Browning-Ferris Industries of California v. NLRB

362 N.L.R.B. 1599, 911 F.3d 1195 (2018)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Browning-Ferris Industries of California v. NLRB

United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit
362 N.L.R.B. 1599, 911 F.3d 1195 (2018)

Facts

Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (Browning-Ferris) operated a large recycling plant at which it directly employed approximately 60 workers. Browning-Ferris contracted with Leadpoint Business Services (Leadpoint), a staffing agency, to provide the facility with screen cleaners, housekeepers, and sorters. Leadpoint bore significant responsibility for hiring, managing, paying, disciplining, and firing its workers, subject to conditions imposed by Browning-Ferris. In 2013, a local union petitioned to represent the screen cleaners, housekeepers, and sorters as a bargaining unit under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The petition designated Browning-Ferris and Leadpoint as the workers’ joint employers. In considering the petition, the National Labor Relations Board (the board) announced a revised joint-employer test pursuant to which such a relationship existed if: (1) the employers shared a common-law employment relationship with the employees, and (2) the employers possessed sufficient control over the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment to permit meaningful collective bargaining. The board announced that, rather than requiring a joint employer to both possess and exercise the authority to control employee’s terms and conditions of employment, it would consider the employer’s reserved control as a factor in its analysis. The board also announced that, rather than requiring a statutory employer to exercise its control directly and immediately, it would consider indirect control as a factor. The board ruled that Browning-Ferris and Leadpoint were joint employers because Browning-Ferris had a right to control the employees and that it had exercised that right. The board’s analysis did not distinguish between Browning-Ferris’s control relative to its status as an employer and its control relative to its staffing contract with Leadpoint. Browning-Ferris petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Millett, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership