Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A reworking of the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) joint employer standard appears to be a near certainty. The first sign of a major change on the horizon came in May when the board issued a call for briefs on the current standard, in relation to a case that the Teamsters filed against Browning-Ferris Industries of California Inc., a waste-management services company. Then in July, NLRB general counsel Richard Griffin Jr. threatened to charge franchisor McDonald's USA over violations that allegedly occurred at franchisee-owned restaurants.
An Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart webinar held in August, “Joint Employers and the NLRB: Potential Changes May Impact All Employers,” explained what a new joint employer standard might look like and what the practical impacts might be. Although the joint employer standard is often discussed in the context of nationwide fast-food places such as McDonald's, it's clear that a change in NLRB thinking on the issue would likely have effects far more widespread, reaching contractors and subcontractors, not just franchisors and franchisees.
Brian Hayes, a shareholder at Ogletree Deakins and a cochairman of the firm's traditional labor practice group, as well as a former member of the NLRB, said that it looks like changes to the standard are on their way ' and employers should stay aware. “Contrary to some reports, the NLRB hasn't decided anything with respect to this issue yet,” he said. “But the operative word is yet.”
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?