Labor Board’s Do-Over Leaves an Obama-Era Rule Intact
A company, like a fast-food corporation, that is deemed a joint employer of workers at a franchisee can be held liable for violations of their labor rights — such as illegally firing workers involved in an organizing campaign —
and can be required to bargain with them if they unionize.
But in a case known as Browning-Ferris, the board ruled
that the parent company could be deemed a joint employer even if the control it exerted was indirect — for example, if it forced the franchisee to use software that committed it to certain scheduling practices.
Before 2015, a company could be considered a joint employer under federal labor law
only if it exercised direct and immediate control over workers at the franchise.
On Monday, three other board members, including its Republican chairman, Marvin E. Kaplan, voted to vacate the December decision, citing a determination
that Mr. Emanuel “is, and should have been, disqualified from participating in this proceeding” because his former law firm had handled a related case.
A parent company that terminates a franchise agreement to avoid doing business with a franchisee whose workers
are trying to unionize may face legal liability for doing so if it is considered a joint employer.
The board ruled that the parent company could also be considered a joint employer if the company
had the right to exercise control over a franchisee that it did not exercise in practice.
Wilma B. Liebman, a Democratic former board member who served as chairwoman early in the Obama administration, said it was highly unusual for a labor board ruling to be reversed
because of a conflict — perhaps illustrating the stakes involved.
A company, like a fast-food corporation, that is deemed a joint employer of workers at a franchisee can be held liable for violations of their labor rights — such as illegally firing workers involved in an organizing campaign —
and can be required to bargain with them if they unionize.
But in a case known as Browning-Ferris, the board ruled
that the parent company could be deemed a joint employer even if the control it exerted was indirect — for example, if it forced the franchisee to use software that committed it to certain scheduling practices.
Before 2015, a company could be considered a joint employer under federal labor law
only if it exercised direct and immediate control over workers at the franchise.
On Monday, three other board members, including its Republican chairman, Marvin E. Kaplan, voted to vacate the December decision, citing a determination
that Mr. Emanuel “is, and should have been, disqualified from participating in this proceeding” because his former law firm had handled a related case.
A parent company that terminates a franchise agreement to avoid doing business with a franchisee whose workers
are trying to unionize may face legal liability for doing so if it is considered a joint employer.
The board ruled that the parent company could also be considered a joint employer if the company
had the right to exercise control over a franchisee that it did not exercise in practice.
Wilma B. Liebman, a Democratic former board member who served as chairwoman early in the Obama administration, said it was highly unusual for a labor board ruling to be reversed
because of a conflict — perhaps illustrating the stakes involved.
Category
🗞
News