Benjamin Sachs is the Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry at Harvard Law School and a leading expert in the field of labor law and labor relations. He is also faculty director of the Center for Labor and a Just Economy. Professor Sachs teaches courses in labor law, employment law, and law and social change, and his writing focuses on union organizing and unions in American politics. Prior to joining the Harvard faculty in 2008, Professor Sachs was the Joseph Goldstein Fellow at Yale Law School. From 2002-2006, he served as Assistant General Counsel of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in Washington, D.C. Professor Sachs graduated from Yale Law School in 1998, and served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Stephen Reinhardt of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. His writing has appeared in the Harvard Law Review, the Yale Law Journal, the Columbia Law Review, the New York Times and elsewhere. Professor Sachs received the Yale Law School teaching award in 2007 and in 2013 received the Sacks-Freund Award for Teaching Excellence at Harvard Law School. He can be reached at [email protected].
As Bloomberg and Law360 report, the NLRB’s Inspector General (IG) has concluded that Board member William Emanuel should have been recused from Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors – the decision that overruled Browning-Ferris and retreated on the definition of joint employer. The essence of the IG’s report is that “the manner in which the former Chairman marshaled Hy-Brand through the Board’s deliberative process effectively resulted in a consolidation of the two matters [that is, Hy-Brand and Browning-Ferris] into one ‘particular matter involving specific parties.'” Similarly, the IG concludes that Hy-Brand became simply a “continuation of the Browning-Ferris deliberative proceedings and involved application of the Browning-Ferris facts to the law for the Browning-Ferris parties.” Thus, because Emanuel’s law firm represents a party in Browning-Ferris, the IG concludes that Emanuel should have been recused from the effectively-consolidated case of Hy-Brand.
The IG’s report is full of internal Board emails, and an analysis of the actual Hy-Brand decision, that leaves no room to doubt the conclusion about effective consolidation. Based on this conclusion, the IG writes that “Member Emanuel’s participation in the Hy-Brand decision . . . calls into question the validity of that decision.” Indeed it does. Had Emanuel participated in Browning-Ferris the Board would have no choice but to reconsider its decision. Having concluded that Hy-Brand was nothing more than a “do over” of Browning Ferris, the Board should now reconsider Hy-Brand and withdraw that decision’s joint employer analysis.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
May 28
A proposal to make the NLRB purely adjudicatory; a work stoppage among court-appointed lawyers in Massachusetts; portable benefits laws gain ground
May 27
a judge extends a pause on the Trump Administration’s mass-layoffs, the Fifth Circuit refuses to enforce an NLRB order, and the Texas Supreme court extends workplace discrimination suits to co-workers.
May 26
Federal court blocks mass firings at Department of Education; EPA deploys new AI tool; Chiquita fires thousands of workers.
May 25
United Airlines flight attendants reach tentative agreement; Whole Foods workers secure union certification; One Big Beautiful Bill Act cuts $1.1 trillion
May 23
United Steelworkers union speaks out against proposed steel merger; Goodwin Procter turns over diversity data; Anthropic AI's fair use claim over authors' creative work
May 22
BLS releases statistics on foreign-born workers; courts vacate EEOC protections; SCOTUS considers takings case.