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.
As you may recall, we've recently given Gold and Silver Asshole Awards here ~ the Golden to the "individual making the greatest contribution to reducing assholishness in the profession" and...By Victoria Pynchon
PGP Mediation Blog by Phyllis G. PollackOne of the most important aspects of mediation is self-determination. Standard 1 of the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediation is entitled “Self-Determination.” It...By Phyllis Pollack
The second half of 2018 saw a marked increase in conferences including, if not focused solely on, developments in Online Dispute Resolution and online mediation. The main development has been...By Graham Ross