Insights: Alerts NLRB Reverts to a Broad Test for Determining Joint-Employer Status – At Least, for Now
In a December 18, 2017 Legal Alert, we reported on the National Labor Relations Board’s Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd. decision. That decision overruled a broad test for determining joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act that had been adopted in the Board’s 2015 ruling in Browning-Ferris Industries. The Hy-Brand decision replaced the Browning-Ferris test with a more stringent test requiring that an employer actually exert direct and immediate control over “essential” employment terms of another employer’s employees to be deemed the joint employer of those employees.The Hy-Brand decision quickly became the subject of controversy, however, because one of the Board members who had voted in favor of overturning Browning-Ferris, William Emanuel, had worked for a law firm that was directly involved in the Browning-Ferris case before he was appointed to the Board last year. Earlier this month, the Board’s Inspector General issued a report concluding that Member Emanuel should not have taken part in the Hy-Brand decision. In the wake of that report, the Board announced on February 26, 2018, that it was vacating the Hy-Brand decision. This means that the decision no longer has any legal effect. As a result, the Browning-Ferris test for joint-employer status, which allows an employer to be found to be the joint employer of another employer’s employees if it has “indirect control” or the mere contractual right to exercise control over those employees, is, for the time being at least, the binding standard for determining joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act.
By vacating the Hy-Brand decision, the Board is not foreclosing the possibility that it will re-adopt the Hy-Brand test for determining joint-employer status in a future decision. At the moment, however, the normally five-member Board has only four members, and they are evenly split between Democrat appointees and Republican appointees. Until a fifth member of the Board is confirmed by the Senate and the Board can reconsider the joint-employer issue, the broad test for joint-employer status announced in Browning-Ferris is likely to remain controlling under the National Labor Relations Act.
John W. Alden
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.