May 2016
James B. Sherman, Esq.
James B. Sherman, Esq.
Treating workers as non-employee, “independent contractors”
can land employers in trouble with a wide variety of federal and state government
agencies if the workers are determined to be employees under any number of
laws, each with its own definition of who is an “employee.” Misclassifying
employees as independent contractors typically means that no employment taxes
are withheld, no unemployment taxes are remitted worker’s compensation and
group health insurance is not provided, among other liabilities. Consequently, when federal or state agencies such
as the IRS or Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development challenge
employers using independent contractors through an audit or in response to a
worker’s complaint, the liability can be massive.
To make matters worse, thanks to a recent unfair labor practice, or ULP complaint issued by one of its Regional Directors in Los Angeles, CA, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) can be added to the list of agencies that may challenge an employer’s use of independent contractors and/or other contingency workers. The complaint is unique in that it alleges the employer, Intermodal Bridge Transport, misclassified its drivers as independent contractors and, in doing so, interfered with the protections employees are to enjoy under federal labor law. This complaint follows a directive from the NLRB’s General Counsel in Washington, D.C., Richard Griffin, for the Board’s Regional Directors to explore issues involving “the employment status of workers in the on-demand economy.” It also is consistent with the NLRB’s ongoing efforts to expand the agency’s reach into non-union workplaces.
To make matters worse, thanks to a recent unfair labor practice, or ULP complaint issued by one of its Regional Directors in Los Angeles, CA, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) can be added to the list of agencies that may challenge an employer’s use of independent contractors and/or other contingency workers. The complaint is unique in that it alleges the employer, Intermodal Bridge Transport, misclassified its drivers as independent contractors and, in doing so, interfered with the protections employees are to enjoy under federal labor law. This complaint follows a directive from the NLRB’s General Counsel in Washington, D.C., Richard Griffin, for the Board’s Regional Directors to explore issues involving “the employment status of workers in the on-demand economy.” It also is consistent with the NLRB’s ongoing efforts to expand the agency’s reach into non-union workplaces.
The rationale used by the NLRB’s Regional Director, is that
treating workers as independent contractors or other non-employee contingency
workers necessarily inhibits rights specifically granted to employees
under the National Labor Relations Act, as they are enforced by the NLRB. Among other things these protected rights
include the right to engage in forming or joining a union, as well as other
“concerted activities” for their mutual aid and protection. Workers not identified as employees would not
be inclined to understand that they have these rights, according to the Board’s
presumed theory.
Independent contractors and other non-employee contingent
workers are widely used by American businesses and can form a very beneficial
relationship for both parties. However, now more than ever it is essential that
businesses take great care to ensure that these relationships are truly
independent and do not cross the sometimes nebulous “line” into an employer/employee
relationship. It is a fine line that shifts, depending on which federal or
state agency is defining it. Businesses
must now add the NLRB to this list of agencies that may question the status of
workers.
Given the stakes, where a ruling that workers have been
misclassified can threaten a business’ very existence, employers are
well-advised to seek advice from an expert in this area of the law before
engaging independent contractors. Obviously an audit or complaint should be
taken very seriously.
Questions? Contact Attorney James B. Sherman at (952)
746-1700 or email jasherman@wesselssherman.com.