Find Mediators Near You:

Big Mac Attack: Is the Franchisor a Joint Employer?

JAMS ADR Blog by Chris Poole

On July 29, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a brief statement that could turn labor law in the world of franchising upside down. The NLRB’s General Counsel stated that it plans to go forward with a number of complaints that allege unfair labor practice claims against a McDonald’s franchisee as well as the franchisor, McDonald’s USA, LLC. The NLRB’s position appears to be that the franchisor and franchisee may be “joint employers” of the burger flippers and other employees of a franchisee due to the control that a franchisor imposes on its franchisees.

Under past precedent, the franchisor generally has not been held liable for labor or employment practices of its franchisee unless it maintains the right to control the operations of the franchisee, a test analogous to determining whether a worker is deemed an employee or an independent contractor. Past case law has generally held that in a traditional franchisor-franchisee relationship, the franchisor will not be deemed a joint employer and is not responsible for wage and hour violations or other alleged labor and employment violations committed by the franchisee. See, e.g., Singh v. 7-Eleven Inc., in which a federal district court held that 7-Eleven corporate franchisor did not share employment responsibility with its franchisees. Similarly, in a Title VII discrimination case, another district court held that the franchisor was not a joint employer for Title VII purposes because the franchisee “exclusively possessed the rights and responsibilities regarding all employment matters and the day-to-day operations in his store, and his relationship with the plaintiff as his employee.”

The cases turn on the degree of control of day-to-day operations exercised by the franchisor. Sometimes the franchise agreement itself is important evidence of how much control the franchisor will maintain over labor matters, and sometimes it will be the factual evidence of how much control is actually exercised. While a franchisor often wishes to exert a degree of control to be certain that its name brand is used properly, the franchisor, not unlike an investor in a corporation, seeks to avoid liability for actions of the franchisee, such as failing to pay over-time wages or failing to protect its employees from sexual harassment. In short, the franchisor walks something of a fine line in retaining enough control to protect the brand name, but not enough control to be liable for the franchisee’s misdeeds.

For the rest of Mr. Grossman’s discussion on the question of joint employers, please read the full article from Law.com by clicking here.

                        author

Joel Grossman

Joel M. Grossman, Esq., is a JAMS neutral based in Santa Monica. He has more than 30 years as a neutral, litigator, labor negotiator and in-house counsel overseeing complex employment and entertainment disputes. Joel M. Grossman has been exclusively devoted to mediation and arbitration since 2004, following his 25-year legal career… MORE >

Featured Members

ad
View all

Read these next

Category

Make Money Mediating Podcast 507: What Are You Worth? Understanding Pricing for Dispute Resolution Professionals

Navigating Your Worth: Setting Prices as a Dispute Resolution Professional In this episode of the Make Money Mediating podcast, host Susan Guthrie provides an in-depth guide on how dispute resolution...

By Susan Guthrie
Category

Is Technology Now the ‘3rd Party’ or ‘4th Party’ in Dispute Resolution?

Utilizing traditional “ADR” nomenclature, we, as a mediation field, commonly speak of “a 1st Party” and “a 2nd Party,” with a mediator or arbitrator being the intervening “3rd Party.”  I...

By James (Jim) Melamed
Category

We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ ADR Providers?

It wasn't actually John Huston's Treasure of the Sierra Madre, but Mel Brook's Blazing Saddles -- where he parodies the scene above -- in which the bandits famously said "we don't need no...

By Victoria Pynchon
×