U.S. Dept of Labor's Administrator Interpretation Explains Joint Employer Status Under FLSA

We recently wrote an article about how courts and agencies are embracing the concept of sharing.
That is, forced sharing of responsibility among employers for the employment law violations of one.
(You can read our article here.  EMPLOYERS FACE NEW LIABILITY FOR OTHERS’ WORKERS )  As you'll see in that article, the National Labor Relations Board weighed in on joint employer status last year in a big decision.

Almost on cue, the U.S. Department of Labor has weighed in with one if its Administrator's Interpretations.  That is an opinion letter generally explaining an area of enforcement, which is not a full fledged regulation.  The Administrator Interpretation, No. 2016-1, is here.

Entitled "Joint employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act," the Administrator of the DOL's Wage and Hour Division seeks to explain how it will apply the Fair Labor Standards Act to "joint employer" relationships.

For the government,  "joint employer" relationships are helpful in different contexts.  And by "helpful in different contexts" I mean "ways to facilitate holding as many employers responsible as possible." Let the Administrator explain just some of the ways:

When two or more employers jointly employ an employee, the employee’s hours worked for all of the joint employers during the workweek are aggregated and considered as one employment, including for purposes of calculating whether overtime pay is due. Additionally, when joint employment exists, all of the joint employers are jointly and severally liable for compliance with the FLSA and MSPA.4 Where joint employment exists, one employer may also be larger and more established, with a greater ability to implement policy or systemic changes to ensure compliance. Thus, WHD may consider joint employment to achieve statutory coverage, financial recovery, and future compliance, and to hold all responsible parties accountable for their legal obligations. the 

 Rather than issue a regulation, with its notice and comments, and possibility of congressional action to stop it, the Administrator has chosen to issue this opinion letter.  It is helpful for employers to understand the federal wage-hour agency's position on how it will treat multiple employer business relationships, such as staffing agencies, temporary firms, and subcontracts.  

Here are some of the highlights:

1.  The letter distinguishes between "horizontal" relationships and "vertical" relationships.  Horizontal means that an employee works for two employers, but they are related enough that each employer is responsible for the wage-hour issues of the other.  For example, if there is a joint employer relationship between two horizontal employers, then the hours worked in a week are aggregated for overtime purposes.   Vertical means that the employee works for an entity like a staffing agency, but economic realities are that the employee also works for a joint employer that receives the benefit of the employee's labor. 

2.  With respect to horizontal employment, the interpretation surveys cases and regulations and comes up with several bulleted factors that the DOL will consider relevant in deciding whether separately owned businesses may be considered joint employers of an employee:

• who owns the potential joint employers (i.e., does one employer own part or all of the other or do they have any common owners);
  
• do the potential joint employers have any overlapping officers, directors, executives, or managers;
  
• do the potential joint employers share control over operations (e.g., hiring, firing, payroll, advertising, overhead costs);
  
• are the potential joint employers’ operations inter-mingled (for example, is there one administrative operation for both employers, or does the same person schedule and pay the employees regardless of which employer they work for);
  
• does one potential joint employer supervise the work of the other;
  
• do the potential joint employers share supervisory authority for the employee;
  
• do the potential joint employers treat the employees as a pool of employees available
  to both of them;
  
• do the potential joint employers share clients or customers; and
  
• are there any agreements between the potential joint employers. 
  

3.  With respect to vertical employment - like temporary staffing agencies' staff working at a factory owned by another company, the DOL explains that there sometimes is NO actual employment relationship with the joint employer, whereas there usually is an employment relationship with both horizontal employers.  So, the question is whether the DOL should impute - find - a relationship based on "economic realities."
The economic realities test will include an analysis of multiple factors including

• who directs and controls the work
• who directs and controls the employment conditions
• what is the permanency of the relationship - is this a long term contract?
• how repetitive and rote is the work?
• is the work integral to the potential joint employer's business?
• is the work performed on the joint employer's premises?
• does the joint employer perform administrative tasks for the employees that employers normally do?

