Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Labor Talk Blog: NLRB Adopts New Controversial "Joint Employer" Standard


September 1, 2015

On August 27, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board), in a 3-2 vote along party lines, adopted a new standard for determining whether an employer who uses third party contractors is a "joint employer." Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015). The new standard will make it easier for unions to negotiate on behalf of workers at fast-food chains and other companies relying on contractors and franchisees.

The NLRB changed the definition of a crucial employer-employee relationship that had been in place in some form since the 1980s. The Board found that two or more entities will be considered "joint employers" of a single work force if (1) they are both employers within the meaning of the common law; and (2) they share or co-determine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment. In evaluating whether an employer possesses sufficient control to qualify as a joint employer, the Board majority signaled that it will consider an employer to have exercised sufficient control even if it does so indirectly, through an intermediary (i.e., the subcontractor or franchisee), or even whether it has merely reserved the authority to do so.

Under the new precedent, a company that hires a contractor to staff its facilities may be considered a joint employer of workers at the facility, even if it does not actively supervise them. A union representing those workers would be legally entitled to bargain not just with the contractor/vendor but also with the "user" company.

For example, under this ruling, employees at a fast-food restaurant run by a franchisee who vote to unionize would be entitled to negotiate not merely with the franchisee but also with the franchisor. The franchisor would face the practical hurdles of being forced to negotiate over wages and benefits that it does not actually set, with respect to employees it does not actually employ, for a restaurant it does not actually own.

Before Browning-Ferris, the NLRB's "joint employer" doctrine required that the franchisor or "user" company to exert "direct and immediate" control over working conditions of employees at its franchisees or contractors before it would be considered a joint employer. Under the new test, a company can be considered a joint employer even if it only has indirect control over working conditions, for example, by requiring the use of certain scheduling software that locks in the timing and length of the workers' shifts, or if it has the right to control certain conditions even if they don't exercise those rights.

This decision will have significant impact on employers' use of the franchise model or contractor model, and any employers who use such models must review their policies and practices to determine whether they could be subject to joint employer status. If the risk of unionization of a contingent or franchisee workforce is high, businesses should consider revising their relationships with their franchisees and staffing contractors and/or engage in proactive union avoidance activities.

Also, "stay tuned" as this decision is almost certain to be appealed and/or reviewed by Congress.

For more labor and employment information, visit

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.