The decision will be applied in separate cases pending against McDonald’s Corp. in which the labor board’s general counsel has accused the restaurant chain of labor violations at its franchisees. In a case that drew intense lobbying by both business and union groups, Democratic appointees on the panel split 3-2 with Republicans to adopt a more expansive definition of what it means to be an “joint employer," making it more difficult for companies to avoid responsibility through various forms of outsourcing. “With more than 2.87 million of the nation’s workers employed through temporary agencies in August 2014, the Board held that its previous joint employer standard has failed to keep pace with changes in the workplace and economic circumstances,�? The International Franchise Association has been lobbying against the anticipated decision for more than a year, arranging public hearings, airing ads, and rallying franchisees to make politicians aware of the decision’s potential implications. The ruling may have an immediate effect on a case the labor board is litigating against McDonald’s and several of its franchisees. chairwoman who wrote a crucial dissent in a 2002 case on the subject, said that the ruling was especially important because “sometimes the contractor is such a small entity, it exists on such a shoestring, that you have to get the lead firm to the table.” 
 
 The case the board ruled on involved a company called Browning-Ferris Industries of California, which the N.L.R.B. “It is not the goal of joint-employer law to guarantee the freedom of employers to insulate themselves from their legal responsibility to workers, while maintaining control of the workplace,” the Democratic majority wrote, addressing the purpose of the National Labor Relations Act. The Board also reversed the regional director’s decision, saying that Browning-Ferris exercised sufficient control over hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, and work hours to qualify as a joint employer under the new standard. “This doctrine is so far-reaching, I’m assuming it will end up in the Supreme Court,” Cohen said.
– In what the Washington Post calls a "landmark" case, a federal labor board has just made it easier for workers at fast-food restaurants and other franchise operations to negotiate for better wages and working conditions. The National Labor Relations Board changed a three-decade-old definition about which companies should be called "joint employers," reports Bloomberg. The term now covers companies that use subcontractors or other middlemen operations to supply employees, meaning unions can now negotiate with the parent company as well as the subcontractor that hired them, explains the New York Times. The old rule is "increasingly out of step with changing economic circumstances, particularly the recent dramatic growth in contingent employment relationships," declared the NLRB, which split 3-2 along party lines. The ruling stems from a recycling company that used a temporary staffing agency, but it will be applied to pending cases involving McDonald's. In fact, it "could upend the traditional arms-length relationship that has prevailed between corporate titans such as McDonald's and its neighborhood fast-food franchises," says the Post. The ruling has been anticipated for a while, and the industry says it will fight to overturn it with help from Republicans in Congress.