With the rise of contingent workforces over the last two decades, many employers have enjoyed the flexibility afforded by staffing companies which provide employees as needed, coupled with a reduction in HR compliance requirements afforded by those companies. A side benefit was the diminution of labor organizing, as NLRB policies effectively insulated franchisors, contractors and companies with staffed employees from potential organizing because the primary company was held not to be a joint employer with the staffing company or other party. However, in August of this year, the National Labor Relations Board snatched away this protection in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., effectively announcing open season on thousands of previously protected employers.
The saga began in August 2013, when a representation election was directed among the employees of a Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI) subcontractor doing business as Leadpoint Business Services (Leadpoint), which provided approximately 240 workers to a BFI subsidiary. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 350 argued that BFI and Leadpoint were joint employers of those employees. In keeping with longstanding precedent, under which joint employer status was marked by both entities in question exercising “immediate and direct” control over the terms and conditions of workers’ employment, the acting regional director determined that BFI was not a joint employer.
The NLRB granted review of the regional director’s determination, and as anticipated, the Board came down on the side of a new test. In reaching its decision in Browning-Ferris, the Board did not accept the general counsel’s contention that an entity should be considered a joint employer if “industrial realities” made the entity “essential to meaningful bargaining,” but nevertheless dramatically lowered the historical joint employer bar. Under the new joint employer test, which the Board majority heralded as a return to its “traditional test”:
The Board may find that two or more entities are joint employers of a single work force if they are both employers within the meaning of the common law, and if they share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment. In evaluating the allocation and exercise of control in the workplace, we will consider the various ways in which joint employers may “share” control over terms and conditions of employment or “codetermine” them.
The decision notes that a joint employer relationship will not be found based on a company’s “bare rights to dictate the results of a contracted service or to control or protect its own property.” This statement offers small comfort, however, because the Board “will no longer require that a joint employer not only possess the authority to control employees’ terms and conditions of employment, but also exercise that authority. Reserved authority to control terms and conditions of employment, even if not exercised, is clearly relevant to the joint-employment inquiry.” (emphasis added.)
Applying the new test to the facts before it, the Board determined that BFI was a joint employer of the workers Leadpoint provided to the facility at issue. The key facts driving the Board’s determination were that BFI gave Leadpoint supervisors detailed directives concerning employee performance; set conditions on hiring that Leadpoint was contractually bound to follow; had the authority to discontinue the use of any given Leadpoint employee; controlled the speed of the sorting lines (which dictated the speed at which employees were required to work) and other productivity standards; and the contract between the entities gave BFI the right to control other terms and conditions of the workers’ employment (e.g., BFI had the right to enforce its safety policies against Leadpoint employees).
The Board deemed BFI and Leadpoint joint employers despite facts such as the following: Leadpoint employed an “Acting On-Site Manager,” three shift supervisors, and seven “line leads” to manage and supervise Leadpoint employees working at the BFI facility; Leadpoint set its employees’ schedules; Leadpoint engaged its own human resources manager to work at the BFI facility; and Leadpoint had the sole responsibility to counsel, discipline, review, evaluate, and terminate employees assigned to BFI.
What the Decision Means for Employers
There has always been tension between the indirect employer’s desire to control the quality of the good or services produced with leased employees, and the need to create distance from the day-to-day control of those leased workers to avoid joint employer status. Historically, a reasonable contract with the staffing company and leaving employment decisions to the staffing company’s judgment was sufficient. Browning-Ferris dramatically changes this approach. The new test leaves employers guessing as to how much indirect control they must have over another entities’ employees to be deemed a joint employer. It is entirely unclear what one must do to “affect the means and manner of employees’ work and terms of employment.” And what it means to “share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment” is anybody’s guess.
What is clear is that entities wishing to avoid joint employer status under the new test must take a more hands-off approach than ever before to employees of other entities. While by no means offering a road map, the Browning-Ferris decision does provide a few insights into actions employers can take that might minimize the joint employer risk:
When communicating expectations to a contractor, focus on ensuring that the entity is clear on your ultimate goal, and then leave it up to that entity to instruct its employees on how to achieve that goal. As seen in Browning-Ferris, the more detail a “user employer” provides in its directives, the more likely it will be found to have indirect control over the affected employees.
Interestingly, with the President mandating working conditions for government contractors’ employees, such as paid sick leave, we wonder whether the Federal Government would agree it is a “joint employer” with contractors under the Browning-Ferris test. After all, sick leave is clearly a bargainable work condition.
Some employers might choose to take a wait-and-see approach to the new test, as it will undoubtedly be challenged in the courts (either by BFI should the employees at issue vote for union representation and BFI draws an unfair labor practice charge for refusal to bargain, or by another company caught in the new test’s crosshairs). Further, a legislative reaction is not out of the question. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) announced on August 27 that he will introduce a bill to negate the decision. Even if Browning-Ferris withstands any proposed legislation and/or judicial review, the contours of the new test will continue to emerge for years to come as parties litigate the many issues it raises. In the meantime, unwitting employers could find themselves hauled to the bargaining table, and drawn into unfair labor practice charges, as joint employers. While employers need to pay close attention to their own direct and contingent workforces, the author believes there is no need to panic. However, employers should certainly consider reducing their control, direct or indirect, over contingent workers where feasible to prevent problems in the long run.