The Administrator concludes that the joint employer relationship will be scrutinized in future cases to ensure broad coverage:

As a result of continual changes in the structure of workplaces, the possibility that a worker is jointly employed by two or more employers has become more common in recent years. In an effort to ensure that workers receive the protections to which they are entitled and that employers understand their legal obligations, the possibility of joint employment should be regularly considered in FLSA and MSPA cases, particularly where (1) the employee works for two employers who are associated or related in some way with respect to the employee; or (2) the employee’s employer is an intermediary or otherwise provides labor to another employer. 

The result is that employers may be found liable for wage-hour issues for which they are not necessarily aware of, or in control of. Therefore, employers must ensure that they account for these potential liabilities in their business relationships and contracts.

NLRB's "Joint Employer" Case Matters to Non-Union Employers, Too

As you may have read, the NLRB has changed its definition of what is a "joint employer" relationship.  In the labor law context, this may come up, for example, when the Board decides what is an appropriate unit for bargaining or voting.  Additionally, a joint employer may have to bargain alongside its co-employer about the employment conditions under its "joint" control. Joint employers also can be jointly liable for unfair labor practice decisions and more. 

Before you decide this is "union stuff" and irrelevant, remember that courts may use the "joint employer" doctrine to impose liability on one company for the discrimination, sexual harassment, etc.  perpetrated by employees of another company.  The standards for transferring liability between separate companies (single employer, integrated enterprise, alter ego, joint employer) are influenced by NLRB decisional law.   So, this case could affect other areas of the law unrelated to union stuff.  Plus, the NLRB's reach continues to expand. Sooner or later, it is going to create more private-sector unionization unless the current trend is reversed. So, it pays to pay attention.

"Joint" employer is when there are two separate entities, owned and managed by different enterprises. But they both exercise sufficient control over a group of workers that they are considered "jointly" responsible for issues that arise.  A "single" employer or "integrated enterprise" on the other hand, usually refers to when there are related entities, like parents and subsidiaries, that are deemed one enterprise.  An "alter ego" is when one entity pretends to be unrelated to another, usually to disguise itself and avoid liability.

Joint employer relationships often come up in the context of temporary agencies, or when an employer subcontracts some of its work to a separate company, such as cleaning.  

In the case under consideration, Browning-Ferris Industries operated a recycling plant.  They employed their own employees, who operated forklifts, loaders and other equipment.   Inside the facility, there are a series of conveyor belts that sort the recycled materials.  BFI hired another company, Leadpoint, to staff the conveyor belts.  The Leadpoint workers cleaned the facility, sorted the materials and performed other work.  A union sought to represent the Leadpoint workers. The same union already represented the BFI employees mentioned above.   

BFI and Leadpoint had a written agreement, under which Leadpoint was the employer of its workers. Here are some of the provisions:

• Leadpoint had its own supervisors and managers on site.
• Leadpoint management scheduled its workers
• Leadpoint evaluated its own employees' work.
• Leadpoint had its own HR manager on site.
• Leadpoint made all hiring decisions, but BFI provided criteria / job qualifications
• BFI imposed hiring criteria including a drug panel and skills test
• Leadpoint made all discipline and termination decisions, although BFI requested a couple of discharges after catching Leadpoint employees engaged in misconduct at the facility.
• Leadpoint set pay rates with employees, but BFI's agreement provided the maximum it would reimburse Leadpoint.
• BFI set the hours of operation of the plant and the shift times. But Leadpoint scheduled the employees.

The Board undertook an historical analysis of the joint employer test. It found that the Board over the years had narrowed the test to exclude many relationships that were "joint employers" under older Board and case law.   The Board then announced its "new" rule, which it argues is really a "return" to the old rule:

The Board may find that two or more entities are joint employers  of a single work force if they are both employers within the meaning of the common law, and if they share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment. In evaluating the allocation and exercise of control in the workplace, we will consider the various ways in which joint employers may “share” control over terms and conditions of employment or “codetermine” them, as the Board and the courts have done in the past

So, there are two prongs.  First, what is "employer within the meaning of the common law?"   The Board quoted from the Restatement of Agency:

a servant is a person employed to perform services in the affairs of another and who with respect to the physical conduct in the performance of the services is subject to the other’s control or right to control.

