NLRB Continues Regulatory Ping Pong With New Proposed "Joint Employment" Standard
On September 7, 2022 the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) issued a new Proposed Rule governing joint employer status. The proposed rule seeks to change the standard for determining whether two collaborating employers will be considered joint employers under the National Labor Relations Act (Act). If finalized, the new rule is expected to take effect in 2023.
The Act governs the rights of employees to organize, bargain collectively, and engage in other activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection. The Act also governs the rights and obligations of employers and labor organizations in the collective bargaining context.[1]
The Act does not specifically address joint employment in terms of when collaborating employer entities will be deemed a joint employer. As such, the Board possesses discretion to issue, revise, and interpret the joint employer standard—which directly influences the collective bargaining obligations and unfair labor practice liability of employers who partner with entities such as staffing agencies, subcontractors, and other indefinite labor arrangements. The Board has repeatedly revised this standard as presidential administrations (and the political composition of the Board) change. The NLRB shifted the standard under both the Obama and Trump administrations, and the Biden administration seeks to revise the standard again to specifically rescind the changes made under the Trump administration, which took effect on April 27, 2020.
So why is this regulatory ping pong important for employers? A finding of "joint employer" depends on the extent of the putative employer's control over workers of another company. A low control standard favors a finding of "joint employer" and subjects more employers to collective bargaining and labor liability issues. Conversely, a high standard presumes employers remain separate and reduces or eliminates the obligations of one employer to the employees of another company. Swinging the pendulum back to a low standard for finding sufficient control will entitle more contractor and staffing agency employees to collective bargaining rights. It also means more employers are likely to find themselves on the wrong end of a joint-employer dispute.
Historical Background
The Supreme Court established a "joint-employer" standard after reviewing an NLRB representation case involving an alleged joint employment arrangement in Boire v. Greyhound Corp., 376 U.S. 473 (1964). Since Greyhound, members of the Board have disagreed about which indicia suffice as evidence of control and how strong such evidence must be. From the 1980s through the 2010s, the NLRB used the adjudicative process to interpret precedent and move the standard. Then in 2020, the Board began using the formal rulemaking process to adjust the joint employer standard.
The Browning-Ferris Industries cases illustrate the game of regulatory ping pong which has governed the joint employment standard. In 1981, the Board adjudicated a dispute involving a garbage/recycling management company. The Third Circuit later affirmed the Board's decision in NLRB v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Pennsylvania, Inc., 691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1982). According to the Third Circuit, "the 'joint employer' concept recognizes that the business entities involved are in fact separate but that they share or co-determine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment."[2] The court invoked Greyhound in holding that "where two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees – where from the evidence it can be shown that they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment – they constitute 'joint employers' within the meaning of the NLRA."[3]
A 2015 Board decision endorsed the standard established in Greyhound and Browning-Ferris and claimed to be merely restoring the standard when it issued Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. d/b/a/ BFI Newby Island Reclyclery, 362 NLRB 1599 (2015). The Board asserted that two post-Browning-Ferris decisions[4] had increased the standard "without explanation" by imposing "additional requirements for finding joint-employer status, which have no clear basis in the Third Circuit's decision, in the common law, or in the text or policies of the Act."[5] The Board restored the standard by clarifying that mere evidence of a putative employer's authority to control an employee's terms and conditions of employment was sufficient to establish a joint employer relationship. There need not be a showing that the putative employer actually exercised such control.[6]
The 2018 Board then proposed a formal rule, finalized in 2020, which stated "an entity may be considered a joint employer of a separate employer's employees only if the two share or co-determine the employees' essential terms and conditions of employment, which are exclusively defined as wages, benefits, hours of work, hiring, discharge, discipline, supervision, and direction."[7] The final 2020 Rule provided "that evidence of indirect control over essential terms and conditions of employment is probative of joint-employer status, but only to the extent that it supplements and reinforces evidence of direct and immediate control over essential terms and conditions."[8]
Proposed New Rule
Here is what the Proposed Rule provides: an employer will be deemed an employer over employees for purposes of the NLRA if the common law agency principles establish an employment relationship; entities will be deemed joint employers if the entities "share or co-determine" matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment; to "share or co-determine" will mean an entity possesses the authority to control (directly or indirectly) or exercises the power to control (directly or indirectly) one or more term or condition of employment; the essential terms or conditions of employment over which the possession or exercise of control will be analyzed will include wages, benefits and other compensation, hours of work and scheduling, hiring and discharge, discipline, health and safety, supervision, assignment, work rules and direction over the manner, means or methods of performance. Common law agency principles will again be used when assessing whether an entity possesses or exercises control over a term or condition of employment, and—in line with the 2015 Board—possessing the authority to control is sufficient, regardless of whether they exercise that control. Lastly, the party asserting that a joint employer relationship exists will bear the burden of proof.
