Five States Enact Laws Franchisors Are Not Joint Employers

By © Duane Morris Mar 31, 2016
LIKE SAVE PRINT
Reuse Permissions

On March 22, 2016, Michigan joined Wisconsin, Texas, Louisiana and Tennessee by amending its Franchise Investment Law to clarify that—unless the franchise agreement specifically states otherwise—a franchisee is considered the sole employer of workers to whom it pays wages or provides a benefit plan.

These laws seek to address the uncertainty created by the dramatic 2015 ruling of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in NLRB v. Browning-Ferris Industries, which impacts when a franchisor could be found to be a joint employer of its franchisee’s employees. The Browning-Ferris ruling is significant to a franchisor’s duties and potential liabilities to a franchisee’s unionized workforce.

In summary, two entities are considered to be “joint employers” under the NLRB’s standard before Browning-Ferris when the two entities exerted such direct and significant control over the same employees that they shared or co-determined the essential terms and conditions of employment.

After Browning Ferris, two entities are considered to be “joint employers” of a single workforce if they share or co-determine matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment.

Indicia of "indirect control" includes dictating the number of workers to be supplied; controlling scheduling, seniority and overtime; and assigning work and determining the manner and method of work performance. 

Federal law preempts overlapping or potentially conflicting state law. Because the NLRB applies federal law, the recently enacted state laws may be subject to challenge on preemption grounds under the NLRA. 

The recently enacted state laws impact the state law claims, which may be filed against franchisors and franchisees in state court. Further, franchise associations are urging other states to similarly amend their franchise laws. 

In states like Michigan that enact similar amendments to its franchise laws, franchisors should consider promptly:

  • Amending the franchise agreement to reflect the new laws and, thus, plainly stating that the franchisee, and not the franchisor, is the sole employer of workers for whom the franchisee provides a benefit plan or pays wages.
  • Reviewing the business practices regarding their interaction with the franchisee and its employees to avoid acting, which may give rise to a “joint employer” claim.
  • Contacting legal counsel with any questions or concerns about how the changing laws may potentially impact both the business and business practices.

Republished with permission. © 2016 Duane Morris. All rights reserved. 

LIKE SAVE PRINT
Reuse Permissions

SHRM WEBCASTS

Choose from dozens of free webcasts on the most timely HR topics.

Register Today

Job Finder

Find an HR Job Near You

SPONSOR OFFERS

Find the Right Vendor for Your HR Needs

SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies

Search & Connect