“The Board invites the filing of briefs by the parties and interested amici addressing issues raised in this case,” the NLRB call for legal briefs stated. “Should the Board continue to adhere to the holding of Oakwood Care Center, which disallows inclusion of solely employed employees and jointly employed employees in the same unit absent the consent of the employers?”
What does all that legalese mean? One word: unions.
The joint-employer standard has been around for decades. It normally helps to establish which company has responsibility over employees when multiple companies contract with one another. If one company is found to assert enough control over the employees of a company with which it holds a contract, the two companies will both be considered employers over the employees.
The NLRB has been trying to expand upon the standard. Critics like the International Franchise Association have argued the rule change is an attempt to benefit unions. This is because it’s much easier to unionize one large joint-employer as opposed to many separate employers that just so happen to contract with one another.
Source: Daily Caller
This case is yet another example of the NLRB changing well-established and functioning labor laws, without a justifiable and sufficient change in circumstance and in how the business community operates.
Franchising allows a small business to contract with a large corporation so that it can to use its brand name and sell its products. Though the small company has to accept its own risk, it does so while having the backing of a well-known brand and products.
The problem is when a corporate brand name gets declared a joint-employer with a small business, it must accept responsibility for the actions of that operation, impinging on the small business owner’s freedom to make business-related decisions. This makes it easier for unions to bulldoze their way into the situation.
Since announcing its interest in revisiting the standard last year, Republican lawmakers and business leaders became immediately concerned. The NLRB has defended the potential changes. It argued in the McDonald’s case that franchisors often times have so much control over the independent franchisees, that it’s difficult to consider them a “small business.”
So, the answer is to open everything up to union takeover? That sounds like liberal logic.
Jennifer Davis Hobgood