What This Means for Employers
The Proposed Rule is not final and is open for public comment. However, it is unlikely that the final rule will change in any material way from the Proposed Rule. The joint employer standard set out in the Proposed Rule is broad and will likely implicate many third-party labor arrangements.
Given the anticipated 2023 effective date, companies using third-party labor should assess not only their third-party labor contracts—but also their day-to-day workplace operations and management of third-party employees. Where possible, contract terms and workplace operations should be adjusted to minimize evidence of control over third-party labor. Failure to conduct such a review could result in unexpected labor negotiations and disagreements as well as the accompanying undesired expenses.
[1] 29 U.S.C. § 151 (2022).
[2] Browning-Ferris Industries of Pennsylvania, Inc., 691 F.2d at 1123.
[3] Id. At 1124
[4] TLI, Inc., 271 NLRB 798 (1984), enfd. Mem. 772 F.2d 894 (3d Cir. 1984); and Laerco Transportation, 269 NLRB 324 (1984).
[5] Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. d/b/a/ BFI Newby Island Reclyclery, 362 NLRB at 1599.
[6] Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. d/b/a/ BFI Newby Island Reclyclery, 362 NLRB 1599 at 1600.
[7] 85 FR 11184 at 11184 (Feb. 26, 2020).
[8] Id. at 11186
Topics
- #12Days
- #MeToo
- 100% Healed Policy
- 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act
- 24-Hour Shifts
- Abuse
- ACA
- Accommodation
- ADA
- ADAAA
- ADEA
- Administrative Exemption
- Administrative Warrant
- Adverse Employment Action
- Affirmative Action
- Affordable Care Act
- Age Discrimination
- Age-Based Harassment
- AHCA
- Aiding and Abetting
- AMD
- American Arbitration Association
- American Health Care Act
- American Rescue Plan
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Amusement Parks
- Anti-Discrimination Policy
- Anti-Harassment
- Anti-Harassment Policy
- Anti-Retaliation Rule
- Anxiety
- Arbitration
- Arbitration Agreement
- Arbitration Fees
- Arbitration Rule
- Arrest Record
- At-Will Employment
- Attorney Fees
- Attorney General Guidance
- Audit
- Automobile Sales Exemption
- Baby Boomers
- Back Pay
- Background Checks
- Ban the Box
- Bankruptcy
- Bankruptcy Code
- Bargaining
- Bargaining Unit
- Baseball
- Benefits
- Bereavement
- Biden Administration
- Biometric Information
- Biometric Information Privacy Act
- Black Lives Matter
- Blocking Charge Policy
- Blue Pencil Doctrine
- Board of Directors
- Borello Test
- Breastfeeding
- Browning-Ferris
- Burden of Proof
- Burden Shifting
- But-For Causation
- Cal/OSHA
- California
- California Consumer Privacy Act
- California Court of Appeal
- California Department of Fair Employment and Housing
- California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement
- California Fair Employment and Housing Act
- California Family Rights Act
- California Labor Code
- California Legislature
- California Minimum Wage
- California Senate Bill 826
- California Supreme Court
- Call Centers
- CARES Act
- Case Updates
- Cat's Paw
- CCPA
- CDC
- Centers for Disease Control
- Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
- CFAA
- Chicago Minimum Wage
- Child Labor Laws
- Childbirth
- Choice of Law
- Church Plans
- Circuit Split
- City of Los Angeles CA Minimum Wage
- Civil Penalties
- Civil Rights
- Civil Rights Act
- Claim for Compensation
- Class Action
- Class Action Waiver
- Class Arbitration
- Class Certification
- Class Waiver
- CMS
- Code of Conduct
- Collective Action
- Collective Bargaining
- Collective Bargaining Agreements
- Collective Bargaining Freedom Act
- Committee on Special Education
- common law
- Commuting Time
- Comparable Work
- Compensable Time
- Compensation History
- Complaints
- Compliance
- Compliance Audit
- Computer Exemption
- Confidential Information
