DOL Archives - Page 7 of 9 - The National Law Forum

Labor Department Announces Procedural Changes to H-2B Visa Program

In an effort to further streamline the H-2B application process and make it less burdensome for employers, the Department of Labor has announced procedural changes to reduce the amount of documentation to demonstrate “temporary need.”

To get approval to hire H-2B workers, an employer must establish that the need for H-2B workers is temporary in nature, i.e., “limited to one year or less, but in the case of a one-time event could last up to 3 years.’’ The temporary need must be a one-time occurrence, seasonal, peak load, or intermittent. The DOL H-2B regulations envisage a two-part application process: (1) the agency adjudicates whether the employer has a temporary need through the employer registration process and (2) adjudicates the employer’s actual application to hire H-2B workers. However, as the DOL has not implemented the registration requirements of its regulations, the agency is adjudicating the employer’s temporary need during its review of the actual H-2B labor application.

Employers must complete Form ETA-9142B, Section B, which requires a statement on the nature of the temporary need, duration of employment, number of workers sought, and standard of need. The employer must demonstrate the scope and basis of the temporary need to enable the certifying officer (“CO”) to determine whether the job offer meets the statutory and regulatory standards for temporary need. However, without a registration process, many employers have had to submit additional documentation, such as summarized monthly payroll records, monthly invoices, and executed work contracts with the Form ETA-9142B, to demonstrate temporary need. For recurrent users of the H-2B visa program who receive H-2B labor certification for year-to-year, based on their business cycle, the statement and information on temporary need does not change.

DOL has concluded, “The additional documentation submitted by many employers, which is substantially similar from year-to-year for the same employer or a particular industry, creates an unnecessary burden for employers as well as the CO, who must review all documents submitted with each application.”

The agency announced that, effective September 1, 2016,

To reduce paperwork and streamline the adjudication of temporary need, effectively immediately, an employer need not submit additional documentation at the time of filing the Form ETA-9142B to justify its temporary need. It may satisfy this filing requirement more simply by completing Section B “Temporary Need Information,” Field 9 “Statement of Temporary Need” of the Form ETA-9142B. This written statement should clearly explain the nature of the employer’s business or operations, why the job opportunity and number of workers being requested for certification reflect a temporary need, and how the request for the services or labor to be performed meets one of the four DHS regulatory standards of temporary need chosen under Section B, Field 8 of the Form ETA-9142B. Other documentation or evidence demonstrating temporary need is not required to be filed with the H-2B application. Instead, it must be retained by the employer and provided to the Chicago NPC in the event a Notice of Deficiency (NOD) is issued by the CO. The Form ETA-9142B filing continues to include in Appendix B, a declaration, to be signed under penalty of perjury, to confirm the employer’s temporary need under the H-2B visa classification (Appendix B, Section B.1.).

DOL clarified that its certifying officer would review the employer’s statement of temporary need and recent filing history to determine whether “the nature of the employer’s temporary need on the current application meets the standard for temporary need under the regulations. If the job offer has changed or is unclear, or other employer information about the nature of its need requires further explanation, a NOD requesting an additional explanation or supporting documentation will be issued.”

ARTICLE BY Otieno B. Ombok of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Twenty-One States Join Forces to Oppose the FLSA’s New Overtime Rule

As most of you know, in May 2016 the Department of Labor (DOL) released its long-awaited Final Rule modernizing the Fair Labor Standard Act’s (FLSA) white-collar exemptions to the overtime requirements of the FLSA. See our rundown of the changes in our earlier post here. The new rule is scheduled to take effect December 1, 2016.

This week, however, 21 states banded together to express their disapproval of the Final Rule and filed a lawsuit against the DOL. The states challenging the constitutionality of the rule are: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin.

The primary argument in the states’ lawsuit is that the new FLSA rule will force many businesses—particularly state and local governments—to unfairly and substantially increase their employment costs. For state governments in particular, the states allege that the new rule violates the Tenth Amendment by mandating how state employees are paid, what hours they will work and what compensation will be provided for working overtime. The lawsuit also alleges that implementation of the new rule will disrupt the state budgeting process by requiring states to pay overtime to more employees and would ultimately deplete state resources.

It’s no coincidence that more than 50 business groups—including the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers—filed a similar lawsuit on the same day and in the same court. This lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the new rule disregards the mandate of Congress to exempt white-collar employees from the overtime requirements of the FLSA.

