Information about the vote from special interest groups and other information providers in our Report Cards:
Associated Builders and Contractors
H.R. 3441 On Passage -- Save Local Business Act.
H.R. 3441 On Passage -- Save Local Business Act. Passed.National Taxpayers Union
h2017-614.
h2017-614.
AFL-CIO
Save Local Business Act.
Browning-Ferris Industries, a case that clarified the right of workers to bargain with two employers who exercise joint control over the workplace. Moreover, the bill would establish a new, extremely narrow statutory definition of joint employer under both the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The bill passed the House amended.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
The Save Local Business Act H.R. 3441.
This group strongly supports H.R. 3441, the “Save Local Business Act.” which would clarify and restore the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) and Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) criteria for determining when employers will be considered “joint employers”.
The National Labor Relations Board redefined who is a "joint employer" under the NLRA in its 2015 Browning-Ferris Decision. For the 30 years prior to that decision, two separate business entities were considered "joint employers" only if both entities exercised direct and immediate control over the terms and conditions of employment of the same workers--meaning that both actually shared the ability to do things such as hire, fire, discipline, supervise, and direct the workers in question. Browning Ferris upended that well-established standard in favor of one in which mere indirect or potential control could result in a finding of joint employment. Thus, almost any economic or contractual relationship could result in joint employer status.
The Save Local Business Act restores the previous definition of a joint employer so that another company can be a joint employer “in relation to an employee only” if that employer “directly, actually, and immediately…exercises significant control over the essential terms and conditions of employment….”
The proposed legislation sets the same definition of joint employment for the FLSA, which is administered by the Department of Labor's Wage & Hour Division (WHD). This is important because many different courts have issued varying interpretations, causing tremendous confusion and uncertainty among employers with operations in different states. Statutory language clarifying the criteria will provide needed certainty. It would also preclude the WHD from issuing an interpretation intended to broaden the definition of joint employer during future administrations.
National Federation of Independent Business
H.R. 3441 On Passage -- Save Local Business Act.
This group supported this bill.
Citizens Against Government Waste
Joint Employer Definition – Passage.
Passage of the bill that would define a joint employer as an entity with actual, direct and immediate control over employees, with significant control over essential terms of employment such as hiring, determining pay and benefits, day-to-day supervision of employees, and assigning individual work schedules.
The National Association of Manufacturers
HR3441 Save Local Business Act.
Vote on H.R. 3441, Save Local Business Act. In 2015, the the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), with the Browning-Ferris Industries case decision, overturned 30 years of case precedent by redefining a joint employer. Previously, businesses could meet the definition of an “employer” if they had “direct and immediate” control over another’s work. Now, a business owner who has “potential” or even “reserved control” over the practices of another business and its employees could be considered a “joint employer. H.R. 3441 will restore the old standard by amending the National Labor Relations Act to define that a person may be considered a "joint employer" in relation to an employee only if such person directly, actually, and immediately exercises significant control over the essential terms and conditions of employment.