The Board emphasized that, going forward, it would merely look to the "right" to control, rather than the exercise of control.  So, BFI owns the equipment, sets the starting and ending times, and has its own quality and management standards in play in its own plant.  Does BFI always have the "right" to control its own property and, therefore, the sub's employees to one degree or another?  Probably yes, right?  I think that's the way the Board wants it.    Am I just trying to scare you?  Nope. From the opinion:

The common law, indeed, recognizes that control may be indirect . For example, the Restatement of Agency (Second) §220, comment l (“Control of the premises”) observes that

[i]f the work is done upon the premises of the employer with his machinery by workmen who agree to obey general rules for the regulation of the conduct of employees, the inference is strong that such workmen are the servants of the owner... and illustrates this principle by citing the example of a coal mine owner employing miners who, in turn, supply their own helpers. Both the miners and their helpers are servants of the mine owner.

So, that is the outer limit of what an employee is, but it's not enough to ensure joint employer status. Hence the second prong: "share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment." Here, the Board decided to return to prior case law that expanded the list of criteria it considers relevant to "share or codetermine." 

Essential terms indisputably include wages and hours, as reflected in the Act itself.82 Other examples of control over mandatory terms and conditions of employment found probative by the Board include dictating the number of workers to be supplied;83 controlling scheduling,84 seniority, and overtime; 85 and assigning work and determining the manner and method of work performance

The Board overruled at least four decisions "and others" that conflict with its new standard.  

Then, the Board turned to BFI and found, yes, it is a joint employer with Leadpoint.  

• Re hiring, BFI required drug testing, asked Leadpoint not to hire those BFI previously employed and deemed ineligible, and BFI could reject anyone brought to its premises.  

• Re discipline and termination, BFI could report to Leadpoint employees whom BFI felt should be disciplined or discharged.

• Re working conditions, BFI had the right to control its conveyor belt, including the speed at which it operated.  BFI held meetings with Leadpoint employees to provide feedback and training.  And because BFI set the shift times and decided how many workers were needed to staff the plant, those were indirect indicia of control. 

• Re wages:

Under the parties’ contract,  Leadpoint determines employees’ pay rates, administers all payments, retains payroll records, and is solely responsible for providing and administering benefits. But BFI specifically prevents Leadpoint from paying employees more than BFI employees performing comparable work.111 BFI’s employment of its own sorter at $5 more an hour creates a de facto wage ceiling for Leadpoint workers. In addition, BFI and Leadpoint are parties to a cost-plus contract, under which BFI is required to reimburse Leadpoint for labor costs plus a specified percentage markup.112 Although this arrangement, on its own, is not necessarily sufficient to create a joint-employer relationship,113 it is coupled here with the apparent requirement of BFI approval over employee pay increases.114

The Board's decision is 3-2.  Two Members dissented in an opinion that expressed more than a touch of concern about the affect the majority's decision may have on labor law.  Here are a couple of  excerpts from the beginning of the dissent:

Today, in the most sweeping of recent major decisions, the Board majority rewrites the decades-old test for determining who the “employer” is. More specifically, the majority redefines and expands the test that makes two separate and independent entities a “joint employer” of certain employees. This change will subject countless entities to unprecedented new joint-bargaining obligations that most do not even know they have, to potential joint liability for unfair labor practices and breaches of collective-bargaining agreements, and to economic protest activity, including what have heretofore been unlawful secondary strikes, boycotts, and picketing.

What do you really think, dissenters?

no bargaining table is big enough to seat all of the entities that will be potential joint employers under the majority’s new standards.

But, the majority said that the Board is merely returning to an existing set of precedents, right?

today’s majority holding does not represent a “return to the traditional test used by the Board,” as our colleagues claim even while admitting that the Board has never before described or articulated the test they announce today. Contrary to their characterization, the new joint-employer test fundamentally alters the law applicable to user-supplier, lessor-lessee, parent-subsidiary, contractor-subcontractor, franchisor-franchisee, predecessor-successor, creditor-debtor, and contractor-consumer business relationships under the Act. In addition, because the commerce data applicable to joint employers is combined for jurisdictional purposes,11 the Act’s coverage will extend to small businesses whose separate operations and employees have until now not been subject to Board jurisdiction.

This decision will mean more collective bargaining, and that can't be bad!  Can it?

The Act encourages collective bargaining, but only by  an “employer” in direct relation to its employees. Our colleagues take this purpose way beyond what Congress intended, and the result unavoidably will be too much of a good thing. We believe the majority’s test will actually foster substantial bargaining instability by requiring the nonconsensual presence of too many entities with diverse and conflicting interests on the “employer” side. Indeed, even the commencement of good-faith bargaining may be delayed by disputes over whether the correct “employer” parties are present. This predictable outcome is irreconcilable with the Act’s overriding policy to “eliminate
the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce.”

The dissent then goes into great detail to explain its reasons for why the new Board decision is so problematic, contrary to the Board's authority, and how it will have unintended consequences.  But I have a day job so I cannot summarize it all here. 

This case likely will be appealed to the court of appeals. So we will see it it is enforced.  The courts are very deferential to board decisions, however. So, the odds are that this is another major shift in labor law.  Or "fundamental transformation" as someone might say.

This case is Browning-Ferris Indus. of Calif. and the opinion is here.

Payroll Company Not an "Employer" for Wage Hour Purposes

If an employer "outsources" payroll services to another company, can that payroll service company be held liable for wage-hour violations as an "employer?"  No.

The California Supreme Court in Martinez v. Combs (discussed here) determined who is liable under California wage and hour law - i.e., who is an "employer."  The court of appeal in Futrell v. Payday California, Inc., applied Martinez's definition of "employer" in deciding that a payroll service provider was not an "employer."

Futrell provided private police / crowd control services for a Reactor, a production company that makes commercials. The production company "payrolled" its employees through Payday, a payroll service company.  Futrell brought a class action against Payday, alleging wage-hour violations. Payday prevailed on a motion for summary judgment because the trial court held Payday was just a vendor of Futrell's actual employer, the production company.

The court of appeal held that Martinez restricts who may be held liable for wage-hour violations. The court rejected Futrell's argument that Payday exercised control over his wages:

There is no evidence in the record showing Payday exercised any control over Futrell‟s hours or working conditions. Reactor hired Futrell, and arranged and supervised the location shoots. . . . This means the only possible linchpin for finding that Payday was Futrell‟s employer is whether Payday “exercised control over his wages.”


If Payday had merely collected tax information from workers, kept track of time cards, calculated pay and tax withholding, and submitted reports to Reactor detailing such information, leaving it for Reactor to issue paychecks to the workers on its productions, we would have an easy case; Reactor would be the only employer. In our view, the issue in this case then comes down to whether Payday exercised “control over workers‟ wages” by going beyond handling the ministerial tasks of calculating pay and tax withholding, and by also issuing paychecks, drawn on its own bank account. We think not.

. . .. . Writing on a clean slate, we conclude that “control over wages” means that a person or entity has the power or authority to negotiate and set an employee‟s rate of pay, and not that a person or entity is physically involved in the preparation of an employee‟s paycheck. This is the only definition that makes sense. The task of preparing payroll, whether done by an internal division or department of an employer, or by an outside vendor of an employer, does not make Payday an employer for purposes of liability for wages under the Labor Code wage statutes.

The court then reached a similar conclusion under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act:

Although the FLSA applies a slightly different test than California law, the predominant factor remains the control an alleged employer exercises over an employee. Incorporating the reasons explained above into the FLSA test, we find Payday was not Futrell‟s employer for purposes of the FLSA. The economic reality existing between Futrell and Payday is that the latter prepared paychecks for the former for the work he performed on behalf of his actual employer, Reactor.

This case will come as good news to PEOs and other HR outsourcing companies, who may have been sued as "joint employers" for wage and hour violations. The court here, though, held that nothing in the opinion affects the analysis of who is the "employer" under any other body of law except wage-hour.

The case is Futrell v. Payday California, Inc. and the opinion is here.