Search for: "Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. v. NLRB" Results 1 - 20 of 25
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Mar 2017, 12:50 pm by Andrea R. Calem
On March 9, 2017, the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia heard oral argument in the case entitled Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., d/b/a/ Browning-Ferris Newby Island Recyclery v. [read post]
30 Aug 2015, 11:56 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Co-authored by Richard Alfred and Patrick Bannon The National Labor Relations Board’s decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., announced last week, dramatically expands joint employer liability under the National Labor Relations Act. [read post]
13 Sep 2018, 2:29 pm by John Bolesta
The National Labor Relations Board has made good on its recent promise to move forward with rulemaking to re-establish the decades-old joint employer standard in place prior to the Board’s 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., d/b/a BFI Newby Island Recyclery, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015) (Browning-Ferris or BFI), petition for review docketed Browning-Ferris Indus. of Cal.… [read post]
29 Sep 2016, 12:25 pm by Andrea R. Calem
  The case on appeal is entitled Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., d/b/a/ Browning-Ferris Newby Island Recyclery v. [read post]
28 Aug 2015, 10:00 am by Anthony Zaller
This Friday’s Five covers five employment law developments that occurred in August 2015 that will have an impact for employers in California. 1)     NLRB ruling widens which companies may be considered “joint employers” In a 3-2 decision, the NLRB ruled that Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. was a joint employer with a staffing agency, Leadpoint Business Services, and therefore… [read post]
After the comment period, the NLRB issued the final rule in 2020, reversing the NLRB’s groundbreaking decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., d/b/a BFI Newby Island Recyclery, 362 NLRB 1599 (2015) (BFI), which held an employer could be considered a joint employer as long as it exercised “indirect control” over working conditions or had “reserved authority” to do so. [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 10:31 pm by Anthony Zaller
California’s Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) also sets forth law regarding California’s wage and hour requirements. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 11:51 am by Mark Theodore
The Court of Appeals accepted the case and recently issued a decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. v. [read post]
Ever since the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued its August 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., holding two entities may be joint employers if one exercises either direct or indirect control over the terms and conditions of the other’s employees or reserves the right to do so, the concept of joint employment has generated increased interest from plaintiffs’ attorneys, and increased… [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 3:02 pm by Timothy Kim
Employers are anticipating that the new Board and General Counsel will reform the following Obama-era precedents: Browning-Ferris Indus. of California, et al. v. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 3:02 pm by Timothy Kim
Employers are anticipating that the new Board and General Counsel will reform the following Obama-era precedents: Browning-Ferris Indus. of California, et al. v. [read post]
23 Jan 2018, 9:30 am by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.
  In the case of Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (2015) NLRB No. 672 (“BFI”), BFI retained the services of Leadpoint Business Services (“LBS”) to provide staff to one of BFI’s recycling facilities. [read post]
And Don’t Forget… The Board’s recent decision greatly expanding the scope of the reach of its joint employer test in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (August 27, 2015). [read post]
28 Jan 2020, 9:58 am by John Bolesta and Keahn Morris
In Browning-Ferris Industries of California Inc.,[1] the Obama board in 2015 upended the existing case law by finding that a company contracting for services could be deemed a joint employer of the service provider’s employees if the company indirectly exercised control over the employment terms/conditions through the contractor or merely reserved that right to control — even though it might not have been exercised. [read post]