Skip to content
  • Home
  • Services
    • Legal Compliance and Risk Mitigation
    • Representation – Litigation Defense
    • Safety & Health (including COVID-19) Services
    • Remote Work Solutions
    • Technology and the Workplace
    • EEO/Harassment and Discrimination Prevention
    • Pre-Hire, Background Checks and Hiring
    • Wage & Hour
    • Employee Relations
    • Managing Leaves of Absence
    • Employee Benefits
    • Contracts and Agreements
    • Labor Relations/CBA/Union/NLRA
    • Workplace Investigations
    • Training
  • Team
    • Sima Ali, Esq.
    • Karen Lynch, Esq.
    • Kerri Beatty, Esq.
    • Andrea Moss, Esq.
    • Mary McCarthy
  • Blog
  • Newsletters
  • Connect
  • Home
  • Services
    • Legal Compliance and Risk Mitigation
    • Representation – Litigation Defense
    • Safety & Health (including COVID-19) Services
    • Remote Work Solutions
    • Technology and the Workplace
    • EEO/Harassment and Discrimination Prevention
    • Pre-Hire, Background Checks and Hiring
    • Wage & Hour
    • Employee Relations
    • Managing Leaves of Absence
    • Employee Benefits
    • Contracts and Agreements
    • Labor Relations/CBA/Union/NLRA
    • Workplace Investigations
    • Training
  • Team
    • Sima Ali, Esq.
    • Karen Lynch, Esq.
    • Kerri Beatty, Esq.
    • Andrea Moss, Esq.
    • Mary McCarthy
  • Blog
  • Newsletters
  • Connect

NLRB Vacates Joint-Employer Decision

  • By Kerri Beatty
hrtelligence

Powered by HRtelligence.com

Submitted by Ali Law Group PC on March 10, 2018

On February 26, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued an Order vacating its recent decision which overturned the broad standard applied in determining joint employment.

As we previously reported, on December 14, 2017, in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors and Brandt Construction Co., the NLRB overruled the definition of joint employer developed in the NLRB’s 2015 ruling of Browning-Ferris Industries. In Hy-Brand, the NLRB applied the direct control test, as opposed to the Browning-Ferris indirect control test, to determine whether entities shared or co-determined matters governing terms and conditions of employment.

After the issuance of the Hy-Brand decision, the NLRB found there to be a violation of ethical standards in light of the determination of the “Board’s Designated Agency Ethics Official that Member Emanuel is, and should have been, disqualified from participating in that proceeding.” As a result, the NLRB vacated the Hy-Brand decision, thereby reinstating the Browning-Ferris indirect control test for defining a joint employer.

The expansive Browning-Ferris indirect control test for determining joint employment is once again the applicable standard. Under Browning-Ferris, if an employer retains the right to control another employer’s employees—regardless of whether it actually exercises that control—such control is sufficient to establish a joint-employer relationship over those employees it has retained the right to control.

  • email
  • facebook
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • google+
  • pinterest
PrevPreviousStop Sexual Harassment in NYC Act
NextClarification to Come for the New York Home Health Care IndustryNext

11 Prospect Street, Suite 1A, Huntington, NY 11743
(631) 423-3440

Linkedin

©2025 Ali Law Group. All Rights Reserved.
This material is for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.