The US National Labor Relations Board intends to take the first step toward creating a new regulation regarding the definition of “joint employers” for federal regulatory purposes by the end of this summer, NLRB Chairman John F. Ring wrote in a letter to three Senators this week. The letter to Democrats Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand, and Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, was in response to a letter the legislators had sent to the board chairman expressing their concerns about the board’s intent to introduce a new joint employer standard through the federal rulemaking process.
“A majority of the Board is committed to engage in rulemaking,” Ring wrote in the letter dated June 5, “and the NLRB will do so. Internal preparations are underway, and we are working toward issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) as soon as possible, but certainly by this summer.”
The joint employer standard, which refers to an organization’s liability for the work conditions of individuals employed by its contractors or subcontractors, was expanded considerably during the Obama administration, when the NLRB ruled in a 2015 case called Browning-Ferris that a company was to be considered a joint employer if it had “indirect” control over the subcontractor’s terms and conditions of employment or “reserved authority” to exercise such control. The board reversed that decision in the Hy-Brand case decided late last year, but vacated its Hy-Brand ruling in February after one member of the board who participated in that decision, William Emanuel, was found to have a conflict of interest.
The US Department of Labor under President Donald Trump and Secretary Alexander Acosta has been working over the past year to undo the regulations implemented by the Obama administration regarding the definition of “joint employers.” Acosta, like many employers and business associations, considers the previous administration’s standard too broad.
Now, the National Labor Relations Board is weighing a rulemaking process to update the standard, the board announced on Wednesday:
“Whether one business is the joint employer of another business’s employees is one of the most critical issues in labor law today,” says NLRB Chairman John F. Ring. “The current uncertainty over the standard to be applied in determining joint-employer status under the Act undermines employers’ willingness to create jobs and expand business opportunities. In my view, notice-and-comment rulemaking offers the best vehicle to fully consider all views on what the standard ought to be.”
Acosta’s Labor Department rescinded Obama-era guidelines on the joint employer standard last June, while the National Labor Relations Board’s regional directors were instructed in December to slow enforcement of the Obama administration’s standard. Shortly thereafter, the NLRB overturned its ruling in the landmark Browning-Ferris case, in which it had considered a company to be a joint employer with a subcontractor if it exercised “indirect” control over the terms and conditions of employment or had the “reserved authority to do so.”
State legislators in Delaware are considering a bill that would take an unusually aggressive policy approach to combating sexual harassment in the workplace. A bill introduced at the end of March by Rep. Helene Keeley would classify sexual harassment as an unlawful employment practices and require all organizations with 50 employees or more to give supervisors two hours of training on sexual harassment prevention every two years, the Delaware State News reports:
The measure offers a relatively broad description of sexual harassment, defining it as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.” … The measure specifies an employer could be held responsible for sexual harassment when it “knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.”
The bill comes amid a slew of measures Delaware lawmakers are taking to strengthen the state’s policies against sexual harassment, including the adoption of written sexual harassment policies by the legislature itself and an attempt to add an Equal Rights Amendment to the state constitution, which recently passed the House for the first time, the News Journal adds.
The Delaware State Chamber of Commerce has expressed some reservations about Keeley’s bill and is making recommendations on how it might be amended, but does not oppose it in principle, according to the State News:
The National Labor Relations Board has vacated a recent decision to limit the liability of companies for labor violations by their franchisees and contractors under the “joint employer doctrine,” after one member of the board who participated in that decision was found to have a conflict of interest, the New York Times reports:
A report released in early February by the agency’s inspector general found that the member, William J. Emanuel, should have recused himself when the case came before the board in December, shortly after the Republicans gained control. That would have left it split at two votes apiece and preserved the status quo.
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. That opens the door for the more expansive, Obama-era standard to remain in place for several more months, perhaps even years.
The December ruling overturned a decision made by the board under the Obama administration in 2015 that defined “joint employer” to include entities with which a business has indirect control, or a “horizontal” relationship, making them responsible for franchisees’ or contractors’ compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and other employee protection laws. Previously, organizations were only considered joint employers in the case of a “vertical” relationship, wherein an organization exerted direct control over its subordinate entity’s employees or the terms of their employment. The Labor Department also adopted an expansive view of joint employer doctrine under the Obama administration, which current Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta rescinded last June.
In its annual survey on office romance, conducted in the lead-up to Valentine’s Day, CareerBuilder finds this year that the number of US employees saying they have dated a co-worker at a ten-year low of 36 percent, down from 41 percent last year and 40 percent in 2008:
Thirty-seven percent of men say they have dated a coworker compared to 35 percent of women, while one in five male workers (20 percent) say they have dated someone at work two or more times in their career, compared to just 15 percent of their female colleagues. …
Of those who have dated at work, more than a quarter of women (27 percent) say they have dated someone who was their boss compared to just 16 percent of men. Additionally, 30 percent of these workers say they have dated someone who was at a higher level in the organization than they were. Thirty-five percent of female coworkers reported dating someone at a higher level in the company than them, compared to 25 percent of their male coworkers.
The shift from a ten-year high in last year’s survey to a ten-year low this year may be related to the unprecedented attention finally being given to sexual harassment and misconduct in the workplace after countless women opened up about their experiences as part of the #MeToo movement over the past six months. Wider awareness of these problems and an increased focus on preventing harassment and punishing perpetrators have reportedly led to anxieties among men in the workplace about the propriety of their interactions with female colleagues, which would tend to result in fewer workplace romances being initiated.
Just days after the National Labor Relations Board’s general counsel sent a memo to the US agency’s regional directors advising them to pull back on the controversial “joint employer” standard adopted by the Obama administration, the board’s new Republican majority overturned the ruling on which that standard was based, the Hill reported late on Thursday:
In a 3-2 decision, the Republican-controlled board overruled the board’s previous 2015 decision in a case, known as Browning-Ferris, which found a company to be considered a joint-employer with a subcontractor if it has “indirect” control over the terms and conditions of employment or has the “reserved authority to do so.”
In a statement, NLRB said in all future and pending cases two or more entities will be deemed joint employers under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) if there is proof that one entity has exercised direct and immediate control over essential employment terms of another entity’s employees.
Restricting the joint employer standard was high on the policy wishlists of several employer groups, particularly the National Restaurant Association, which said it harmed the franchise model. The Trump administration was expected to act on this soon after the new Republican members of the board were seated in August and September. Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, a longstanding critic of the Obama administration’s expanded definition of joint employers, rescinded Obama-era guidance on joint employer liability in June. Legislation has also been introduced in Congress to write the narrower definition into the National Labor Relations Act.
Peter Robb, who was confirmed as the new general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board last month, advised the board’s regional directors in a recent memo to submit any cases based on the Obama administration’s controversial expansion of the “joint employer” standard for liability to the Board’s Advice Division in Washington for analysis, the Washington Examiner reported late last week:
Robb cautioned the directors against issuing complaints based on the controversial standard adopted during the Obama administration and instead told them to seek advice from the Washington headquarters.
“Examples of board decisions that might support issuance of complaint but where we also might want to provide them with an alternative analysis include … Finding joint employer status based on evidence of indirect or potential control over the working conditions of an employer’s employees,” Robb said in a memorandum dated Dec. 1 to all regional directors.
In order to avoid delays, Robb also wrote in the memo that his office would not be offering new views on cases already pending in courts.
The NLRB’s Browning-Ferris decision in 2015 established a precedent for “joint employer” to include entities with which a business has indirect control, or a horizontal relationship, making them responsible for franchisees’ or contractors’ compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and other employee protection laws. Previously, a company was only liable for those under its direct control.