How the courts will handle these parallel cases is an unknown. For now, employers—both public and private—are encouraged to proceed as though the new rules will take effect on December 1, 2016 as scheduled.

ARTICLE BY Anne Marie Schloemer of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

FAR Council Issues Final Rule, DOL Issues Final Guidance on Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces (“Blacklisting”) Executive Order, Effective October 25, 2016

Yesterday, the Federal Acquisition Regulations Council (“FAR Council”) and the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued its Final Rule and Guidance implementing the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order (the “Order”), commonly referred to as the “blacklisting” rule. In total, the Final Rule, Guidance, and accompanying commentary totaled nearly 900 pages, responding to nearly 20,000 comments on the Proposed Rule and Guidance released earlier this year. Some of our previous posts on the Order and the Proposed Rule and Guidance can be found here and here. This post will highlight the notable changes and clarifications made in the Final Rule and Guidance as well as key takeaways for federal government contractors.

Effective Date

The Final Rule is effective on October 25, 2016. This is earlier than anticipated and dramatically shortens the time for contractors to prepare to comply with the Order and its implementing regulations. That being said, as discussed below, the Final Rule also phases in a number of the disclosure and compliance obligations, lessening the initial burden of the implementation.

Phase-In of Labor Violation Disclosure Requirements

One of the overarching concerns raised during the notice and comment period was the enormous burden the Order would place on the contracting community. In an effort to lessen that burden, the Final Rule and Guidance announced a phased implementation of the disclosure obligations. The phase-in has two key components.

First, the Order and the Proposed Rule contain a three-year look back for covered violations. Recognizing that contractors have not been cataloging covered labor violations prior to the issuance of the Order, the Final Rule only requires contractors to look back one year for reportable violations when the rule becomes effective. The look-back period will increase each year by one year until October 2018, when it will become a three-year look back.

Second, the Final Rule also limits which contractors must make labor law violation disclosures in the first six months following the effective date. Contractors will not be required to disclose labor law violations until April 24, 2017, unless the contractor is responding to a solicitation for a contract valued at $50 million or more after the effective date of the Final Rule. For most contractors, this provides an additional six-month window to prepare for the implementation of the disclosure obligations.

The phase-in of disclosure obligations does not just impact prime contractors. The Final Rule also included a lengthier phase-in for subcontractor disclosure obligations. Subcontractors must begin disclosing labor violations for solicitations issued after October 25, 2017, one year after the effective date.

A Pause on The Disclosure of “State Law Equivalent” Violations

When the Proposed Rule was released, the Proposed Guidance stated that a supplement would follow containing a list of which state-law equivalents for the 14 enumerated federal laws require disclosures of violations under the Order. To date, no list has been released. The Final Rule and Guidance acknowledge this and state that the DOL will release a comprehensive list of state laws that are covered by the Order. This listing will be subject to notice and comment before it becomes effective. In the meantime, only the 14 federal labor laws listed in the Proposed Rule and in the Order, along with state OSHA plans, are covered by the rule.

Minor Clarifications on Scope of Violations

Overall, despite numerous comments and criticisms, the DOL declined to substantively modify its list of covered labor violations in the Final Guidance. Thus, the list of administrative merits determinations, arbitral awards, and civil judgments remain exceptionally broad and sweeping.

Although the DOL declined to narrow its definition of a violation, the Final Guidance does contain some minor modifications that broaden the definition of a violation. For example, the definition of administrative merits determination in the Proposed Guidance did not include violations of the anti-retaliation provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”) or the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The final rule clarifies that these were unintentionally omitted from the Proposed Guidance and are now included in the Final Guidance. Additionally, the Proposed Guidance limited “determination letters” from the DOL Wage and Hour Division to letters outlining violations of Sections 6 and 7 of the FLSA (minimum wage and overtime). In the Final Guidance, the DOL has clarified that this was unintentionally narrow, and that the Final Guidance includes determination letters finding any FLSA violation.

Assessing A Subcontractor’s Responsibility – Removing The Burden From The Prime

One highly controversial aspect of the Proposed Rule was the burden placed on the prime contractor to perform the same type of responsibility determination of covered subcontractors’ labor violations that the government will perform on prime contractors. In response to numerous comments, the Final Rule has modified the process for assessing a subcontractor’s violations, largely removing the burden from the prime contractor.