- Confidentiality
- Confidentiality Agreement
- Constructive Discharge
- Consular Report of Birth Abroad
- Contraception Services
- Contraceptive
- Contracts Clause
- Conviction Record
- Convincing Mosaic
- Cook County
- Cook County Minimum Wage
- Coronavirus
- Corporate Board
- Corporate Compliance
- COVID-19
- Criminal Conviction
- Criminal History
- CSE
- Customer Service
- D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
- DACA
- Damages
- Deadline Extension
- Defamation
- Defendant Trade Secrets Act of 2016
- Delaware
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Economic Opportunity
- Department of Industrial Relations
- Department of Justice
- Department of Workforce Development
- Designation Notice
- DFEH
- DHHS
- Direct and Immediate
- Disability
- Disability and Medical Leave
- Disability Discrimination
- Disability-Based Harassment
- Disciplinary Decisions
- Disclosure
- Discrimination
- Disparaging
- Disparate Impact
- Disparate Treatment
- District of Columbia
- Diversity
- Diversity Policy
- Documentation
- Dodd-Frank
- Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
- DOJ
- DOL
- Domestic Violence
- DOT
- Drug Free Workplace Act
- Drug Free Workplace Policies
- Drug Testing
- Dues
- Duluth
- DWD
- E-Verify
- EAP Exemption
- Earned Sick and Safe time
- Eavesdropping
- Education
- EEO Laws
- EEO-1
- Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
- El Cerrito CA Minimum Wage
- Election
- Electronic Communication Policy
- Electronic Communications
- Electronic Monitoring
- Electronic Reporting
- Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
- emergency condition
- Emeryville CA Minimum Wage
- Emotional Distress
- Employee
- Employee Benefits
- Employee Classification
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Information
- Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
- Employee Termination
- Employer
- Employer Health Care Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employer Policies
- Employer Policy
- Employer Sponsored
- Employer-Employee Relationship
- Employer-Sponsored Visas
- Employment
- Employment and Training Administration
- Employment Contract
- Employment Verification
- Enterprise Coverage
- EPA
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Equal Pay Act
- Equal Pay for Equal Work
- Equal Protection
- Equality
- ERISA
- Essential Employment Terms
- Essential Functions
- ESST
- Ethnic Equality
- Evidentiary Burdens
- Exclusive Remedy
- Executive Exemption
- Executive Order
- Exempt Employee
- Exempt Status
- Exemption
- Experience
- Expert
- Expression of Milk
- Extreme or Outrageous
- FAA
- Failure to Accomodate
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Employment and Housing Act
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Fair Pay
- Fair Reading
- Fair Workweek Law
- Fair Workweek laws
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- Family and Medical Leave
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- family planning
- Fast Food
- FCRA
- FDA
- Federal
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Federal Drug Administration
- Federal Government
- Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation
- Federal Preemption
- Federal Register
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Federal Trade Commission
- Fee Disputes
- FEHA
- fertility
- FFCRA
- Fiduciary
- Fiduciary Duty
- Fiduciary Rule
- Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Final Rule
- Fines
- fingerprints
- First Amendment
- First Circuit Court of Appeals
- Flexible Spending Accounts
- Florida
- Florida Civil Rights Act
- Florida's Private Whistleblower Act
- FLSA
- FLSA Exemptions
- Flu Shot
- Fluctuating Workweek
- FMCSA
- FMLA
- FMLA Abuse
- FMLA Interference
- Food Delivery
- Form 300A
- Forum-Selection Clause
- Fourteenth Amendment
- Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Franchisee
- Franchising
- Franchisor
- Fraud
- Freedom of Speech
- FSA
- FTC
- Full-time hours
- garden leave clause
- Gay Rights
- Gender Bias
- Gender Discrimination
- Gender Equality
- Gender Identity
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Gender Identity-Based Harassment
- Gender Nonconformity
- Generation Z
- Generational Conflict
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
- Georgia
- Gig Economy
- Gig Worker
- Good Faith
- Graduate Students
- Grievances
- Grocers
- Gross
- H-1B
- Hair Discrimination
- Handicap Discrimination
- Harassment
- Hawkins-Slater Medical Marijuana Act
- Health and Safety
- Health Care
- Health Care Employers
- Health Care Provider
- Health Insurance
- HHS
- Highly Compensated Employees
- HIPAA
- Hiring
- Hiring Policy
- Hiring Practices
- HIV
- Hostile Work Environment
- Hour Tracking
- Hours Worked
- HR
- Human Trafficking
- Hybrand
- I-9
- IDHR
- IEP
- IHRA
- Illinois
- Illinois Business Corporation Act
- Illinois Department of Human Rights
- Illinois Equal Pay Act
- Illinois Freedom to Work Act
- Illinois Human Rights Act
- Illinois Minimum Wage Law
- Illinois Nursing Mothers in the Workplace Act
- Illinois One Day Off In Seven Act
- Illinois Supreme Court
- Illinois Workplace Transparency Act
- Immigration
- Impaired
- Impairment
- Incentives
- inclusion
- Income Tax
- independent contractor classification
- Independent Contractors
- Indiana
- Indiana Supreme Court
- Individualized Education Program
- informed consent
- Injuctive Relief
- Injunction
- Injuries
- Injury and Illness Reporting
- Interactive Process
- Interference
- Intermittent Leave
- Internal Applicants
- Internal Complaints
- Internal Revenue Service
- Interns
- Internships
- Investigation
- Iraq
- Iris Scans
- IRS
- IRS Notice 1036
- ISERRA
- IWTA
- janitorial
- Jefferson Standard
- Job Applicant
- Job Applicant Information
- Job Classification
- Job Classification Audit
- Job Descriptions
- Joint Control
- Joint Employer Relationship
- Joint Employer Rule
- Joint Employer Test
- Joint Employers
- Joint Employment
- Judicial Estoppel
- LAB s. 226.2
- Labor and Employment
- Labor Code
- Labor Dispute
- Labor Organizing
- Lactation Accommodations
- Lactation Policies
- Las Vegas
- lateral transfer
- Layoff
- Leased Employee
- Leave
- Ledbetter Act
- Legislation
- LGBTQ
- LGBTQ Rights
- LMRA
- Loan Forgiveness
- Local Ordinance
- Los Angeles County CA Minimum Wage
- Loss of Consortium
- M.G.L. Chapter 151B
- Major League Baseball
- major life activity
- Malibu CA Minimum Wage
- Mandatory
- Mandatory Arbitration
- Mandatory Reporting
- Manufacturers
- Marijuana
- Marital Discrimination
- Maryland Minimum Wage
- Massachusetts
- Massachusetts Equal Pay Act
- Massachusetts Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- Massachusetts Wage Act
- Maternity Leave
- McDonnell Douglas
- Meal & Rest Break
- Meal Breaks
- Meal Period
- Media Mention
- Medical Condition
- Medical Examination
- Medical History
- Medical Marijuana
- MEPA
- MHRA
- Michigan
- Micro-Units
- Military
- Military Duty
- Millennials
- Milpitas CA Minimum Wage
- Minimum Wage
- Ministerial Exception
- Minneapolis Minimum Wage
- Minneapolis Sick and Safe Time ordinance
- Minnesota
- Minnesota Court of Appeals
- Minnesota Human Rights Act
- Minor Employees
- Minors
- Misappropriation
- Misclassification
- Missouri
- MLB
- Montana Human Rights Act
- Montgomery County Maryland Minimum Wage
- Municipalities
- Narrow Construction
- National Football League
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- National Origin Discrimination
- Natural Hair
- Nebraska
- Negligence
- Neutrality Agreement
- New Jersey
- New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act
- New Jersey Law Against Discrimination
- New Moms
- New York
- New York Average Weekly Wage
- New York City
- New York City Human Rights Law
- New York Court of Appeals
- New York HERO Act
- New York Labor Law
- New York Legislation
- New York Minimum Wage
- New York Paid Family Leave
- New York State Human Rights Law
- News
- NFL
- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
- NJ DOL
- NJ Paid Sick Leave Law
- NJLAD
- NLRA Section 7
- No Rehire Provisions
- Non-Compete
- Non-Employee Union Agents
- Non-Supervisory Employees
- Noncompete Covenant
- Noncompetition Agreement
- Nondiscretionary Bonuses
- nonproductive time
- Nonsolicitation Covenant
- Notice
- Notice of Proposed Rule Making
- Notices
- NPRM
- Nursing Mothers
- NY State Department of Taxation
- NYSHRL
- Obama Administration
- ObamaCare
- Obesity
- Objectively Offensive
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- OFCCP
- Off-Duty Rest
- Off-the-Clock
- Office of Management and Budget
- Ohio
- Ok Boomer
- Oklahoma
- Older Workers
- OMB
- On-Call Scheduling
- Only When Rule
- Opinion
- Opinion Letter
- Opioid Epidemic
- Opposition
- Oregon Minimum Wage
- Organ Donation
- OSH Act
- OSHA
- Other-than-Serious Violation
- Outside Applicants
- Outside Sales Exemption
- Overtime
- Paid Leave
- Paid Sick Leave
- Paid Sick Leave Law
- Paid Time Off
- Pandemic Unemployment Assistance
- Parental Leave
- part-time hours
- Partnership
- Pasadena CA Minimum Wage
- Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2009
- Pay Data
- Pay Equity
- Pay Gap
- Pay History
- Pay Inquiries
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Payment Disclosure
- Payroll
- Payroll Taxes
- PDA
- Penalties
- Pennsylvania
- Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
- Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law
- Pension
- Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation
- Pension Plans
- Pensions
- Perceived Disability
- Permanent Replacement Employees
- Personal Protective Equipment
- Personnel Record
- PFL
- Physiological Condition
- Picket
- Piece-rate
- Policies
- Policy
- Political Affiliation
- Political Discrimination
- Political Speech
- Politics
- Polygraph
- Portland Maine Minimum Wage
- Posting Requirements
- PPE
- Preemption
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Pregnant Worker Fairness Act
- Pregnant Worker Protections
- Premium Wage
- Prescriptions
- President Obama
- Presidential Election
- Pretext
- Preventative Care
- Privacy
- Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
- Private Colleges and Universities
- Private Employers
- Private Property
- Professional Exemption
- Property Rights
- Proposed Rulemaking
- Protected Activity
- Protected Class
- Protected Concerted Activity
- Protected Leave
- Protected Speech
- PTO
- PTSD
- Public Employers
- Public Records
- Publicly-Held Corporations
- PUMP Act
- Punitive Damages
- qualified individual
- Qualifying Exigency
- Quid Pro Quo
- quota
- Racial Discrimination
- Racial Equality
- Racial Harassment
- Reasonable Accomodation
- Rebuttable Presumption
- Recess Appointment
- Reduction in Force
- Regarded As
- Regulatory Compliance
- Regulatory Enforcement
- Rehabilitation Act
- Religion
- Religious Accommodation
- Religious Discrimination
- Religiously Affiliated Employers
- Remote Working
- Removal
- Reporting
- Reporting Time Pay
- Reproductive Health
- Republican
- Request for Information
- Respondeat Superior
- Rest Breaks
- Rest Period
- Restaurants
- Restrictions
- Restrictive Covenant
- Retail
- Retaliation
- retaliatory termination
- Retina Scans
- return-to-work
- Rhode Island
- RICO
- RIF
- Right of Recall
- Right to Control
- Right-to-Work
- Rounding Policy
- Safety Programs
- Safety Sensitive Laborer
- Salaried Employees
- salary
- Salary History
- Salary Inquiries
- Salary Inquiry
- Salary Test
- San Francisco CA Minimum Wage
- San Francisco Parity in Pay Ordinance
