loader
Page is loading...
generic_insight_detail

NLRB Ruling: Temps Can be Part of Bargaining Units


In a move foreshadowed on this blog for some time (see posts from July 7, 2015, and Sept. 30, 2015), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) released a decision today that will make it much easier for temporary employees to be included in bargaining units. This issue has ping-ponged back and forth over the years. For decades, the rule was that if a union petitioned to represent direct employees at a work site along with temporary employees provided by an outside entity, both of the employers (the company and the temporary agency) would have to consent. During the Clinton board era, the board changed that rule in its decision M.B. Sturgis, Inc., 331 NLRB 1298 (2000). That was quickly overturned in the George W. Bush era board decision in Oakwood Care Center, 343 NLRB 659 (2004). However, in a 3-1 decision announced July 11, 2016, in the case Miller & Anderson, Inc., the NLRB reversed itself again and has essentially returned to the Clinton-era standard. The board specifically overturned Oakwood, and returned to its previous holding in Sturgis. As such, employer consent is not necessary for potential units that combine jointly employed and solely employed employees of a single user employer. In other words, regular employees (employed directly by the owner of the business) and temporary employees (supplied by an outside temporary staffing agency) can be in the same bargaining unit – and therefore vote together on representation. The board noted it will apply the traditional community of interest factors to decide if such units are appropriate. Employer groups argued that forcing employers to bargain with a unit that includes both temps and regular employees was fraught with potential problems. But, the NLRB dismissed these arguments, saying that each employer is obligated to bargain only over the employees with whom it has an employment relationship and only with respect to such terms and conditions that it possesses the authority to control. This means that a company (a so-called “user employer”) could be obligated to bargain with temp employees over some terms and conditions of employment while the temp agency who supplies those temps would bargain with those same temp employees over other terms and conditions of employment. The board had earlier issued a notice of invitation to file briefs on this issue, and large employer organizations such as the Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Association of Manufacturers, and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. filed briefs urging the NLRB to adhere to Oakwood. A copy of the full decision can be found here. Please stay tuned to this blog for further developments, including whether the employer in this case chooses to further appeal this decision to a federal court of appeals.


LEAVE YOUR COMMENT

RELATED ARTICLES

Cough it Up! Company Forced to Give Union Complete Copy Of Third-Party Agreement

June 11, 2019 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board

Thin Skin? Discharge of Employee for Criticizing Executive’s Salary Was Unlawful

May 31, 2019 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board

Changes Coming: NLRB Considers Rulemaking on Ambush Elections and More

May 24, 2019 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board

Are Uber Drivers Employees?

May 15, 2019 | Labor Relations, 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
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.