Instead, starting October 25, 2017, under the Final Rule, covered subcontractors will submit their list of labor violations to the Agency Labor Compliance Advisor (“ALCA”). The ALCA will then perform an assessment of the disclosed violations and make a recommendation. The prime contractor must make the ultimate decision as to responsibility. If the subcontractor disagrees with the finding of the ALCA, it can raise the dispute with the prime contractor.

Clarification of Assessment Process of The Labor Compliance Advisors

The Proposed Rule and Guidance introduced a new government official into the contracting process, the ALCA. There was substantial controversy surrounding this new role, particularly the potential disparate application of the Order between agencies and perhaps even within agencies. The Final Rule and Guidance provides additional details regarding the process by which federal agencies and departments will assess a contractor’s labor violations. Moreover, the Final Rule and Guidance recognizes the need for guidelines and training for the ALCAs.

The Final Rule and Guidance states that the ALCA will have three days to assess labor violations disclosed by a contractor. Although the contracting officer is permitted to give the ALCA additional time, the contracting officer may make his or her own assessment of responsibility without the recommendation of the ALCA. The ultimate responsibility for making a responsibility determination will remain with the contracting officer, not the ALCA. The ALCA’s role is to “assesses the nature of the violations and provide[] analysis and advice.”

The Final Guidance also clarifies the process the ALCA will follow during his or her assessment. The ALCA will first review all of the violations to determine if any are “serious, repeated, willful, and/or pervasive.” Then, the ALCA “weighs any serious, repeated, willful, and/or pervasive violations in light of the totality of the circumstances, including the severity of the violation(s), the size of the contractor, and any mitigating factors that are present.” Finally, the ALCA provides written analysis to the contracting officer.

Public Dissemination of Disclosures

The Proposed Rule and Guidance noted that information submitted to the contracting agency would be publicly disseminated. Despite numerous comments criticizing this proposed provision, the Final Rule and Guidance declined to remove this requirement. However, the Final Rule and Guidance provided clarification as to how this public dissemination will work in practice. Pursuant to the Final Rule, the following information will be publicly disclosed based upon the contractor’s violation submissions: (1) the law violated; (2) the case identification number or docket number; (3) the date of the decision finding a violation; and (4) the name of the body issuing the judgment.

The contractor will input this information into the System for Award Management (“SAM”). From SAM, the information will be made available to the public through the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (“FAPIIS”). The Final Rule clarified that while the four enumerated data points must be made public, the contractor has the choice as to whether any additional documents provided by the contractor to demonstrate its responsibility and mitigation efforts shall be made public.

Key Takeaways

With the Final Rules and Guidance published, it is more important than ever that contractors begin preparing for the implementation of the Order and its regulations. Contractors have two months before the effective date of the Final Rule, and while certain obligations will be phased-in, contractors will need time to prepare for compliance.

Contractors should start cataloging any violations during the past six months that constitute covered violations as well as any evidence of mitigation efforts taken as a consequence of the violations. Because complaints and charges alleging violations of the 14 federal laws covered by the Order, a central official of office should be designated to coordinate the collection of this information (concerning both past and future violations) and a central repository for it. Contractors should view the ability quickly to provide a comprehensive list to the contracting officer as a competitive advantage, as competitors may not be prepared to do so in a timely manner.

Additionally, if the ALCA makes an inquiry concerning the disclosed violations, contractors should be prepared to advocate, with appropriate evidence, why certain violations are not willful, repeated, pervasive or severe. For instance, the contractor could point to its size or the number of employees in the organization. It can also identify measures taken by the contractor to address the issues raised in the violation. It will be important that these disclosures be vetted by a central authority within the organization.

In addition to preparing to report labor violations, contractors should also work internally to reduce and mitigate the risk of future violations. This can be achieved by: (1) developing and implementing effective policies and training; (2) auditing compliance; (3) adopting a robust internal complaint mechanism; (4) developing alternative dispute resolution processes; and (5) undertaking early case assessment and management. Taking these proactive measures can help lessen the impact of future compliance by reducing the number of violations that must be reported.

Banning Salary History Questions, Subway Restaurant Partners with DOL, Non-Competes: Employment Law This Week – August 15, 2016 [VIDEO]

Massachusetts Bans Salary History Question

Our top story: Beginning in 2018, pay history will be off limits for Massachusetts job applications and interviews. In a unique attempt to close the gender wage gap, the state has passed a pay equity law that will bar employers from asking applicants about their previous salaries. Employers will also be prohibited from seeking that information from an applicant’s prior employers. While this provision is the first of its kind in the country, the new law also contains more common equal pay protections, broadens the definition of “equal work,” and prevents employers from banning the discussion of salary among employees. Mickey Neuhauser, from Epstein Becker Green, has more.

