ARTICLE
7 September 2015

OSHA Implications Under The NLRB's New Expansive Definition Of Joint Employer

SS
Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Contributor

With more than 900 lawyers across 18 offices, Seyfarth Shaw LLP provides advisory, litigation, and transactional legal services to clients worldwide. Our high-caliber legal representation and advanced delivery capabilities allow us to take on our clients’ unique challenges and opportunities-no matter the scale or complexity. Whether navigating complex litigation, negotiating transformational deals, or advising on cross-border projects, our attorneys achieve exceptional legal outcomes. Our drive for excellence leads us to seek out better ways to work with our clients and each other. We have been first-to-market on many legal service delivery innovations-and we continue to break new ground with our clients every day. This long history of excellence and innovation has created a culture with a sense of purpose and belonging for all. In turn, our culture drives our commitment to the growth of our clients, the diversity of our people, and the resilience of our workforce.
Last week on our Employer Labor Relations Blog we wrote about a recent ruling of the National Labor Relations Board in the Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI) case that vastly expanded the definition of joint employer.
United States Employment and HR

Last week on our Employer Labor Relations Blog we wrote about a recent ruling of the National Labor Relations Board in the Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI) case that vastly expanded the definition of joint employer.

The case involved two companies, BFI and Leadpoint. Under a contract with BFI, Leadpoint supplied employees to BFI to perform various work functions including cleaning and sorting of recycled products. Using a greatly expanded legal definition, the Board found the two companies to be "joint employers." Under the Board's newly expanded test, two or more otherwise unrelated employers may be found to be a "joint employer" of the same employees under the National Labor Relations Act "if they 'share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment'." The Board's ruling will have a significant impact on many business relationships. It greatly expands the types and number of entities that can be held responsible for unfair labor practice violations and who may be held to have collective bargaining obligations regarding employees of a totally separate, independent employer.

The Board's decision may also expand OSHA liability. Under OSHA's multi-employer policy an employer can already be cited for hazards to other employers' employees if OSHA finds that the employer controls the hazard or is responsible for creating the hazard or correcting the hazard. Accordingly, "controlling employers" already faced potential OSHA liability. However, the BFI decision may allow OSHA to further expand controlling liability under the OSH Act to employers who really have little or no actual "control" over workplace safety. For example, OSHA appears intent on using the BFI decision to expand OSHA liability to franchisors when franchisees have been found to have violated the Act. OSHA is already pushing this agenda in a number of ongoing inspections.

Any employer that utilizes franchise agreements should carefully consider the potential impact of the BFI decision on their potential OSHA liability.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More