Need more options? Click Here for Advanced Search!

Important NLRB Updates on Joint Employment Standard and More: What the Latest Rulings and Memos Mean for PEOs, Franchises, and Unionized/Non-Unionized Workplaces - On-Demand

Important NLRB Updates on Joint Employment Standard & More: What the Latest Rulings & Memos Mean - On-Demand

Product Code: YEWA050218D

Availability: In stock

Internet Special:
$249.00
Add Items to Cart

Important NLRB Updates on Joint Employment Standard and More: What the Latest Rulings and Memos Mean for PEOs, Franchises, and Unionized/Non-Unionized Workplaces - On-Demand

Webinar now available On-Demand.


WEBINAR SNAPSHOT: Learn the latest on the NLRB’s position on the joint employer standard, non-participation, non-disparagement and confidentiality clauses, and more.



The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) just struck a blow to employers with its decision to vacate Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors Ltd. v. Brandt Construction Co. The practical impact of the NLRB’s February 26 decision means that Browning-Ferris’s joint employer standard has been restored. This is particularly concerning for professional employer organizations (PEOs) and franchises as it represents a more expansive interpretation of what it means to control and have authority over employment terms. The bottom line: More organizations could be deemed joint employers and, therefore, could be exposed to costly liability.

Consider, too, that President Trump has nominated John Ring to fill the seat held by former National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Chairman Philip Miscimarra, which would restore a 3-2 Republican Board majority.

Right now, the Save Local Business Act is the talk of Washington, as proponents of the bill seek to nullify the Obama-era “joint employer doctrine.”

Also, the NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel (GC) wants to see changes to the Board’s procedures. The GC’s memo calls for parties named in cases before the NLRB to respond to its requests within two days and for a reduction in the amount of time spent investigating charges filed with the Board.

And, the Supreme Court is poised to rule on Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 now that oral arguments in the case have taken place. The Court will consider whether decide whether a state law allowing public-sector unions to charge nonmembers for collective-bargaining activities violates the First Amendment.

Use this in-depth on-demand webinar on what the latest developments out of the NLRB mean for workplaces—both unionized and non-unionized.

You’ll learn:

  • The practical impact of the NLRB’s decision to vacate Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors Ltd. v. Brandt Construction Co.
  • What PEOs and franchises in particular should do to better protect their companies from liability under Browning-Ferris’ broad joint employment standard
  • Where the Board stands on the issue of whether a National Labor Relations Act violation occurs when an employee is misclassified as an independent contractor
  • The practical impact of NLRB rulings and new legislative and administrative developments employers and franchisors need to be concerned about with respect to workplace policies, employee handbook rules, and micro-unit bargaining rules
  • The effect of the NLRB’s new standard for addressing facially neutral work rules—and why one employer found itself in legal hot water with the NLRB because of the separation agreement it offered an employee
  • When “no participation” and confidentiality provisions found in severance agreements could land your organization in trouble with the NLRB
  • Whether you can legally restrict an employee’s ability to disparage the company through a non-disparagement clause
  • The 2 things the NLRB will evaluate to determine if work rules, such as those related to “positive culture” and “online communications” are lawful
  • And much more!

About Your Presenter:

Kevin C. McCormick, Esq.Kevin C. McCormick, Esq.
Partner
Whiteford Taylor & Preston

Kevin C. McCormick, a member of the Labor and Employment Section with the Baltimore law firm of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, provides advice and counsel to public and private employers on all phases of the employment relationship to ensure compliance with applicable laws, avoid costly litigation, and, when necessary, successfully defend against individual and governmental challenges to policies and procedures.

His practice areas include EEO/Discrimination claim representation, employment claim prevention strategies, employment torts, executive compensation, government sector employment, Human Resource management advice, labor relations, non-compete agreements, occupational safety, wage and hour issues, workers' comp, and more.

Prior to joining the firm, Mr. McCormick served as trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Labor. He successfully represented public and private employers against discrimination and employment-related claims before federal, state and local FEP agencies, and at trial (both jury and nonjury) in state and federal courts and respective courts of appeal throughout Mid-Atlantic region.

    Write Your Own Review