“The hope is that by taking the salary history question off the table, employers will rely only on relevant factors and won’t even unconsciously rely upon an irrelevant factor, such as the employee’s prior salary. . . . The law does not prohibit applicants from disclosing their current salaries or salary history, and it doesn’t prevent applicants and employers from negotiating over salary. However, the law does not protect employers from paying a salary lower than what would otherwise be permitted under the act simply because an individual has agreed to accept that salary. In other words, an employee cannot agree to be illegally underpaid.”

Subway Partners with the DOL

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and Subway teamed up to break new ground. The world’s largest fast-food franchisor has reached a voluntary agreement with the DOL to provide wage and hour compliance training to franchisees. The agency conducted more 800 investigations into underpayment of workers at Subway franchises in recent years. This partnership will focus on helping the franchises comply with federal wage and hour laws moving forward. While the DOL hopes to enter into more agreements like this one, franchisors are hesitant, noting that the deal could make them joint employers under the National Labor Relations Board’s standard.

New York Attorney General Cracks Down on Non-Competes

New York’s crackdown on non-compete agreements continues. An investigation by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman revealed that Examination Management Services Inc. required all of its workers, even those who had no access to trade secrets or sensitive information, to sign non-compete agreements. Non-compete agreements in the state are usually permissible only for employees with a high level of access to trade secrets or sensitive information. Under the agreement, the company will stop using the non-competes for most employees in New York.

Citigroup Unit Pays Misclassified Workers After DOL Probe

A Citigroup affiliate shells out a hefty sum for misclassifying workers. A subsidiary of Citigroup in Florida recently paid almost $2 million to workers whom it had misclassified as exempt from overtime pay. An investigation by the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division found that the company mistakenly applied the Fair Labor Standards Act’s exemption to a group of 882 employees. This case serves as a reminder that salaried workers are not necessarily exempt from overtime.

Tip of the Week

Lisa Glass, Chief Human Resources Officer for The Child Center of NY, is here with advice on how to create an effective onboarding program.

“An important way organizations can help combat employee turnover and help employees adjust to the new organization is through an effective onboarding program. An onboarding program allows employees to understand the expectations of their role in terms of performance as well as social expectations. . . . Effective onboarding is key in creating employee expectations and sharing organization values. The goals must align with the goals of the organization, and the program initiative must be driven by senior management, and not solely driven by human resources.”

ARTICLE BY George Carroll Whipple, III of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

What Does Subway’s “Voluntary Agreement” with the US Department of Labor Mean for Joint Employer Status?

This past week, Doctor’s Associates Inc., which is the owner and franchisor for the Subway sandwich restaurant chain entered into aVoluntary Agreement (the “Agreement”) with the US Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division “as part of [Subway’s] broader efforts to make its franchised restaurants and overall business operationssocially responsible,” and as part of Subway’s “effort to promote and achieve compliance with labor standards to protect and enhance the welfare” of Subway’s own workforce and that of its franchisees.

While the Agreement appears intended to help reduce the number of wage and hour law claims arising at both Subway’s company owned stores and those operated by its franchisee across the country, the Agreement appears to add further support to efforts by unions, plaintiffs’ lawyers and other federal and state agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board), DOL’s own Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the EEOC to treat franchisors as joint employers with their franchisees.

What Is in the Agreement?

While on its face this may sound like a good idea and one that should not be controversial, in reality by entering into this Agreement, which among other things commits Subway to working with both the DOL and Subway’s franchisees, to develop and disseminate wage and hour compliance assistance materials and to work directly with the DOL to “explore ways to use technology to support franchisee compliance, such as building alerts into a payroll and scheduling platform that SUBWAY offers as a service to its franchisees,” and although the Agreement is notable for its silence on the question of whether the DOL considers Subway to be a joint employer with its franchisees, the Agreement is likely to be cited, by unions, plaintiffs’ lawyers and other government agencies such as the NLRB as evidence of the fact that Subway as franchisor possesses the ability, whether exercised or not, to directly or indirectly affect the terms and conditions of employment of its franchisees’ employees, and as such should be found to be a joint employer with them.

