Accessibility Tools

Skip to main content

JOINT-EMPLOYER REVERSAL ITSELF RESCINDED

Written on .

If employers thought they were in a state of confusion on joint employer issues, their state of confusion has now reached a new level.  In February 2018, this newsletter reported that the NLRB’s 2015 Browning-Ferris decision had been reversed by a December 2017 ruling in Hy-Brand.   The newer Hy-Brand NLRB ruling restored traditional NLRB law holding contractors only responsible for their subcontractors’ employees if they exercise direct control over their employment conditions.  The Browning-Ferris case had reversed that traditional rule, by holding the contractors responsible if they exercised only indirect control.

As a result of the Hy-Brand ruling, unions and certain Democratic senators complained that newly-appointed NLRB member Bill Emanuel had violated conflict-of-interest rules by participating in the case.  He had not represented any of the parties in the Hy-Brand case, but his former law firm had represented a subcontractor of Browning-Ferris.  Such a relationship traditionally had not been considered to violate any NLRB conflict-of-interest rules, but the Inspector-General found the NLRB conflict-of-interest standards to be inadequate.  Previously, NLRB appointees that had represented unions were nevertheless allowed to participate in cases involving their union.  In any event, on February 26, the NLRB vacated its Hy-Brand ruling leaving the status of the NLRB’s joint employer doctrine in even further confusion.  Part of the confusion is that currently there are two Democratic and two Republican members on the Board, and the newest appointee to the Board who has not yet been confirmed, is from a management-side firm that did some work for McDonald’s.  The new concept of conflict-of-interest suggested by the Inspector-General, and promoted by certain Democratic senators, makes it very difficult for a new majority to decide the current interpretation of the joint employer standard.  The Browning-Ferris case has been on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has sought briefing from the parties on a request that the court take back the Browning-Ferris case which had previously been remanded to the NLRB to decide in light of the Hy-Brand ruling.  Thus, technically, the Browning-Ferris ruling is again current Board law.

Related Content

Get Email Updates

Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.

Recent Content

group of people indoors, holding little flags
On Friday, October 3, 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the termination of 2023 TPS Venezuela designation (A12 or C19) to take immediate effe…
statue of liberty
Investigations into labor and employment matters will largely cease as the Department of Labor (DOL), the National Labor Relations Board (N…
webinar promo, Kirk’s Killing Cautions Employers To Consider Speech Policing
Employers are increasingly facing political issues in the workplace, affecting free speech rights of employees as well as the employer’s in…
sand timer
President Trump has nominated Boeing Chief Labor Counsel Scott Mayer, and long-time NLRB official James Murphy, for positions on the Nation…
thermometer
On July 24, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced several programs designed to help employers and others voluntarily assess an…
open sign
EEO-1 reports, also known as Standard Form 100, are required annually from employers of 100 or more employees and of federal contractor wor…