Tag: joint employer

Temporary Employees

Best Practices for Engaging Temporary Employees and Contract Workers

In today’s economy, businesses are always searching for an easy, yet inexpensive way to supplement their workforces as supply and demand fluctuate. One option is to use outsourced contractors–either individuals providing services as an independent contractors or temporary employees engaged through a third-party staffing agency. Many companies struggle with their legal responsibilities and risks in using contract workers. But those risks shouldn’t stand in the way of getting work done.

Co-Employment

A co-employment relationship exists where two or more companies have the right and obligation as an employer or joint employer to maintain responsibilities over the worksite, job duties, day-to-day job functions, and supervision of an individual. In a co-employment relationship both the employer of record (e.g., a staffing agency) and host employer (e.g., the staffing agency’s client) are legally responsible for complying with federal, state, and local employment laws. These include wage and hour requirements, leave entitlements, OSHA compliance, and discrimination and harassment claims.

Usually, hiring a contractor through a staffing agency to provide services as an independent contractor or temporary employee need not be any riskier than hiring an individual directly as a W-2 employee. However, if your company decides to utilize contractors, some preventative measures will better protect you and reduce the risk of future co-employment based claims.

Use a Reputable Staffing Agency

Whether you need a single person to complete one short-term project or have an ongoing need to supplement your workforce, you should adequately vet any staffing agency that you work with. The staffing agency should be financially stable, have extensive history providing services to clients in your industry that are similar in size and scope, and be able to provide reliable references. It should also have a reputation among employees and clients for always conducting business professionally.

The American Staffing Association maintains a searchable online directory of its staffing agency members.

Document the Relationship

While it is impossible to eliminate the risk of a claim arising as a result of a contractor being placed on assignment, you should have a well-drafted agreement that contains the parties’ expectations, legal responsibilities, and roles and responsibilities of each party. The contract should aim at reducing the overall risk of exposure to the company. This includes addressing indemnity obligations to apply if a claim arises.

At a minimum, the agreement should clearly define the staffing agency’s role as the employer of record and state the client company’s requirements for any contractor placed on assignment. This may include pre-employment background and drug screenings, reference checks, or credit checks. The agreement should also identify insurance coverage requirements and define the parties’ liability and indemnity obligations.

Proper Training

It is essential to educate company managers on the overall risks of co-employment. Company managers should understand that they will be responsible for the assignment of job duties and day-to-day supervision of the contractors, but the staffing agency, as the employer of record, is usually responsible for most other functions. This typically includes the recruiting, onboarding, employment, termination, payment of wages, reviews, and handling of disciplinary matters pertaining to temporary employees.

The staffing agency should review all documentation or formal communications between the company and temporary employees. It should clearly define the individual’s role as a company contractor to avoid confusion and reduce the risks of co-employment claims. This includes all company policies and procedures, training manuals, badges, company handbooks, and memos provided to the workers throughout their assignments.

It is also vital to educate company managers on the laws that pertain to joint-employer relationships. Managers need to understand that even though the contractor works directly for the staffing agency, the company still has a legal obligation to provide each contractor with a safe workplace free from discrimination and harassment. Since the company is benefiting from the services of the contractor, it is probably also jointly responsible for compliance with all applicable employment laws. Many managers will not recognize these legal responsibilities without focused training.

Disciplinary Matters Involving Temporary Employees

The procedure for handling the investigation and discipline of temporary employees can cause confusion. An improper approach can increase the risk of co-employment claims.

To the extent possible, the staffing agency (as employer of record) should handle the recruitment, onboarding, employment, and termination of contractors. Exceptions might be necessary in limited circumstances. Sometimes the host employer might have to terminate a temporary employee’s assignment immediately and even escort them out of the building. But if a situation like this arises, the staffing agency should be contacted immediately and advised of the termination. As employer of record, the agency should then contact the worker as soon as possible to follow up as appropriate.

Whenever a workplace investigation involves a temporary employee, the host employer should promptly involve the employer of record. The staffing agency should always have an agent present, either by phone or in person, for questioning of a temporary employee. A representative of the host employer will usually also be present during the interview. They might even conduct the interview. But an individual from the primary employer must be present to serve as a representation for the contractor, review the details, and be available to ask any necessary follow-up questions.  This is especially important if the investigation involves a workplace injury or a complaint that could result in an administrative claim or litigation. This approach also reduces the need for subsequent meetings between the parties to discuss what occurred and the appropriate corrective action.

Employee Benefits

Before engaging contractors, your company should review all benefit plans to confirm that they apply to direct employees only. Your plans and policies should expressly exclude workers engaged as temporary employees or independent contractors employed by a staffing agency or other third party. Address all benefits plans, including medical and dental insurance, 401(k), life insurance, workers compensation, and unemployment insurance.

If, alternatively, you intend to extend benefits to contract workers, carefully consider the legal ramifications. Doing so might convert the worker to direct employee status and interfere with the idea of engaging them as a contractor.

Keys to Remember

Here’s a final checklist to help you avoid co-employment claims from temporary employees and independent contractors:

  • Work with a reputable staffing agency that is familiar with your company’s industry.
  • Obtain a qualified candidate from the staffing agency.
  • Require and allow the staffing agency to manage the person properly during the assignment.
  • Proper management should include regular and consistent contact with the employee.
  • Provide co-employment training to your managers and human resources personnel involved in the day-to-day management of the temporary employees.
  • Don’t extend employee benefits to temporary employees or independent contractors.
  • Comply with all applicable employment laws regarding both direct employees and contractors.

 

Not sure whether someone working for you is an employee or independent contractor? Watch our recorded webinar for more on that issue.

Joint Employer NLRB Rulemaking

NLRB Suggests Joint Employer Rules

On May 9, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board announced that is considering rulemaking on the subject of joint employer status. The joint employer standard has received much attention in recent year. The Board’s Republican majority tried to change the standard for this important analysis through a December 2017 case decision. However, the NLRB later withdrew that decision upon allegations that one of the Republican members had a conflict of interest. Shifting to rulemaking to change the joint employer standard may overcome the conflict issue.

Current Joint Employer Analysis

In 2015, a 3-2 Democratic majority Board decided a case involving whether Browning-Ferris Industries of California (BFI) was a joint employer with a company that supplied workers onsite at BFI. The NLRB departed from precedent and applied an “indirect control” standard that considerably expanded the situations where two entities would be joint employers under the National Labor Relations Act. The broad test only requires that the entities “share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment.” This is evaluated by asking whether each entity “possesses sufficient control over employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment to permit meaningful collective bargaining.”

Before this case, the NLRB applied a “direct” and “substantial” control standard.

The primary difference was the shift from requiring actual exercise of control over workers to mere potential of control.

Initial Attempt to Return to Previous Standard

When President Trump took office, he named Philip Miscimarra the Chairman of the NLRB. Miscimarra was on the Board when the NLRB decided the Browning-Ferris case. He and the other Republican member at the time issued a vigorous dissent to the Democratic majority’s decision. Just before Miscimarra’s term expired in December 2017, he and a new Republican majority issued several prominent decisions reversing Obama-era NLRB precedent. This included an attempted reversal of the joint employer standard.

In a December 14, 2017, 3-2 Board decision, the NLRB announced it was returning to the earlier test. The restored test focused on which business(es) have “direct and immediate” control over terms and conditions of employment. It dismissed analysis of “indirect” factors that the Democrat majority introduced in 2015.

However, on February 26, 2018, the NLRB vacated the December 14, 2017 decision, reverting to the “indirect control” standard. Marvin Kaplan, whom Trump had appointed Chair upon Miscimarra’s departure, joined the two Democratic members in that decision. The other Republican member, Bill Emanuel, was not allowed to participate in the decision. The NLRB Inspector General’s Office had opined that Emanuel had a conflict of interest. His previous law firm had represented a party in the Browning-Ferris case, which the December 14, 2017 decision effectively overturned.

The alleged conflict may prevent Emanuel from deciding any case involving a change in the joint employer standard.

Shift to Rulemaking

The NLRB recently regained full strength with the Senate confirmation of Republican attorney John Ring as the fifth member. President Trump promptly replaced Kaplan with Ring in the Chairman seat. Ring, like Emanuel, may also face conflict challenges given the extensive client-base of his former firm.

Likely because the Republican majority would face repeated conflict claims in attempting to overturn Browning-Ferris through adjudication of an actual case, Chairman Ring has shifted to administrative rulemaking as the vehicle to change the joint employer standard. The NLRB has seldom relied on rulemaking to establish policy. So, this attempt to do so will itself likely face legal challenges.

Nonetheless, Chairman Ring offers a compelling argument for the rulemaking approach:

“Whether one business is the joint employer of another business’s employees is one of the most critical issues in labor law today,” says NLRB Chairman John F. Ring. “The current uncertainty over the standard to be applied in determining joint-employer status under the Act undermines employers’ willingness to create jobs and expand business opportunities. In my view, notice-and-comment rulemaking offers the best vehicle to fully consider all views on what the standard ought to be.”

His Democratic colleagues unsurprisingly disagree. The NLRB’s press release on the matter specifically noted that “The inclusion of the proposal in the regulatory agenda does not reflect the participation of Board Members Pearce and McFerran.”

The press release explained that the next step would be the issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Although it added that “[a]ny proposed rule would require approval by a majority of the five-member Board,” that statement notably recognizes that the opposition of Members Pearce and McFerran will not be enough to overcome the expected consensus of the three Republican members.

Expected Outcome of Joint Employer Rulemaking

Chairman Ring even took to Twitter to make his views known: “The joint-employer standard is one of the most critical issues in labor law today—affecting millions of Americans in nearly every sector of the economy. Uncertainty over the standard undermines job creation & economic expansion. The new majority intends to get the job done.”

There’s no mystery of what that job is. It’s finding joint employers status only where multiple entities have “direct and immediate” control over workers.

And, although administrative rulemaking takes some time, Ring wants to do this quickly: “The Board majority will work to issue a proposed rule ASAP, and we will consider the views of all interested parties.”

Member Pearce, who was the NLRB Chair when it decided Browning-Ferris, also tweeted on this subject. Among his pointed comments: “Board majority “considering rulemaking” but @NLRBChairman says “Board majority…work[ing] to issue proposed rule ASAP” — certainly sounds like another objective is already set. .”

 

Make sure you stay up-to-date on this developing issue. Sign up now for my monthly email newsletter!

2017 NLRB Decisions

2017 NLRB Buzzer Beaters

Republicans (temporarily) lost majority control of the National Labor Relations Board when Chairman Philip Miscimarra’s term expired on December 16, 2017. But not before they pulled off some 2017 NLRB fireworks!

Facing a 2-2 party split to begin 2018, Republican Members Marvin Kaplan and William Emanuel joined the outgoing Chairman in issuing pivotal rulings in the last days of his term. Here’s a quick summary of some of the most important 2017 NLRB policy shifts.

New Election Rules?

Not yet. But the road is paved.

On December 13, 2017, the NLRB issued a request for information from the public regarding the agency’s union election procedures. Specifically, the Board asked for information regarding the 2014 amendments to the rules. Those were promulgated by a Democrat-majority Board under President Obama, leading to what many have dubbed “quickie elections.”

The request for information itself does not change anything. However, it does strongly suggest a potential change in course. Once President Trump nominates and the Senate confirms a new Republican member to the NLRB, Members Kaplan, Emanuel, and their new colleague could take further action to revise the election rules. The result would likely be more time between filing of petitions and elections taking place.

Read here for more details on the request for information.

More Reasonable Restrictions on Employee Conduct

Under the previous administration, the NLRB said that employers could not have policies requiring employees to be “respectful”.

That was only illustrative of the extent to which the Obama Board objected to standard employment policies of the types long found in many employers’ employee handbooks.

The Obama NLRB also particularly enjoyed regulating comparatively new “Social Media” policies. Various Democrat-controlled panels routinely struck down policies, or at least portions of them, that seemed to most employers to be perfectly reasonable means of conducting business and avoiding undue attacks on companies from their own employees.

On December 14, 2017, the Miscimarra-chaired Board effectively reversed numerous Obama-era decisions by changing the legal test upon which they were decided.

A 2004 NLRB decision reasoned that even if a rule doesn’t “explicitly restrict” an employee right under the National Labor Relations Act, the rule may still be unlawful if employees would “reasonably construe the language” to restrict activity that the Act protects.

In a case involving Boeing, the 2017 NLRB (with both Democrats dissenting) has now rejected that standard and replaced it with a “balancing” test. Going forward the NLRB will now weigh “the nature and extent of the potential impact on NLRA rights” against “legitimate justifications associated with the rule.” (You can read the full decision here.)

The predictable impact of the new test will be greater protection of employers’ rights to maintain appropriate control over their business.

Relaxing the Joint Employer Doctrine

In 2015, the NLRB, over the objection of Miscimarra and fellow Republican Member Harry I. Johnson III, created a broad standard for determining when separate business entities simultaneously “employ” the same employees. In other words, when two different companies are “joint employers”. The critical question affects various issues under the National Labor Relations Act. These include union representation and liability for unfair labor practices.

In another December 14, 2017, 3-2 Board decision, the NLRB announced it was returning to an earlier test that “reflects a common-sense, practical understanding of the nature of contractual relationships in our modern economy”. The restored test will depend on which business(es) have “direct and immediate” control over terms and conditions of employment. It dismisses analysis of “indirect” factors that the Democrat majority introduced in 2015. (You can read the full decision here.)

Among other situations, this change in the joint employer doctrine will significantly affect franchised businesses. There are, for example, many NLRB cases contesting whether McDonald’s Corporation is a joint employer of its independent franchisees’ employees.

Eliminating Micro-Units

In 2011, the NLRB issued a ruling in Specialty-Healthcare that has permitted unions to organize smaller subsets of an employers’ workforce. Essentially, the Obama Board would accept most any bargaining unit containing employees who share some “community of interest”. The employer had the burden of proving that additional employees share an “overwhelming community of interest” in order to enlarge the scope of a proposed bargaining unit.

The new line of cases beginning in 2011 benefited unions seeking to organize, because they did not need to win the support of as many employees within a workplace. Indeed, they had greater latitude to pursue bargaining units that happened to coincide with employees who favored union representation. Pockets of co-workers who opposed the union could be ignored.

On December 15, 2017, however, the Miscimarra-led Republican majority reinstated the NLRB’s traditional community of interest standard in determining what bargaining units are appropriate. Under this restored test, the Board will evaluate “whether the employees in a petitioned-for group share a community of interest sufficiently distinct from the interests of employees excluded from the petitioned-for group to warrant a finding that the proposed group constitutes a separate appropriate unit.” (You can read the full decision here.)

2017 NLRB Makes Way for 2018

President Trump will have the opportunity to appoint his third NLRB member by the beginning of his second year in office. That is somewhat remarkable considering that Board members hold 5-year terms.

There’s no obvious reason to doubt that the newest Board member will agree with these 2017 NLRB reversals. He will likely join Members Kaplan and Emmanuel in reversing other Obama-era decisions, giving employers more latitude to manage their workplaces.