Issue link: http://palletcentral.uberflip.com/i/1115386
has been evolving in recent years, in part driven by a 2015 decision of the National Labor Relations Board in the Browning-Ferris case. Obama-era Department of Labor (DOL) policy was developed and released in response to that decision, which made franchising corporations responsible for OSHA and other labor law violations by franchise businesses. The 2015 policy was viewed as providing OSHA with new enforcement powers against companies found to be "joint employers." OSHA said at the time: "A joint employer standard may apply where the corporate entity exercises direct or indirect control over working conditions, has the unexercised potential to control working conditions or based on the economic realities." The 2015 OSHA policy is still in effect but would be altered if the pending changes to DOL and NLRB definitions become final later this year. As a practical matter, when determining if a joint employer relationship exists for enforcement purposes, OSHA looks at the following factors: • Overall relationship between corporate and franchise • Written documentation of corporation direction and control of franchise • Corporate control over the essential terms and conditions of employment of the workers at the franchise • Corporate control over safety and health policies and procedures at franchise Once the initial relationship issues are sorted out, OSHA will critically scrutinize safety and health issues such as: • Corporate standards for safety training • Whether corporate provides a safety and health program • PPE instruction and provision by corporate • Whether corporate reviews OSHA 300 logs for its franchisees • Whether corporate audits the franchisee facilities for safety and health • Whether franchisees must inform corporate about safety complaints and issues • Whether the franchisee can independently implement safety and health policies without any involvement of corporate palletcentral.com PalletCentral • March-April 2019 25 From a workplace safety perspective, how employers (and workers) are classified can be significant in terms of which entity has responsibility for employee training, provision of personal protective equipment, worker supervision, and discipline.