Labor Board Reverses Ruling That Helped Workers Fight Chains<br />They are likely to continue to push for such legislation for fear<br />that a future labor board under Democratic control could simply reverse the standard again, and because there are applications of the joint employer concept — as in enforcement of minimum-wage laws — not covered by the labor board’s decision.<br />Under the Obama-era doctrine, the fast-food corporation could be held liable for labor violations<br />that occurred at the franchise even if the control it exerted was indirect — for example, if it required the franchisee to use software dictating certain scheduling practices — or if it had the right to exercise control over workers that it nonetheless didn’t exercise.<br />The key question in determining whether a company, like a fast-food corporation, is a joint employer of workers employed by another<br />company, like one of the chain’s franchisees, is the degree of control exercised by the corporation over workers at the franchise.<br />The ruling changes the standard for holding a company responsible for labor law violations<br />that occur at another company, like a contractor or franchisee, with which it has a relationship.<br />The board’s ruling on Thursday agreed on both counts, but argued<br />that the judge had applied the wrong standard — the Obama-era standard — for determining joint employment<br />The board’s 3-to-2 vote, along party lines, restores the pre-2015 standard, which deemed a fast-food corporation a joint employer only if it exercised direct<br />and immediate control over workers at the franchise, and in a way that was not limited.<br />But when, as was more likely under the Obama-era doctrine, a wealthier company employing a contractor or conferring a franchise is considered a joint employer, it must join the bargaining<br />and could in principle compensate workers more generously.
