Law Center Search Results

The NAM filed an amicus brief opposing the creation of a joint bargaining unit composed of employees employed solely by one of the entities that comprise a joint employer without the consent of both employers. In this case, a union filed a petition seeking to represent a “multi-employer” bargaining unit consisting of employees from Miller & Anderson and temporary employees from a staffing company. This matter is important to manufacturers because a bargaining model where one entity has no employment relationship with all bargaining unit employees creates conflicting interests that are disruptive to productive bargaining. The NAM’s brief argued that any bargaining unit seeking to include employees employed solely by one of the constituent entities that comprise a joint employer is, of necessity, a multi-employer unit, which requires consent of both employers. The National Labor Relations Board decided that the union was not required to obtain consent from both employers and that it would apply traditional community-of-interest factors to determine if such a joint union is appropriate.

The NAM filed an amicus brief opposing an expansion of employer liability for companies that share control over certain employees. In this case, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) departed from precedent and imposed new “indirect” control factors into its analysis of CNN’s status as a joint employer, which could challenge traditional business relationships and expose manufacturers to additional liability. The NAM’s brief argued that the new control factors would create a standard that would impose significant burdens and uncertainties in business relationships. In a win for manufacturers, the court noted that the NLRB had not explained how CNN satisfied the traditional “direct and immediate” test for determining joint-employer status and remanded the case.

The NAM filed an amicus brief opposing the creation of a joint bargaining unit composed of employees employed solely by one of the entities that comprise a joint employer without the consent of both employers. In this case, a union filed a petition seeking to represent a “multi-employer” bargaining unit consisting of employees from Miller & Anderson and temporary employees from a staffing company. This matter is important to manufacturers because a bargaining model where one entity has no employment relationship with all bargaining unit employees creates conflicting interests that are disruptive to productive bargaining. The NAM’s brief argued that any bargaining unit seeking to include employees employed solely by one of the constituent entities that comprise a joint employer is, of necessity, a multi-employer unit, which requires consent of both employers. The National Labor Relations Board decided that the union was not required to obtain consent from both employers and that it would apply traditional community-of-interest factors to determine if such a joint union is appropriate.