1E9Ct5D

II.The NLRB’s Joint Employer Test and FranchiseesIn June, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) filed amicusbriefs in the matter of Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., which is arepresentation case raising joint employer issues. 7While stating that it took no positionregarding the merits of the representation case at issue, NLRB General CounselRichard F. Griffin urged the Board to adopt a new standard for determining whether ajoint employer relationship exists. The Board is advocating that a joint employerrelationship should be found if, under the totality of the circumstances, including the waythe separate entities structured their commercial relationship, the putative joint employerwielded sufficient influence over the working conditions of the other entity’s employeessuch that meaningful bargaining could not occur in its absence. Griffin went on to statethat current law unfairly precludes local employees from dealing with nationalcompanies that may effectively control many of their working conditions, and that thecurrent standard ignores Congress’ intent that the term “employer” be broadly construedin light of economic realities and the underlying goals of the National Labor RelationsAct, which inhibits meaningful collective bargaining with respect to the contingentworkforce and other nontraditional employment arrangements.In the amicus brief filed by General Counsel Griffin, he argued that some franchisors arereally the employers of a franchisee’s employees, as they keep track of data on sales,inventory and labor costs, they calculate the labor needs of their franchisees, they setand police employee work schedules, track wages paid, and how long it takes7 Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., NLRB No. 32-RC-1096847