Summary of the Bill

H. J. Res. 98 expresses congressional disapproval of a rule issued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regarding the criteria for determining joint employer status. This rule was initially published in the Federal Register on October 27, 2023. By passing this joint resolution, Congress seeks to nullify this particular rule, meaning it would not be implemented or enforceable.

Summary of Significant Issues

Several significant issues arise from the language used in the resolution. First, the phrase "That Congress disapproves the rule" implies rejection but lacks clarity on the direct consequences following this disapproval. It raises questions about what administrative or legal steps will ensure the rule's cessation.

Second, the statement "and such rule shall have no force or effect" could use additional context. Specifically, the resolution does not specify what alternative standards, if any, will guide the determination of joint employer status moving forward. This lack of clarity impacts employers, employees, and other stakeholders who rely on understanding their rights and responsibilities.

Impact on the Public

Broadly, the disapproval and nullification of the rule might lead to uncertainty in labor relations. The absence of a federal standard for determining joint employer status could result in varying interpretations across different states or within the courts, potentially complicating labor relations and business operations. Employees and employers alike may find themselves navigating a more complex legal landscape without the guidance previously offered by the NLRB's rule.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For employers, especially those engaged in franchise models or with complex organizational structures, this resolution might bring relief if the NLRB rule was perceived as overly burdensome or broad in defining joint employer responsibilities. On the other hand, losing a clear federal standard could introduce inconsistencies and legal ambiguities that could complicate business proceedings and negotiations.

Employees may face challenges in holding multiple employers accountable if the rule's absence leads to narrower interpretations of joint employer liability. This could affect their ability to seek remedies or assert rights related to wages, hours, and working conditions.

For legal and labor policy professionals, the resolution presents both challenges and opportunities. Lawyers may see more litigation as parties seek clarification in the face of uncertainty. Policymakers might use this as an impetus to propose new regulations or interpretations to fill any gaps left by the resolution's effects.

In conclusion, while the resolution intends to halt a specific regulatory interpretation, the ambiguity in the aftermath could necessitate further legislative or administrative action to clarify and stabilize employer-employee relationships across various sectors.