The National Labor Relations Council announced on Tuesday a new regulation that makes it difficult to challenge companies about their labor practices, which could affect the rights of millions of workers.
The rule, which will enter into force on April 27, reduces the liability of companies such as McDonald’s for labor law violations by franchises, such as firing workers in retaliation for union attempts. The rule also applies to workers employed by contractors such as employment agencies or cleaning services.
This is the opposite of the doctrine adopted late in the Obama administration, which made it possible to consider a much larger group of parent companies so-called joint employers.
John F. said. “This final rule gives our common employer standard the clarity, stability and predictability necessary for any successful relationship between business management and vital to our national economy,” said Ring, Chairman of the Board, in a statement.
The Obama Era standard, established in 2015, said that the parent company can be considered a joint employer of the franchisor or contractor workers even if it only indirectly controls these employees. For example, a company can be a joint business owner if it requires franchisees to use software that enforces some scheduling practices. The parent company may also be considered a joint employer if it has the right to control the concessionaires employees even if you do not exercise this right.
Under the new rule, the parent company will only be responsible for violations committed by contractors or franchisees if the parents have significant, direct and immediate control over employees of other companies – including their salaries, entitlements, hours of work, employment, shooting, or supervision.
In the case of fast food franchises, the parent company will likely have to directly define scheduling practices, and possibly other business conditions, as a joint business entity.
The new rule can also make it difficult for the Contractors and Franchisees Syndicate. A parent company that chooses to close a concession when employees of that concession seek union, is likely to face legal risks only if they are considered a joint business owner. Workers and union officials Sometimes it accused the parent companies Of this tactic, although companies and industrial associations have denied this to happen.
The parent company that is a joint business owner must negotiate with workers for the concessionaire or contractor if they form a union, a requirement that would help the new rule in avoiding many parent companies.
In explaining the rationale for the new rule, the agency said in a statement that it had sought to return to the principle of a common employer that had prevailed for decades before 2015, except for “with more precision, clarity and detail that the rule-making process permits.”
But the new rule could make it less likely for companies to consider joint employers more than before 2015 because it adds the word “big” to the phrase “direct and immediate” in describing the form of control that determines this situation.
In January, the Ministry of Labor announced A similar rule makes it difficult to effectively hold parent firms accountable for minimum wages and overtime violations committed by concessionaires.
Storyboard, which He won the Republican majority In 2017, he sought for the first time to reverse the level of Obama’s reign in late that year. But the Board of Directors voted in favor of vacating this decision after the Inspector General found that a Republican Board member had a potential conflict of interest and should not participate.
After this reversal, the Council took a new course. Instead of trying to change the Obama era standard by deciding cases involving specific employees and employers, she decided to issue a regulation that applies to all employees and employers in these types of work arrangements.
Philip A. Misimara, who was Chairman during his first endeavors to reverse the Obama era policy in 2017 and left shortly after, it is appropriate for the agency to address this issue with a new regulation. Mr Miscimarra said in an email: “It is clear that the Board of Directors has legal authority to adopt regulations, and rules can provide more certainty in this important area for employees, unions and employers.”
However, council critics argued that the agency was doing everything it could to achieve a desired political outcome.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Democrat who is running for president, said, “After first violating ethics, Republicans are ignoring these rules now and moving toward the same anti-worker result in another way.” A statement when the Board proposed its new ruling in September 2018.
Wilma said to me. Liebman, who served as President under President Barack Obama, is that pro-Labor groups are likely to challenge the new rule in court. She said they can say that “the blatant effort to evade the conflict of interest itself” that plagued the initial attempt to reverse the Obama era could undermine the new rule.
Board member who The Inspector-General said that there is a potential conflict of judgment, William J. Emmanuel, he also had a role in proposing the rule. Mr. Emmanuel, a former law firm, was a party to the case that prompted the Obama board to issue a joint employer ruling in 2015.
Mrs. Libman said that opponents may also dispute that the council did not seriously consider alternatives and objections, which is required by law, and notes that the new law challenges the decision of the Federal Appeals Court that largely supports the Obama era.
The Board of Directors rejected these allegations in the material it included with the new rule, citing a precedent for the court that it said had made it clear that Mr. Emmanuel did not have to re-reject himself, and said he had revised his initial proposal in response to nearly 29,000 public comments. “Throughout the rule-making process, the board was ready to review the preliminary views expressed,” the agency said.