NLRB Makes it Easier to Unionize Temporary Workers
2 min read
Jul 14, 2016
On Monday, the National Labor Relations Board made it easier for unions to organize temporary workers in a 3-1 decision in the case Miller & Anderson. In doing so, the Board reversed its ruling in Oakwood Care Center, 343 NLRB 659 (2004) and returned to the standard established in M.B. Sturgis, Inc., 331 NLRB 1298 (2000).
The case dates back to 2012 when the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 19 petitioned to represent regular workers employed by electrical and mechanical contractor Miller & Anderson, temporary workers employed by Tradesmen International, and temporary workers jointly employed by Tradesmen International and Miller & Anderson. Relying on the Board's 2004 decision in Oakwood, the regional director dismissed the union's bid to represent a unit combining employees of both companies, finding solely and jointly employed workers cannot be in the same unit without employer consent.
In overturning the regional director's decision, the Board found the rule articulated in M.B. Sturgis more persuasive than Oakwood. Returning to the M.B. Sturgis standard, the Board held consent is not required and that temporary workers from a staffing agency can be included in a unit with the traditional workers if they have an adequate "community of interest." According to the ruling, the Board will apply the traditional community of interest factors for determining the appropriateness of such a unit.
This decision is likely to complicate the test for determining joint employer status, which was established in August of 2015 when the Board issued its ruling in Browning-Ferris. In that case, the Board held that two or more entities are joint employers of a single workforce if (1) they are both employers within the meaning of the common law; and (2) they share or co-determine matters governing the terms and conditions of employment. This two-step test made it easier for staffing agencies with temporary employees to participate in bargaining. However, it was not in existence at the time M.B. Sturgis was decided, so it remains unclear how the two standards will interact. What is clear is that the Board continues to issue decisions making it easier for all types of employees to unionize.
Questions? Please contact your regular Hinshaw attorney.
Related Capabilities
Featured Insights

In The News
Aug 24, 2026
David Schultz Reviews a Humorous—But Important—FDCPA Procedural Ruling

Press Release
Aug 20, 2026
115 Hinshaw Lawyers Recognized in 2027 Editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Ones to Watch®

Press Release
Aug 20, 2026
Hinshaw’s Landmark Tower Client Project Receives 2026 Top Projects Award

Press Release
Aug 19, 2026
Fernando Rivera-Maissonet Elected as HNBA Region II Governor and Board of Governors Member

Employment Law Observer
Aug 17, 2026
Massachusetts’ First Paid Family Medical Leave Act Verdict Yields $4.75 Million Award

Press Release
Aug 13, 2026
Lauren Campisi Recognized as a 2026 BTI Client Service All-Star by BTI Consulting Group

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Aug 13, 2026
How Will Banks Be Impacted by the Proposed Regulation O Amendments?

Press Release
Aug 12, 2026
William Cook Honored With the Distinguished Service Award by the Chicago Bar Association

Webinar
Aug 12, 2026
John Ryan Presents on "Understanding what is Covered Under the TCPA Today"

In The News
Aug 12, 2026
Scott Seaman Analyzes California’s New Pleading Standards for Excess Insurance Policy Claims


