An NLRB case involving the construction industry provides insight into how the agency’s new joint employer standard may be applied.

The Board’s decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (Aug. 27, 2015), provided that “the initial inquiry [under the Board’s new joint employer standard] is whether there is a common-law

We have written previously about the National Labor Relation Board’s 3-2 decision in Browning-Ferris of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (August 27, 2015), increasing the likelihood the Board may find two employers to be “joint employers,” and thereby share many collective bargaining responsibilities as well as liability for each other’s violations of the

In a previous post, we reported on Browning-Ferris Industries of California Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015), a landmark National Labor Relations Board decision that established a new “test” for the NLRB to apply when determining joint employer status under the National Labor Relations Act. Browning-Ferris (BFI) operated a waste recycling facility and subcontracted

Three Republican Congressmen – Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), and Representative John Kline (R-Minn.) — have requested National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Richard Griffin to explain joint-employer comments he made at an October 24, 2014 labor conference urging the NLRB to adopt a more liberal joint-employer standard. Griffin has issued several

The National Labor Relations Board Office of the General Counsel has announced it has issued more than a dozen unfair labor practice complaints against McDonald’s franchisees and McDonald’s USA, LLC, as joint employers.  The complaints allege that McDonald’s USA, LLC and certain franchisees violated the rights of employees working at McDonald’s restaurants at various locations