Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Problems with the New Test for Joint-Employer Status
This past summer, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reversed over 30 years of precedent and adopted a new, more expansive and ambiguous standard for determining joint employer status. (See Molly Kaban, Raymond Lynch: The NLRB Joint Employers Ruling, Employment Law Strategist, November 2015, http://bit.ly/1TweWjY.) The new standard promises to entangle businesses with only tenuous links to another employer's workforce in a morass of collective-bargaining obligations and unfair labor practice liability for workforces over which they exercise no actual control.
The new test for joint-employer status articulated in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015), “has dramatic implications for labor relations policy and its effect on the economy,” board members Miscimarra and Johnson wrote in a 28-page dissent, attacking the majority's logic and highlighting the problems the new standard is sure to create for employers and for the collective bargaining process itself. The dissent stated:
The majority's new test represents a major unexplained departure from precedent. This test promises to effect a sea change in labor relations and business relationships. Our colleagues presumably do not intend that every business relationship necessarily entails the joint employment of every entity's employees, but there is no limiting principle in their open-ended multifactor standard. It is an analytical grab bag from which any scrap of evidence regarding indirect control or incidental collaboration as to any aspect of work may suffice to prove that multiple entities ' whether they number two or two dozen ' “share or co-determine essential terms and conditions of employment.”
The New Joint Employer Standard
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
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.
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
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?