Notably, while the Agreement does not specifically address the exercise of any such authority on a day to day basis, it does suggest an ongoing monitoring, investigation and compliance role in franchisee operations and employment practices by Subway and a commitment by Subway as franchisor to take action and provide data to the DOL concerning Fair Labor Standards Act compliance. In the past, courts have in reliance on similar factors held that a franchisor could be liable with its franchisees for overtime, minimum wage and similar wage and hour violations.

Of particular interest to many will be the final section of the Agreement, titled “Emphasizing consequences for FLSA noncompliance.” This section not only notes that “SUBWAY requires franchisees to comply with all applicable laws, including the FLSA, as part of its franchise agreement,” but also what action it may take where it finds a franchisee has a “history of FLSA violations”:

SUBWAY may exercise its business judgment to terminate an existing franchise, deny a franchisee the opportunity to purchase additional franchises, or otherwise discipline a franchisee based on a franchisee’s history of FLSA violations.

Will Subway’s “Voluntary Agreement” with the DOL Have Any Impact Beyond Wage and Hour Matters?

As we approach the one year anniversary of the NLRB’s decision in Browning Ferris Industries, it is abundantly clear that not only the Board itself but unions and others seeking to represent and act on behalf of employees are continuing to push the boundaries and expand the application of Browning Ferris. In fact the Board has been asked to find that policies and standards such as those evidencing a business’s commitment to “socially responsible” employment practices, the very phrase used in the Subway-DOL Agreement, should be evidence of indirect control sufficient to support a finding of a joint employer relationship between a business and its suppliers.

Moreover, the NLRB and unions such as UNITE HERE and the Service Employees International Union continue to aggressively pursue their argument that the terms of a franchise agreement and a franchisor’s efforts to ensure that its franchisees, who conduct business under its brand, can also be sufficient to support a finding of joint employer status. No doubt they will also point to the Subway Agreement with the DOL as also being evidence of such direct or indirect control affecting franchisees’ employees’ terms and conditions.

What Should Employers Do Now?

Employers are well advised to review the full range of their operations and personnel decisions, including their use of contingent and temporaries and personnel supplied by temporary and other staffing agencies to assess their vulnerability to such action and to determine what steps they make take to better position themselves for the challenges that are surely coming.

Equally critical employers should carefully evaluate their relationships with suppliers, licensees, and others they do business with to ensure that their relationships, and the agreements, both written and verbal, governing those relationships do not create additional and avoidable risks.

ARTICLE BY Steven M. Swirsky of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

Civil Penalties Nearly Double for Form I-9 Violations

Significantly Increase for Other Immigration-Related Violations

Due to the implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Public Law 114-74) (“Inflation Adjustment Act”), higher fines and civil penalties have now gone into effect for assessments that occur on or after August 1, 2016. These higher penalties can be applied to violations that occurred after November 2, 2015, the day the President signed the Act into law.

The Inflation Adjustment Act will be implemented by multiple federal agencies that have authority to assess civil penalties. The following is a summary, by federal agency, of the penalties covering violations for the unlawful employment of immigrant workers; violations related to Forms I-9; immigration-related discriminatory employment practices; and violations of the H-1B, H-2A and H-2B temporary visa for foreign worker programs. The increases in many categories are substantial. The penalties for Form I-9 paperwork violations are increased by an eye-catching 96 percent.

Department of Homeland Security fines:

Department of Homeland Security Fines i-9 violations

Department of Justice fines:

Department of Justice Fines

Department of Labor fines:

Department of Labor Fines

The consequence of the above is that employers should continue to aggressively monitor their immigration programs for compliance or suffer the harsher sting of these increased fines. Given that the penalties for I-9 errors are practically doubled, it is more important than ever to ensure I-9s are completed timely, correctly and are periodically audited. Moreover, most I-9 violations are considered continuing violations until they are corrected.

ARTICLE BY Gregory A. Wald of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Huge Increase In OSHA And Certain MSHA Fines Announced

OSHA announced an increase to its penalties today of nearly 80 percent and some MSHA fines will increase by several thousand dollars as well. The new civil penalty amounts, courtesy of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, are applicable only to civil penalties assessed after Aug. 1, 2016, whose associated violations occurred after Nov. 2, 2015.

