited to its facts• Joint liability for ULPs and contract violations• Union organizing (but, one more shoe to drop)
• Oakwood Care Ctr. likely to be reversed – amicus briefs requested in July
• Currently, unions can organize jointly-employed employees in a discrete unit
• Joint collective bargaining obligations• Unions can try to bring deeper pockets to the table
• Who bargains about what?
• Information disclosure may disrupt leverage among contracting entities
• Secondary pressure
12
Browning-Ferris – What’s Next?
• Any direct appeal to the Circuit Courts will have to wait• Congressional fix unlikely in the near term• Other agencies to follow
• DOL efforts to hold large companies responsible for wage/hour compliance
• EEOC amicus brief in Browning-Ferris in support of expanded test
• OSHA “draft” memorandum indicating interest in pursuing joint employer cases against franchisors and franchisees
13
Options to Eliminate/Mitigate Risk
Terminate relationship
Modify relationship
and/or contract
Accept/embrace joint employer
status
14
Possible Responsive Strategies
• Review key areas of relationship• Contract provisions
• Physical presence
• Day-to-day interaction
• Create a decision framework relevant to your business
15
Framework for Assessment
High-Level Considerations
Employee/Facility-specific
HR/LR
Business/Economic
Enterprise HR/LR
16
Framework for Assessment
Type of Facility
UnionizedNon-Union
No Organizing
Non-UnionPrior/Ongoing
Organizing
18
Framework for Assessment
Type of Third-Party
Temp-to-HireSupplemental
Discrete Provider Demonstrated
Expertise
19
Spectrum of Options to Eliminate/Mitigate Risk
Terminate relationship to
avoid risk
Modify relationship and
agreement to mitigate risk
Accept/embrace joint employer
relationship
20
Putting It All Together
• New election rules – median time to election is now 23 days• Specialty Healthcare – micro-units• Browning-Ferris• Reversal of Oakwood Care Ctr.• Limits on employer discipline (PCA, inherently concerted)
21
Proactive Employer Strategies
• Assess your current program for measuring/addressing employee sentiment
• Identify vulnerabilities to organizing activities• Test your ability to quickly assess and respond to a campaign• Evaluate risks in key areas
• Micro-units
• Joint employer
• Supervisor status
• Employee conduct rules
• Discipline rules and procedures