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

Press Release
Sep 18, 2026
Paris Glazer Named to Chicago Daily Law Bulletin’s 2026 40 Attorneys Under Forty

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 17, 2026
Federal and State Regulators Continue Crackdown on Junk Fees

Press Release
Sep 17, 2026
Defense Verdict Reduces $134 Million Demand to $2 Million in Catastrophic Motorcycle Injury Case

Insights for Insurers Alert
Sep 16, 2026
America 250: The Nation’s Unique Contributions to Insurance Coverage Law and Litigation

In The News
Sep 15, 2026
Lucy Wang Discusses the California Insurance Commissioner’s Role in Protecting Consumers

Press Release
Sep 10, 2026
Hinshaw Attorneys Recognized as 2027 Lexology Index Thought Leaders: USA

In The News
Sep 10, 2026
Nicholas Ajello and Gregory Emry Analyze FAA’s Proposed BVLOS Drone Regulations

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 9, 2026
“Play Now, Arbitrate Later”—“Not So Fast,” Ninth Circuit Says

In The News
Sep 9, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Discusses “Patchwork” of Laws Targeting Personalized Pricing

Employment Law Observer
Sep 8, 2026
Five Workplace Issues Every Employer Should Address Before They Become a Costly Lawsuit

Press Release
Sep 8, 2026
Jim Sandy Appointed Chair of ABA Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Subcommittee

