91视频

Although a recent landmark decision by the National Labor Relations Board stemmed from a complaint involving workers at a recycling plant, construction officials say it could easily throw a wrench into relations between general contractors and subs.

The federal board, commonly called the NLRB, voted 3-2 last week in a ruling that could greatly add to the types of businesses that can be held liable for violations of labor laws. Before the decision, a company generally could not be found responsible for a violation of that sort unless it exercised 鈥渄irect and immediate鈥� control over employees involved in a labor complaint.

Thursday鈥檚 ruling is instead likely to let federal officials impose liability on a company that does no more than control the terms and conditions of employment 鈥渋ndirectly or through an intermediary, or 鈥� has reserved the right to do so.鈥� Reached Friday, various construction-industry representatives predicted profound consequences for general contractors, especially in their relationships with subs.

Brian Turmail, executive director of public affairs at the Associated General Contractors of America trades group, said federal officials are essentially asking general contractors to police the labor and employment practices of their subs. It鈥檚 a responsibility, he said, that few construction companies are ready or willing to take on.

Turmail also noted recent Department of Labor rules that make general contractors and subs who work with the federal government more responsible for ensuring a certain percentage of their workforce is made up of veterans and the disabled.

鈥淣ow, in addition to your day job of building structures, you get to be an auditor for the federal government,鈥� Turmail said.

Geoff Burr, vice president of government affairs for the Associated Builders & Contractors of America, a mostly non-union trade group, predicted a fundamental change in general contractors鈥� dealings with subs. Company officials who had once seen themselves as having arms-length relationships with subcontractors鈥� employees will now have to worry about labor violations that they might have little authority to prevent.

鈥淚 feel like this challenges the entire existing business model in the industry,鈥� Burr said. 鈥淚f it鈥檚 applied on a regular basis to construction companies, we will have to consider altering that model and reworking agreements between generals and subs.鈥�

Rufino Gaytan, a labor and employment lawyer at Godfrey & Kahn鈥檚 Milwaukee office, said it鈥檚 not entirely clear what the NLRB鈥檚 ruling will mean for industries outside those involved directly in the case, although it is certain to have wider consequences. For one, he predicted that some general contractors will find themselves reconsidering how much direct and indirect control they want to exercise over subcontractors.

The NLRB鈥檚 decision seems to suggest that the greater a company鈥檚 authority, the greater its exposure to labor-law liability. General contractors might respond, Gaytan said, by negotiating contracts that abdicate control over all subcontractor matters aside from insisting that a particular part of a project be completed on time and on budget.

鈥淥bviously, that鈥檚 the extreme,鈥� he said. 鈥淏ut general contractors who take that sort of a stance will be taking the safest or most conservative approach to avoid that joint-employer designation.鈥�

Although many observers were quick to predict widespread consequences from Thursday鈥檚 NLRB decision, defenders noted that the underlying case arose from a very specific set of circumstances. Namely, members of the NLRB had been asked to rule on the Teamsters union鈥檚 right to represent workers at a Browning-Ferris Industries鈥� recycling plant in Milipitas, Calif.

The workers were not direct employees of Browning-Ferris but rather of Leadpoint Business Services, a staffing agency. The Teamsters, in its attempt to represent the workers, asked the NLRB to decide if Browning-Ferris and Leadpoint could be considered 鈥渏oint employers.鈥�

In voting against the majority in Thursday鈥檚 decision, the two Republican appointees on the NLRB complained in writing that the decision does little to tell employers when they can now expect to be held responsible for possible labor violations affecting an employee of a partner company.

鈥淭here can be no certainty or predictability regarding the identity of the employer,鈥� wrote the two dissenters, Philip Miscimarra and Harry Johnson.

The Democratic appointees who hold the majority of the board鈥檚 seats countered by contending that the NLRB 鈥渃annot attempt today to articulate every fact and circumstance that would define the contours of a joint employment relationship.鈥�

Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel stepped into the debate earlier this month, joining his counterparts in five other states in sending a letter to NLRB chairman Mark Pearce. The letter, dated Aug. 11, argues that the pending change 鈥渨ill expose companies to liability for workers they don鈥檛 actually employ鈥� and 鈥渕ake it more difficult to structure relationships with other businesses.鈥�

In a statement released the day after the NLRB鈥檚 ruling, Schimel contended that 鈥渆ven routine business decisions, like whether to fire a contractor or how to structure