OSHA’s maximum penalties, which have not been raised since 1990, will increase by 78 percent. The top penalty for serious violations will rise from $7,000 to $12,471. The maximum penalty for willful or repeated violations will increase from $70,000 to $124,709.

MSHA’s penalties will increase in some areas and decease in others. The new minimum penalty for a 104(d)(2) Order will be $4,553 rather than $4000 and the maximum penalty for a flagrant violation will rise to $250,433 from $242,000. However, the maximum penalty for most other MSHA violations will decrease to $68,300 from $70,000.

A Fact Sheet on the Labor Department’s interim rule is available here. A list of each agency’s individual penalty adjustments is available here.

ARTICLE BY Matthew Linton of Holland & Hart LLP

DOL Announces Final Rule on Salary Threshold for Exempt White-Collar Employees

Today, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced its final rule on the minimum salary that white-collar employees must be paid to qualify as exempt from the overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The new rule raises the current salary level that such employees must receive in order to qualify as “exempt” from $23,660 annually, to $47,476 annually. The new rule takes effect December 1, 2016.

Under current DOL regulations, most white collar employees – executives (supervisors), administrative employees, and professionals – are exempt from the FLSA overtime rules and need not be paid overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek if they satisfy two conditions. First, they must perform “exempt” duties as defined by the DOL regulations. Second, they must be paid a guaranteed salary of at least $455 per week, or about $23,660 annually.

The new rule, first proposed in a slightly different form back in 2015, raises the salary level significantly to $913 per week, or about $47,476 annually. This new salary level is set at the 40th percentile of weekly earnings for full-time salaried workers in the lowest income Census region (currently the South). This number is less than the $970 per week, or about $50,440 annually, that the DOL had originally proposed. In addition, the DOL will now permit up to 10 percent of the salary level to come from non-discretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions).

This new threshold of $913 per week/$47,476 annually will be tied to the 40th percentile for full-time salaried workers in the lowest income Census region going forward, and will be updated every three years. It is currently expected to rise to more than $51,000 annually when the first update takes effect on January 1, 2020.

In addition, under the new rule the salary level for employees who qualify for the “highly compensated employee” exemption will rise from $100,000 per year to $134,004 per year. This level is the annual equivalent of the 90th percentile of full-time salaried workers nationally.

One change contemplated by the DOL when the agency first proposed this new rule back in 2015 will not take effect: changes to the “duties” test. The DOL has announced that the final rule will leave the existing duties tests for the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions in place.

The DOL estimates that 4.2 million additional workers will become eligible for overtime as a result of this rule change, including approximately 101,000 workers in the State of Michigan. This is estimated to raise total wages for American workers by approximately $12 billion over the next 10 years.

Many employers will be impacted by this new rule, as many employers have at least one “exempt” employee who is paid less than $47,476 annually. Thus, employers should scrutinize their workforces carefully to determine if changes in exempt status are necessary. Options include:

increase the salary of an employee who meets the duties test to at least $47,476 annually to retain his or her exempt status;
convert the employee to non-exempt status and pay an overtime premium of one-and-one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for any overtime hours worked;
convert the employee to non-exempt status and reduce or eliminate overtime hours;
convert the employee to non-exempt status and reduce the amount of pay allocated to base salary (provided that the employee still earns at least the applicable hourly minimum wage) and add pay to account for overtime for hours worked over 40 in the workweek, to hold total weekly pay constant; or
use some combination of these responses.

Given the significance of these changes, and the expected impact on the American workforce, employers are encouraged to consult with legal counsel to discuss their options and strategies for implementing changes, if necessary.

U.S. Department of Labor Issues Final Rule Greatly Expanding Scope of Reportable “Persuader” Activities

DOL On March 23, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a final rule, first proposed in June 2011, requiring employers and their labor relations consultants, including law firms, to report to DOL any agreements pursuant to which the consultant undertakes activities with “an object directly or indirectly to persuade employees concerning their rights to organize and bargain collectively.” Reports are to be filed electronically and are subject to immediate public access. Failure to report is subject to criminal sanctions.

The new rule reverses a decades-old DOL interpretation of the “advice” exception to reporting requirements. Previously, if the agreement between the employer and consultant involved nothing more than the consultant providing the employer with materials or advice that the employer had the right to accept or reject, so long as the consultant had no direct contact with employees, no report was required.

The new rule requires an employer to report on Form LM-10 and consultants to report on Form LM-20 information relating to the scope of the agreement and fees paid for the provision of both direct and indirect persuader materials or activities.

