loader
Page is loading...
Print Logo Logo
Gavel

Oh no! It’s Back: NLRB’s Browning-Ferris Decision Reinstated


In a huge development, on Feb. 26, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced that it is reinstating its infamous 2015 Browning-Ferris decision regarding “joint-employers” under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

The NLRB made headlines at the end of last year when it overruled Browning-Ferris – a decision that made it significantly easier for two or more companies to be found “joint-employers.” The board did so in a case involving the company Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors Ltd.

Earlier this month, however, the NLRB’s Inspector General has issued a report finding that current NLRB member William Emanuel should have recused himself from the Hy-Brand case on grounds that his former law firm was involved with the Browning-Ferris case – a wholly separate matter but involving the same legal issues and potentially impacting the Browning-Ferris case that was on appeal in federal court. The agency’s press release states: “The National Labor Relations Board (3-0, Member Emanuel did not participate) today issued an Order vacating the Board's decision in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd. and Brandt Construction Co., 365 NLRB No. 156 (2017), in light of the determination by the Board’s Designated Agency Ethics Official that Member Emanuel is, and should have been, disqualified from participating in this proceeding. 

Because the Board's Decision and Order in Hy-Brand has been vacated, the overruling of the Board's decision in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015), set forth therein is of no force or effect.” Accordingly, the Browning-Ferris standard is back.

In Browning-Ferris, the NLRB held that it no longer requires that a company actually exercise control over a workforce’s terms and conditions of employment in order to be deemed a joint employer; rather, “reserved” or “indirect” (i.e., potential) control is sufficient. That standard has potentially wide-reaching effects on many businesses, including those using staffing companies and franchisor-franchisee models. When found to be joint-employers, two or more companies may be forced to share in unfair labor practice liability and suffer other consequences under the NLRA. It is possible the NLRB may revisit this issue yet again in the future. Stay tuned.


RELATED ARTICLES

Is It Time To Review and Consider Updates to Your Personnel Policies?

June 16, 2021 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board

Goodbye NY: No Union For Uber Drivers…For Now

June 11, 2021 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board, State Labor Laws, Unions and Union Membership

New NLRB Rule Prohibits Solicitation of Voters’ Mail Ballots in Union Elections

June 10, 2021 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board, Unions and Union Membership

Unblocked: Labor Board Declines To Delay Decert Election Based On Pending ULPs

June 4, 2021 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board, Union Organizing

President Biden Nominates Union-Side Attorney Gwynne Wilcox to the NLRB

May 28, 2021 | Labor Relations, Federal Laws and Legislation, National Labor Relations Board

Subscribe

Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.

View Subscription Center
RELATED TOPICS
BrowningFerris
jointemployers
nlra
NLRB
Trending Connect
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to use cookies.