Judge blocks NLRB rule on contract and franchise workers

The rule, which was due to go into effect Monday, would have set new standards for determining when two companies should be considered “joint employers” in labor negotiations.

Under the current NLRB rule, which was passed by a Republican-dominated board in 2020, a company like McDonald’s isn’t considered a joint employer of most of its workers since they are directly employed by franchisees.

The new rule would have expanded that definition to say companies may be considered joint employers if they have the ability to control — directly or indirectly — at least one condition of employment. Conditions include wages and benefits, hours and scheduling, the assignment of duties, work rules and hiring.

Read more: Amazon joins Trader Joe’s and Elon Musk’s SpaceX in calling the National Labor Relations Board unconstitutional

The NLRB argued a change is necessary because the current rule makes it too easy for companies to avoid their legal responsibility to bargain with workers.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups — including the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the International Franchise Association and the National Retail Federation — sued the NLRB in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas in November to block the rule. They argued that the new rule would upend years of precedent and could make companies liable for workers they don’t employ at workplaces they don’t own.

In his decision Friday granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a summary judgement, U.S. District Court Judge J. Campbell Barker concluded that the NLRB’s new rule would be “contrary to law” and that it was “arbitrary and capricious” in regard to how it would change the existing rule.

Barker found that by establishing an array of new…