The new rule narrows the “advice” exception to oral or written recommendations from the consultant regarding a decision or course of conduct by the employer including, for example, counseling a business about its plans to undertake a particular course of action, legal vulnerabilities and how they may be minimized, identification of unsettled areas of the law and representation of the employer in disputes or negotiations that may arise.

The greatly expanded definition of reportable persuader activities, provided the object is to directly or indirectly persuade employees concerning their rights to organize and bargain collectively, includes, among many other activities:

Planning, directing or coordinating activities undertaken by supervisors or other employer representatives with employees.
Providing persuader materials or communications to the employer in oral, electronic or written form for dissemination or distribution to employees, including drafting and revising of such materials. (The sale, rental or other use of “off the shelf” persuader materials not created for the particular employer is excluded, unless the consultant assists the employer in selecting materials).
Conducting a seminar for supervisors or other employer representatives if the seminar includes development of anti-union tactics and strategies.
Developing or implementing personnel policies or actions which have a direct or indirect object of persuading employees concerning their rights to organize and bargain collectively.

The rule is applicable to agreements and payments made on or after July 1, 2016. Legal challenges and an attempt to block enforcement of the new persuader rules are a certainty—the outcome is not.

Article By Thomas E. Obenberger of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Does the DOL Consider You a Joint Employer under Its “Broad as Possible” Standard? You May Be Surprised at the Answer

DOL On January 20, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (DOL) articulated a new standard that it will use to identify joint employment relationships. Specifically, the DOL published Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2016-1 (AI 2016-1), which is the first Administrator’s Interpretation this year, following the DOL’s similar pronouncement regarding independent contractor classifications in July 2015.

AI 2016-1 broadly interprets the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Migrant Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) and narrowly interprets case law regarding joint employment, resulting in its conclusion that “the expansive definition of ‘employ’ . . . reject[s] the common law control standard and ensures that the scope of employment relationships and joint employment under the FLSA and MSPA is as broad as possible.”

AI 2016-1 also sets forth two approaches for analyzing whether a joint employment situation exists: (1) horizontal, which looks at the relationship of the employers to each other, and (2) vertical, which examines “the economic realities” of the employee in relation to a “potential joint employer.” The structure and nature of the relationship(s) will dictate which analysis applies. In some cases both may be applicable, for example, when two businesses share an employee provided by a third-party intermediary, such as a staffing agency, that is the direct employer.

Horizontal Joint Employment

Citing the FLSA regulations, the DOL explained horizontal joint employment as follows:

Where an employee’s work simultaneously benefits two or more employers, or an employee works for two or more employers throughout the week, a joint employment relationship “generally will be considered to exist” in circumstances such as where:

the employers arrange to share or interchange the employee’s services;
one employer acts directly or indirectly in the interest of the other employer(s) in relation to the employee; or
“one employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer.”

In addition, the DOL set forth the following factors as potentially relevant in gauging the relationship between two or more employers and the degree of shared control over employees that might suggest a horizontal joint employment arrangement:

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.

According to the DOL, not all (or even most) of these factors need to be present for a horizontal joint employment relationship to exist. The agency set forth an example of a server who works at two separate restaurants owned by the same entity. The managers at each restaurant share the employee and coordinate the employee’s schedule between the two locations. Both employers use the same payroll processor and share supervisory authority over the employee. The DOL would find this to be a horizontal joint employment relationship. The agency distinguished this from a scenario where an employee works at two restaurants, one in the mornings and the other in the afternoons, and while each restaurant’s owners and managers know of the employee’s other job, the restaurants are completely unrelated. However, these examples leave quite a bit of grey area where the DOL apparently envisions a fact-intensive analysis under “as broad a standard as possible.”

Vertical Joint Employment

When it comes to vertical joint employment, the DOL maintains that the proper analysis is an economic realities test, and not the traditional inquiry focused on control. AI 2016-1 focuses on an employee’s “economic dependence” on the “potential joint employer” as the critical inquiry. This view appears to conflate the principles underlying the DOL’s recent independent contractor analysis with the question of whether an additional employment relationship exists beyond the one already established between an employee and his/her direct employer. The resulting approach likely will result in the DOL (and many courts) finding more entities to be joint employers under the FLSA where they otherwise would not—and in situations where a joint employer determination has largely been unnecessary because the employees in question already receive FLSA protections in their employment relationships with their direct employers.

To explain what it views to be the proper analytical approach, the DOL heavily relies on an MSPA regulation listing seven factors to consider under that statute’s version of the economic realities test for farm laborers. While the DOL acknowledges that the MSPA regulation does not actually apply to the FLSA, the agency believes the MSPA’s factors are “useful guidance in a FLSA case” and that “an economic realities analysis of the type described in the MSPA joint employment regulation should be applied in [FLSA] cases” to determine whether a situation is one of vertical joint employment. The MSPA’s seven factors are as follows:

Directing, Controlling, or Supervising the Work Performed. “To the extent that the work performed by the employee is controlled or supervised by the potential joint employer [i.e., the end user] beyond a reasonable degree of contract performance oversight, such control suggests that the employee is economically dependent on the potential joint employer.” The DOL goes on to clarify, as did the National Labor Relations Board recently, that such control need not be direct, but can be exercised through the intermediary employer. Likewise, the end user need not exercise as much control as the direct employer for it “to indicate economic dependence by the employee.”
Controlling Employment Conditions. Along the same lines, if an end user “has the power to hire or fire the employee, modify employment conditions, or determine the rate or method of pay,” this indicates economic dependence on the end user, even if the control is indirect or not exclusive.
Permanency and Duration of Relationship. If a work assignment for the end user is “indefinite, permanent, full-time, or long-term,” this suggests economic dependence. The DOL further instructs that analysis of this factor should consider “the particular industry at issue” such as “if the work . . . is by its nature seasonal, intermittent, or part-time.”
Repetitive and Rote Nature of Work. If the employee’s work for the end user “is repetitive and rote, is relatively unskilled, and/or requires little or no training,” this indicates economic dependence on the end user.
Integral to Business. “If the employee’s work is an integral part of the potential joint employer’s business, that fact indicates that the employee is economically dependent on the potential joint employer. . . . .”
Work Performed on Premises. If the work is performed “on premises owned or controlled by” the end user, this indicates economic dependence on the end user.
Performing Administrative Functions Commonly Performed by Employers. Economic reliance also can be imputed if the end user performs “administrative functions for the employee, such as handling payroll, providing workers’ compensation insurance, providing necessary facilities and safety equipment, housing, or transportation, or providing tools and materials required for the work.”

The DOL acknowledges that there are other possible factors that courts consider, but states that “regardless, it is not a control test.” To the extent that some, if not many, courts still do apply a control test, the DOL responds that doing so “is not consistent with the breadth of employment under the FLSA.” The agency buttresses its stance with citations to case law from the Second Circuit (covering New York, Vermont and Connecticut), while noting elsewhere that other circuits have not followed suit.

Despite the lack of consensus among jurisdictions to apply an economic realities test to determine joint employment, the DOL encourages application of the test in a way that would drastically expand the scope of joint-employment liability. In a footnote, for example, the agency notes that in general, an employee need not even economically depend more on the end user than on his/her direct employer for a finding of vertical joint employment. “The focus . . . is not a comparison [of the two relationships].”

In summary, businesses must carefully monitor their relationships with affiliated companies or business partners. If affiliated entities employ the same person and do not take measures to maintain the separateness of their operations and management, the DOL likely would find horizontal joint employment, requiring the aggregation of work hours for purposes of overtime pay. Likewise, under the DOL’s interpretation of vertical joint employment, if a worker tends to economically depend on the end user business, which could be imputed from a wide variety of factors, the DOL likely would deem that end user business a joint employer for purposes of wage and hour liability—regardless of the employee’s primary economic reliance on his/her direct employer. These expansive interpretations could be especially problematic for staffing agencies and other types of tiered business models.

AI 2016-1 signifies the latest effort by the DOL to expand the FLSA’s reach to nontraditional work arrangements. Like its other recent effort, this may result in more DOL investigations and litigation. The AI 2016-1 almost certainly will be challenged in court. Additionally, legislation has been proposed (but not passed) to curtail similar attempts by federal agencies to expand joint employment liability. Nonetheless, based on the DOL’s new guidance, companies should reassess their business and staffing arrangements to manage the risks associated with costly governmental investigations.

Article By Elizabeth Gotham of Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP

Tag: DOL

Labor Department Announces Procedural Changes to H-2B Visa Program

Like this:

Twenty-One States Join Forces to Oppose the FLSA’s New Overtime Rule

Like this: