REPRESENTING UNIONS & EMPLOYEES SINCE 1936
facebook twitter linkedin youtube

Oakland: 510.625.9700 | Sacramento: 916.325.2100

In a 3-2 decision, the NLRB has issued a decision properly defining “joint employment” under the National Labor Relations Act, in Browning-Ferris Industries/Leadpoint.

August 27, 2015 by

Beeson, Tayer & Bodine, which represents the petitioning labor union, Teamsters Local 350, applauds the Board’s return of the Joint Employment standard to its historical roots and to a fealty to the terms and purpose of the National Labor Relations Act.  The Board articulated the new standard as:  Two or more employers will be found joint employers if (1) both employers are employers within the meaning of the Act; and (2) they share or co-determine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment.

Applying this standard, the Board found that BFI jointly employed the recyclery workers because of BFI’s exercise of indirect and direct control over the recyclery employees as well as its reserved authority over them, if not actually exercised.  We are gratified the Board has vindicated these employees’ rights to achieve meaningful collective bargaining directly with the entity that determines the economic realities and conditions of their employment, and are hopeful this decision will improve conditions within today’s fractured, fissured workplace.  We also applaud Teamsters Local 350’s commitment and perseverance during the long process required to achieve this important victory.

We will provide a more thorough analysis after we have reviewed the decision in detail.

To review the NLRB Release click here  https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-issues-decision-browning-ferris-industries

The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.