Sentences with phrase «joint employer»

With roughly 2.9 million of the nation's workers employed through temporary agencies, the board said its previous joint employer standard had failed to keep pace with changes in the modern workplace.
New York City IP litigation partner Craig Tractenberg authored this column discussing differences in state and federal law related to franchisors as joint employers.
The second guideline, released in February 2016, offered an expanded administrative interpretation of joint employer status.
And for individual franchisees, a ruling in favor of joint employer status would mean they are no longer independent business owners and more beholden to corporate rules.
But perhaps more worrying than the legal challenges, to franchisors and franchisees alike, is the possibility that Ontario could change its labour rules and make franchisors joint employers with their franchisees.
If franchisers are considered joint employers, franchise owners face a number of questions that could have an impact on their businesses.
Like the July 2015 recommendation, the February release aimed to ensure greater accountability for employers by stating the importance of expanding the number of scenarios in which joint employer relationships exist.
Employment law specialist Michael J. Lotito, a partner at law firm Littler Mendelson, in San Francisco, says the current method for determining joint employer status revolves around «direct control» — who hires, fires, directs and evaluates the employee on a day - to - day basis.
Panelist, NLRB's New Standard for Joint Employer Status After Browning - Ferris, Strafford Webinar, October 2015
(This classification is also being considered in another case from May, involving waste services company Browing - Ferris Industries, where the NLRB is considering expanding joint employer status to include contract and temporary workers.)
No longer would contractually reserved control, indirect control, or control that is limited and routine be sufficient to establish joint employer status.
Representing a contractor against claims by a labor union for fringe benefits under a collective bargaining agreement alleging alter ego and joint employer theories of liability.
Does Subway's Compliance Agreement with the DOL Really Raise Joint Employer Concerns?
Lew's panel, «Withdrawal Liability - Developments in Joint Employer Liability and the Sun Capital Decision,» will discuss private equity funds and controlled group liability, the effect of fund structure and ownership interests, common control issues, and other topics.
On top of this, Congress is considering a few new laws that will impact the definition of joint employers, and give employers that operate in multiple states a safe harbor provision for paid time - off.
Hy - Brand returned to the pre-Browning-Ferris standard that joint employer status will be found only where one entity has exercised actual control over the essential employment terms of another entity's employees.
At least, that was the tone when a number of entrepreneurs descended on Capitol Hill Wednesday morning to voice their outrage about a recent National Labor Relations Board ruling that changes the definition of what it means to be a joint employer.
When companies decide they don't want to be joint employers and share the costs, the sole blame for that job loss will rest with the regulators at the NLRB, who put politics ahead of sound economics.
The 3 - 2 NRLB decided waste company Browning - Ferris was a joint employer of workers hired by a staffing firm, Leadpoint Business Services, that was contracted to sort materials at a BFI recycling center.
On partisan lines, the National Labor Relations Board this week changed the way it defines a joint employer, essentially holding large franchises like McDonald's responsible for the employees that work for individual franchisees.
During a terrorist threat or attack, focusing on the nuances of the joint employer issue is not realistic.
If you use contract workers for any aspect of your business, and they organize, you could be deemed a joint employer, and would then be drawn into negotiations with unions.
Court proceedings will begin on Monday in New York, then Chicago and Los Angeles to determine if McDonald's can actually be considered a joint employer and if violations did occur at varying franchises.
2014 ushered in the National Labor Relations Board's landmark «joint employer» decision.
McDonald's has continued to contest its status as a joint employer, arguing that it can't be held accountable for the actions of independent franchisees.
The possibility of a joint employer standard sparked debate in Congress, with Republican lawmakers attempting to block it from happening.
While the franchising world fears that a joint employer precedent will destroy the franchise model as we know it, others are optimistic.
In a move that could ultimately have a huge impact on all franchising, the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board has said that McDonald's is the joint employer of workers at its franchise locations.
In July 2014, the NLRB stated that McDonald's could be considered a joint employer, meaning it could be directly involved — and therefore liable for — the control and supervision of employee activity at any of its franchised locations.
«If a franchiser is now a joint employer, will that franchiser continue franchising or will they only open corporate locations?»
A worker group is filing charges against franchisees and McDonald's as a joint employer, setting a precedent that could have broad ripple effects.
By declaring that McDonald's is a joint employer, the NLRB has shaken that structure.
McDonald's is already in the midst of an attempt to escape the label of joint employer.
In April, the NLRB concluded that healthy fast - casual chain Freshii is not a joint employer, even when considering both the direct and indirect power of the franchisor in terms of hiring, firing and discipline.
In July, the National Labor Relations Board defined McDonald's as a joint employer in lawsuits against the company, a designation that could force the franchisor to take responsibility for workers» wages.
Last July, the NLRB deemed McDonald's a joint employer and a responsible party in labor cases, a decision the company is still fighting, with a final decision expected in 2016.
The IFA is currently working to encourage Congress to support legislation that will codify the long - held, narrower definition of what constitutes a joint employer.
The NLRB's new definition springs from a decision involving Browning - Ferris Industries (BFI), in which the board found BFI to be a joint employer with subcontractor Leadpoint, due to both direct and indirect control exerted.
The pirmary issue, which has yet to be decided by the NLRB and potentially in federal appeals courts, is who can now be considered a joint employer.
A company that uses a contractor for janitorial services, for example, could be considered a joint employer because it exerts direct control.
On Tuesday, the general counsel of the NLRB sent McDonald's Corp. a memo that said it could be held accountable as a joint employer in dozens of outstanding cases before the board related to the fast food coporation's franchisees.
If the parties can not reach settlement in these cases, complaints will issue and McDonald's, USA, LLC will be named as a joint employer respondent.
A joint employer could also find itself named as a co-defendant in a tort liability suit brought against the «primary actor» employer.
The National Labor Relations Board last week concluded that a sanitation company, Browning - Ferris Industries, and a subcontractor are joint employers of workers.
As explained in more detail below, it is clear that the DOL intends to scrutinize all «dual employer» relationships more closely and focus on the degree of control over workers as a guide to determine whether a joint employer relationship exists..
The labor board is weighing whether McDonald's is defined as a joint employer with its individual franchisees.
A ruling that McDonald's is a joint employer would mean the corporation could be held responsible for working conditions, pay and worker's rights violations at individual franchised locations.
And in a decision that could have far - reaching implications, the National Labor Relations Board ruled last month that more companies could be considered «joint employers» of workers not directly on their payroll.
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z