Close Menu
Human Resources Mag
  • Home
  • News
  • Management
  • Guides
  • Law
  • Talents
  • Benfits
  • Technology
  • More
    • Web Stories
    • Editor’s Picks
    • Press Release
What's On

Rise of AI deepfakes and fraudulent candidates are changing how TA recruits

July 25, 2025

10 Best HR Spend Management Platforms in 2025

July 25, 2025

Fewer Canadians moving to U.S. permanently: StatCan

July 25, 2025
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Human Resources Mag
Subscribe
  • Home
  • News
  • Management
  • Guides
  • Law
  • Talents
  • Benfits
  • Technology
  • More
    • Web Stories
    • Editor’s Picks
    • Press Release
Human Resources Mag
Home » A federal judge has nixed the NLRB’s proposed new joint-employer rule — The Employer Handbook Blog — March 11, 2024
Benfits

A federal judge has nixed the NLRB’s proposed new joint-employer rule — The Employer Handbook Blog — March 11, 2024

staffBy staffMarch 11, 20243 Mins Read
Share Facebook Twitter Pinterest Copy Link LinkedIn Tumblr Email Telegram WhatsApp
Follow Us
Google News Flipboard
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email Copy Link

On Friday evening, a Texas federal judge blocked a proposed National Labor Relations Board rule that would have made it much easier for employees to unionize when he determined that enforcing the Board’s proposed joint employer rule “would be contrary to the law” and “arbitrary and capricious.”

I’ll give you a little refresher on the Board’s proposal. Then, we’ll examine where it fell apart.

What does the final rule say?

Back in October, the Board published a final rule which established that it would consider two or more entities to be joint employers of a group of employees if each entity has an employment relationship with the employees and if the entities share or codetermine one or more of the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment. The mere authority to control essential terms and conditions of employment, even if never exercised or just indirectly, would be enough to establish a joint-employer relationship.

This would tend to come up in franchise and temporary staffing settings.

Why is the final rule contrary to the law?

The Board intended a two-step process: first, an entity must “qualify as a common-law employer of the disputed employees,” and second, “only if the entity is a common-law employer, then it must also have control over one or more essential terms and conditions of employment.”

The problem with that analysis, the court reasoned, is that “the second test is always met if the first test is met, so the Rule’s joint-employer inquiry has just one step for all practical purposes.”

At oral argument, the Board could not provide the court with an example of when the two-step test needed the second step.

Additionally, the court concluded that the rule was poorly drafted because the mere authority to control terms and conditions of employment (even if never exercised) or exercising the power to control indirectly would establish a joint-employer relationship “without any need to additionally demonstrate an employment relationship under the common law of agency.”

Allowing the Board proposal to stand would “treat virtually every entity that contracts for labor as a joint employer because virtually every contract for third-party labor has terms that impact, at least indirectly, at least one of the specified essential terms and conditions of employment.”

Why is the final rule “arbitrary and capricious”?

The court reasoned that it “fail[ed] to achieve the purpose that justified the rulemaking—establishing ‘a definite, readily available standard’ that will ‘assist employers and labor organizations in complying with the Act’ and ‘reduce uncertainty and litigation over the basic parameters of joint-employer status.’”

In other words, the Board’s proposed rule was clear as mud.

The Board has yet to decide whether it will appeal.

Follow on Google News Follow on Flipboard
Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email Copy Link

Related Articles

Rise of AI deepfakes and fraudulent candidates are changing how TA recruits

July 25, 2025 Benfits

10 Best HR Spend Management Platforms in 2025

July 25, 2025 Benfits

HR Shared Services explained: Benefits, functions, and best practices

July 25, 2025 Benfits

How To Nurture Workplace Culture With New Hires

July 25, 2025 Benfits

50 Employee Recognition Ideas That Boost Engagement

July 25, 2025 Benfits

How to Leverage LMS Analytics for Better Learning

July 24, 2025 Benfits
Top Articles

Accused of fraud, murder, fired exec awarded $500,000, 24 months’ notice

January 9, 202499 Views

5 Best Learning Management Systems in 2025

February 11, 202592 Views

Canadian Tire store under investigation for alleged exploitation of temporary foreign workers

October 2, 202492 Views
Stay In Touch
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • TikTok
  • WhatsApp
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
Latest News

HR Shared Services explained: Benefits, functions, and best practices

staffJuly 25, 2025

A cultural overhaul or a risky reset?

staffJuly 25, 2025

The Top 5 Must-Have HR Skills for Beyond 2025

staffJuly 25, 2025
Most Popular

Rise of AI deepfakes and fraudulent candidates are changing how TA recruits

July 25, 20250 Views

10 Best HR Spend Management Platforms in 2025

July 25, 20250 Views

Fewer Canadians moving to U.S. permanently: StatCan

July 25, 20250 Views
Our Picks

HR Shared Services explained: Benefits, functions, and best practices

July 25, 2025

A cultural overhaul or a risky reset?

July 25, 2025

The Top 5 Must-Have HR Skills for Beyond 2025

July 25, 2025

Subscribe to Updates

Get the latest human resources news and updates directly to your inbox.

Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram Pinterest
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
© 2025 Human Resources Mag. All Rights Reserved.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.