- San Leandro CA Minimum Wage
- Santa Monica CA Minimum Wage
- Sarbanes-Oxley Act
- SCOTUS
- Seasonal Workers
- SEC
- Second Circuit Court of Appeals
- Secret Ballot
- Secretary of Labor
- Secretary Solis
- Section 7
- Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act
- Section 8
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- Securities Fraud
- Self Evaluations
- Separation Agreement
- Seperation
- Serious Health Condition
- Serious Violation
- Settlement Agreement
- Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
- Severance
- Severe and Pervasive
- Sex Discrimination
- Sex Stereotyping
- Sex-Based Harassment
- sexual and reproductive health decisions
- Sexual Assault
- Sexual Harassment
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Sexual Orientation-Based Harassment
- Shameless
- Short-Term Disability
- Sick Leave
- Similarly Situated
- Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Social Media
- Social Media Policy
- Social Security
- South Dakota
- SOX
- Split Shift Pay
- SSA
- St. Paul Sick and Safe Time Ordinance
- St. Paul, Minnesota
- Stalking
- State Government
- Statute of Limitations
- Statutory Damages
- Statutory Exemption
- STD prevention
- Stock
- Stop WOKE Act
- Street Trade Permits
- strike
- Student Loans
- Students
- Subjectively Offensive
- Subpoena
- Substantial Relationship
- Successor Liability
- Supervisor Reassignment
- Supervisors
- Supervisory Employees
- Supplemental Wages
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Tax
- Tax Credits
- Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
- Tax Implications
- Tax Reform Act
- Teenage Labor
- Temporary Employee
- Temporary Help Agency
- Temporary Rule
- Temporary Schedule Change
- Temporary Workers
- Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Termination
- Texas
- Texas Workforce Commission (TWC)
- Texting
- Third Circuit Court of Appeals
- Time Clock
- Time Records
- Tipped workers
- Title IX
- Title VII
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
- Tort Liability
- Trade Secrets
- Training
- Trans
- Transgender Rights
- Transitioning
- Transportation Industry
- Travel Time
- Trial
- Trump
- Trump Administration
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Undergraduate Students
- Underrepresented Community
- Undocumented Workers
- Undue Hardship
- Unemployment
- Unemployment Benefits
- Unemployment Insurance Program Letter
- Unfair Labor Practice
- Union Dues
- Union Organizing
- Union Relations Privilege
- Unions
- Unit Clarification Petition
- Unlawful Employment Practice
- Unpaid Leave
- Unpaid Wages
- USCIS
- USERRA
- vacation
- Vacation Accrual
- Vacation Pay
- Vacation Policy
- Vaccination
- Vaccine Requirement
- VEBA
- Verdict
- Vested Rights
- Veteran Services
- Vicarious Liability
- Victims
- Violent Crime
- Virginia
- Voluntary
- Volunteer Programs
- Volunteering
- Volunteers
- Wage and Hour
- Wage Order 7
- Wage Order 9
- Wage Theft
- Wage Transparency
- Wages
- Waiting Period
- Waiver
- warehouse
- WARN Act
- Webinar
- Wellness
- Wellness Program Incentives
- Wellness Programs
- Westchester County
- WFEA
- Whistleblower
- White House
- Whole Foods
- Willful and Repeat
- Wis. Stat. ch. 102
- Wisconsin
- Wisconsin Court of Appeals
- Wisconsin Fair Employment Act
- Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws
- Withdrawal Liability
- Withholdings
- Witness Statements
- Work Eligibility
- Work Permits
- Work Restriction
- Work Schedules
- Worker Classification
- Workers' Compensation
- Working Conditions
- Workplace Accommodation
- Workplace Bullying
- Workplace Discrimination
- Workplace Disputes
- Workplace Injury
- Workplace Injury Reporting
- workplace inspections
- Workplace Policies
- Workplace Rules
- Workplace Safety
- Workplace Training
- Wright Line
- written release procedures
- Wrongful Termination