US labor board drops bid to revive rule on contract, franchise workers
By Nate Raymond and Daniel Wiessner
July 19 (Reuters) -The U.S. National Labor Relations Board on Friday dropped its appeal of a judge's ruling striking down a rule that would have treated many companies as employers of certain contract and franchise workers and require them to bargain with unions representing them.
The NLRB in a filing told the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that it continues to believe its "joint employers" rule complies with federal labor law but has decided to withdraw its appeal of a lower-court judge's March ruling.
The agency said that given the current litigation posture of the rule, it had decided it instead wanted the opportunity to further consider the issues identified in the ruling by U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker in Tyler, Texas.
The rule issued in October, 2023, would have treated companies as "joint employers" of contract and franchise workers when they have control over key working conditions such as pay, scheduling, discipline and supervision, even if that control is indirect or not exercised.
Joint employment has been one of the most contentious labor issues for many U.S. businesses for years. The 2023 rule replaced a Trump-era regulation the board adopted in 2020 requiring companies to have "direct and immediate" control over workers in order to be considered joint employers, which was favored by business groups. The 2020 rule had replaced an Obama-era standard heavily criticized by business groups.
Barker, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump, had sided with challengers to the rule, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in finding the rule was too broad and violated federal labor law.
Barker said the rule was invalid because it would treat some companies as the employers of contract or franchise workers even when they lacked any meaningful control over their working conditions.
The NLRB's decision to abandon its defense of the rule in court marked an about-face for the agency, after Democratic President Joe Biden in May vetoed a Republican-backed measure that would have repealed the rule.
The NLRB and many unions have said the rule is needed to ensure that companies come to the bargaining table and can be held liable for labor law violations when they have control over the working conditions of these contract or franchise workers.
But business groups and many Republicans have said it would create confusion over when businesses are considered workers' employers, disrupting franchising and routine contracting arrangements.
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Diane Craft
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
