This is a tricky issue for chains that operate under a franchise model. Sometimes - *cough* McDonald's *cough* - the corporate chain gets dragged in to labor disputes as a joint employer by the NLRB.
The Freshii decision provides a great summary of the current state of the law in this area. The Board currently applies this standard:
However, the GC has urged the NLRB to return to the "industrial realities" test of days gone by:
The Board will find that two separate entities are joint employers of a single workforce if they “share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment.” To establish such status, a business entity must meaningfully affect matters relating to the employment relationship “such as hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, and direction.” As recently noted by the Board in CNN, the Board and the courts have also considered other factors in making a joint employer determination, including an employer’s involvement in decisions relating to wages and compensation, the number of job vacancies to be filled, work hours, the assignment of work and equipment, employment tenure, and an employer’s involvement in the collective bargaining process.
NLRB Seal - Not official use.
Under that standard, the Board finds joint employer status where, under the totality of the circumstances, including the way the separate entities have structured their commercial relationship, the putative joint employer wields sufficient influence over the working conditions of the other entity’s employees such that meaningful bargaining could not occur in its absence. This approach makes no distinction between direct, indirect and potential control over working conditions and results in a joint employer finding where “industrial realities” make an entity essential for meaningful bargaining.In Freshii, the OGC concluded that the chain was not a joint employer under either standard.
#NLRB General Counsel's office issues advice memo finding no joint employer r'ship between franchisor/franchisee. http://t.co/RD1jUVdspN— Brian D. Hall (@BrianDHallEsq) May 12, 2015