The D.C. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments March 9 in a case that challenges the National Labor Relations Board’s 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris, which expanded the definition of a “joint employer” to include entities that exert even indirect control over another organization’s employees.
Browning-Ferris Industries contends the NLRB ruling violated the 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRB said both the company and a staffing agency it used were employers for the purposes of organizing a union for temporary employees.
Although nominally restricted to a labor-relations context, the decision has had the effect of increasing legal liability of employers that use temp agencies or contractors to perform work, as well as companies that do business through franchisees.
Learn more about Browning-Ferris and the joint employer issues it raised at www.theHRSpecialist.com/Browning.
- How to Fire an Employee the Legal Way: 6 Termination Guidelines
- Handbooks 101: 4 guidelines to follow, 5 policies to include
- The HR Checklist: How would your practices stand up in court?
- Time to come clean: car washes handed $1.6 million in citations
- Transfer may not trigger clock on discrimination, retaliation claims