Royal

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Determining Joint-Employer Status

September 14, 2022

The NLRB released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on September 6, 2022. The new proposed rule states that two or more employers would be considered joint employers if they “share or codetermine those matters governing employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment,” such as benefits, wages, hiring and discharge, workplace health and safety.


Contractors/subcontractors, franchisees, labor unions, and temporary help service suppliers are examples of small businesses or entities that the NLRB has identified will most likely be impacted by the new proposed rule.


The NPRM proposes to rescind and replace the current joint-employer rule, which took effect on April 27, 2020.  The current rule limits the joint-employer status to entities with “substantial direct and immediate control” over essential terms and conditions of another entity’s employees.

Members of the public have until November 7, 2022 to submit comments to the NLRB on the new proposed rule.  


If your business has any questions on this proposed rule, or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: