
Sharon Block is a Professor of Practice and the Executive Director of the Center for Labor and a Just Economy at Harvard Law School.
Yesterday, the National Labor Relations Board vacated its December decision in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors. (Ben and Sharon had called for this action in OnLabor last week here and here.) The Board’s unusual action follows a finding by the Board’s Inspector General that Member Bill Emanuel should have recused himself from participation in the case. The Board noted in its press release that because Hy-Brand had been vacated, “the overruling of the Board’s decision in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015), set forth therein is of no force or effect.”
The Board’s action was a welcome first step in correcting the damage done by the Hy-Brand decision. Most importantly, for the time being, the Board will determine joint employer status using the standard set forth in Browning-Ferris – a standard that takes into account the reality of today’s fissured workplaces. Beyond that important restoration, however, the Board’s one sentence order vacating Hy-Brand leaves many questions about the future unanswered:
How will the Hy-Brand developments affect the McDonald’s case – Earlier this month, the Board’s General Counsel Peter Robb halted his case against McDonald’s shortly before the trial was expected to conclude. Robb justified his abrupt decision to seek a settlement of the case after more than three years of litigation in part because of the change in joint employer law established in Hy-Brand. Having linked his strategy to Hy-Brand, Robb must now answer questions about whether he will abandon his quest for a settlement and conclude the McDonald’s trial.
On what basis will the Board redecide Hy-Brand: As the dissent argued in the now vacated decision in Hy-Brand, that case was a very poor vehicle for revisiting the joint employer standard. As I noted in a post shortly after the case came out, Hy-Brand easily could have been dealt with as a single-employer case without addressing the continuing validity of Browning-Ferris. When the Board revisits Hy-Brand, the members will have to decide whether they are going to repeat their overreach and reissue the same decision just without Emanuel or will they decide Hy-Brand under a single-employer theory and wait for a more appropriate vehicle to reverse Browning-Ferris. If the Board were to make clear that it won’t deal with Browning-Ferris in the Hy-Brand redo, it would raise the question of whether Emanuel would participate or not.
Will the Board seek amicus briefs when revisiting Browning-Ferris – When the Board does revisit the status of Browning-Ferris, whether it is in a Hy-Brand redo or in a different case, the Board will have to decide whether they want to slow down and do it right this time around. In the rush to issue Hy-Brand before Chair MIscamarra’s term expired, the Board abandoned the long-standing practice of requesting amicus briefs before reversing significant precedent. They now have an opportunity to give the public a chance to weigh in on this extremely important issue.
How will the Board prevent the next Hy-Brand – The Inspector General’s report on Hy-Brand points out serious deficiencies in how the Board manages Board member recusals. With members like Emanuel and the nominee John Ring, who come from big law firms with many, many clients, the recusal issues are very complicated. In fact, Emanuel’s recusal list has more than 160 clients on it. Clearly, something in the Board’s process failed. It is incumbent upon Chair Marvin Kaplan to restore the public’s confidence in the Board’s casehandling processes by announcing reforms of the recusal practice to ensure that there are not any more “flagrant mistakes” like Emanuel’s participation in Hy-Brand.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
August 1
The Michigan Supreme Court grants heightened judicial scrutiny over employment contracts that shorten the limitations period for filing civil rights claims; the California Labor Commission gains new enforcement power over tip theft; and a new Florida law further empowers employers issuing noncompete agreements.
July 31
EEOC sued over trans rights enforcement; railroad union opposes railroad merger; suits against NLRB slow down.
July 30
In today’s news and commentary, the First Circuit will hear oral arguments on the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) revocation of parole grants for thousands of migrants; United Airlines’ flight attendants vote against a new labor contract; and the AFL-CIO files a complaint against a Trump Administrative Executive Order that strips the collective bargaining rights of the vast majority of federal workers.
July 29
The Trump administration released new guidelines for federal employers regarding religious expression in the workplace; the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers is suing former union president for repayment of mismanagement of union funds; Uber has criticized a new proposal requiring delivery workers to carry company-issued identification numbers.
July 28
Lower courts work out meaning of Muldrow; NLRB releases memos on recording and union salts.
July 27
In today’s news and commentary, Trump issues an EO on college sports, a second district court judge blocks the Department of Labor from winding down Job Corps, and Safeway workers in California reach a tentative agreement. On Thursday, President Trump announced an executive order titled “Saving College Sports,” which declared it common sense that “college […]