Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
NLRB Changes Rules for Determining Joint Employers
The long-awaited decision of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 ( BFI ), was issued on Aug. 27, 2015. The decision set forth new guidelines under which a company could be determined to be a joint employer so that it would be subject to collective bargaining. The franchise community has kept an eye on BFI to determine whether it could divine from that ruling the possible outcome of the NLRB General Counsel's case against McDonalds Corporation, which has also been charged with being a joint employer with its franchisees. The decision in BFI was 50 pages in length, but a strong dissent by the two Republican members of the Board took up 30 of those pages. The majority of the Board found that Browning-Ferris was a joint employer along with Leadpoint Business Services (Leadpoint), a business staffing agency, by employing a new test for determining joint employment that will be applied retroactively.
After requesting comments from the industry, which included the International Franchise Association (IFA) and various franchisors, the NLRB adopted a more expansive standard than currently in effect for determining joint employer status as follows:
The Board may find that two or more entities are joint employers of a single work force if they are both employers within the meaning of the common law, and if they share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment. In evaluating the allocation and exercise of control in the workplace, we shall consider the various ways in which joint employers may 'share' control over terms and conditions of employment or 'codetermine' them, as the Board and the courts have done in the past.
BFI at 15.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.