The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has changed the way that it will determine whether a mixed group made up of employees from a supplier employer and employees from a host employer may constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. In its July 11th Miller & Anderson, Inc. decision, the Board determined that the consent of both employers is no longer necessary. Instead, the Board will apply its standard community of interest test to determine if such a bargaining unit is appropriate.
In other words, temps employed by a personnel supplier company who work for a business and employees working only for that business will be able to vote on representation together if the two groups perform a similar kind work under similar conditions and have common supervision. Employers hiring temps should be aware that if temps make up a high enough percentage of the bargaining unit, the unit could unionize without any support from the permanent employees working directly for the host employer.
According to the Board, each employer will have an obligation to bargain only over the employees with whom it has an employment relationship and only in regard to the terms and conditions that the business has the authority to control. This means that the host business will have an obligation to bargain concerning the terms and conditions of employment for both the temps and its own regular employees in the bargaining unit, while the temp agency will only have an obligation to bargain with its temps, not the regular employees working alongside them. The business and the temp agency would then need to bargain with employees over the terms and conditions of employment that each employer could control.
This ruling overturns a 2004 decision by the Bush Board, known as Oakwood, and returns to the 2000 decision by the Clinton Board in M.B. Sturgis, which Oakwood had overturned. In Sturgis, the Board had reversed almost thirty years of clear precedent requiring mutual consent of both employers before employees of separate companies could be combined into a single bargaining unit.
The Miller & Anderson decision compounds the existing hazards of outsourcing labor to a temp agency created by the Board’s ruling in Browning-Ferris. In that case, the Board found that the presence of “indirect control” is enough to determine the existence of a joint employer relationship, a significant change from the previous requirement that an employer had to directly exercise its power over employees to establish a joint relationship. As Board member Philip Miscimarra noted in his Miller & Anderson dissent, “the majority’s expansion of Browning-Ferris here will only make it more difficult for parties to anticipate whether, when or where this new type of multi-employer/non-employer bargaining will be required by the Board, nor can anyone reasonably predict what it will mean in practice.” As a final note, given the Board’s predilection for reversing itself, both Browning Ferris and Miller & Anderson will have a short shelf life if the Board’s composition changes as a result of the November elections.
This article is intended to provide general information, not a specific legal opinion or advice. Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel. If you do not have legal counsel, please feel free to contact Harmon & Davies, P.C.
