NLRB Proposes Rule for Joint-Employment

Not official use.

Sometimes, two distinct entities share a relationship with the same workers. For example, when you walk into a fast food place - those workers are most likely employed by the local franchise, not the big national fast food corporation. The big national, however, has *some* relationship with those employees. Is it enough to consider the big national their "employer" (a "joint employer")?

The NLRB has gone back and forth on the proper test for determining whether an entity is a joint employer. Last week, the NLRB announced a new proposed rule - hoping that following the rulemaking process will give this latest iteration a little more heft than the standards coming out of dueling NLRB opinions.

We're still waiting on the details, but the press release should give you an idea:

Under the proposed rule, an employer may be found to be a joint-employer of another employer’s employees only if it possesses and exercises substantial, direct and immediate control over the essential terms and conditions of employment and has done so in a manner that is not limited and routine. Indirect influence and contractual reservations of authority would no longer be sufficient to establish a joint-employer relationship.

The new rule would make entities less likely to be joint employers as compared to teh Obama-era standard.