This article appears as an update to previous editorials expressing my
viewpoints relative to escalating franchise litigation globally. Three years
ago, the National Labor Relations Board overturned a long-standing rule: An
employer of its own workers could not also be viewed as the “joint employer†of
the workers of companies it relied upon to supply it or to perform other
functions it would otherwise need to do itself.
The NLRB in that case held that, contrary to the previous rule, a company need
only exert “indirect control†over such workers, frequently interpreted to mean
simply that it had the power to do so even if it never exerted that power.
That change of position had two consequences. First, it meant that such
companies were in jeopardy of violations of labor law themselves. Second, the
company could now, as a practical matter, be forced to collectively bargain with
those workers—not only with respect to wages but also as to a range of other
labor practices.
It wasquickly picked up by some state agencies by applying the NLRB Rule to
workplace safety and other issues.
And, as previously reported in my prior articles, private plaintiffs’ lawyers
are seizing upon this new and promising method to organize workers receptive to
association with unions that would otherwise be unable to reach them because
they were too small and unrelated to warrant the effort.
Much of this activity has to do with inter-corporate arrangements such as
staffing agencies. But how does all this affect franchising? The answer is
pretty straightforward. Every franchisor has a relationship with its franchisees
that could be mistaken, with potentially devastating consequences for the
franchisor, as a joint employment arrangement. To some extent, poorly drafted
franchise agreements have contributed to this potential liability.
Since that first ruling there have been numerous actions at the state level and
in the private arena. Some of these were the product of vigorous efforts made by
the International Franchise Association to persuade state legislatures to adopt
laws mandating adherence to the previous and more practical rule. Some activity
has been of a less political nature, and some has been distinctly hostile to the
franchising model.
The best example is the action against McDonald’s following the NLRB’s decision.
The then-general counsel of the NLRB approved unfair labor practice complaints
to proceed against McDonald’s, authorizing 43 local unfair labor practice
complaints, including several alleging the company punished franchisee workers
for participating in a wave of protests aimed at fast food employees beginning
as early as 2012.
The NLRB said the complaints were issued because McDonald’s “tools, resources
and technology†are used to wield “sufficient control over the franchisees’
operation, beyond protection of the brand.†Thus, this was considered to be
joint liability.
As I have written in previous articles concerning franchise litigation, the
theoretical relationship between this legal theory and the notion of “vicarious
liability†has energized plaintiffs’ lawyers to ramp up the litigation against
franchisors. The McDonald’s cases are still being litigated and a number of
cases against other franchise companies are in process, some of them dismissed.
The IFA has concluded the only sure solution is a legislative fix at the federal
level. In a notable victory for franchisors, the U.S. House of Representatives
has enacted a law essentially restoring the original and more common sense rule.
At the time of this writing it is uncertain whether the U.S. Senate will follow
suit. And, unless and until they do, franchisors remain in jeopardy.
Finally, most large (and some not so large) franchisors are expanding globally
and thus subject themselves to the judicial and legislative regimes of other
governments. Increasingly, those international bodies have been turning towards
a joint employer standard.
This potential liability will certainly be fertile ground for future litigation
and potential liability for franchisors.
Lawyers in San Jose
How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...
It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...
One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...
The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...
Comments