지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This paper aims to introduce the U.S’s labor laws which have covered franchise relationships. It focus on the decisions of courts & NLRB and labor policies of the U.S. Department of Labor in the era of Obama administration concerning with franchise relationships.
First of all, when it comes to Coverall decision in March 2010, Judge W. Young found that Massachusetts franchisees of Coverall had been misclassified as independent contractors under the Commonwealth"s misclassification statute and were “employees.” In that statute to avoid employee status, the employer should show that the worker who performs a service for him or her: (i) is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under his contract for performance of the service and in fact; (ii) the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and (iii) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed. Focusing on the second prong, Judge Young concluded that Coverall and its franchisees were not in separate and distinct businesses.
Secondly the Department of Labor made two important Administrator’s Interpretations that have an important bearing on the situation of franchise relationship; the Employee Misclassification Administrator’s Interpretation, 2015 and the Joint-Employment Administrator’s Interpretation, 2016. The AI of 2015 proposed that when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor, the application of the economic realities factors should be guided by the FLSA’s statutory directive that the scope of the employment relationship is very broad. At the Joint-Employment AI of 2016, the Administrator believes that additional guidance will be helpful concerning joint employment under FLSA and MSPA. This Administrator’s Interpretation (AI) provides guidance on identifying those scenarios in which two or more employers jointly employ an employee and are thus jointly liable for compliance under the FLSA or MSPA.
In the field of collective bargaining relations, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) also ruled very important new decision concerning with joint-employer doctrine. In the Browning-Ferris decision in August 27. 2015, the National Labor Relations Board refined its standard for determining joint-employer status which could exert a strong influence on collective bargaining relationship between a franchisor and workers employing by a franchisee. According to the new standard, two or more entities would be joint employers of a single workforce if they share or co-determine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment. In determining whether an employer possesses sufficient control over employees to qualify as a joint employer, it would be considered whether he/she has exercised control over terms and conditions of employment indirectly through an intermediary, or whether it has reserved the authority to do so.
First of all, when it comes to Coverall decision in March 2010, Judge W. Young found that Massachusetts franchisees of Coverall had been misclassified as independent contractors under the Commonwealth"s misclassification statute and were “employees.” In that statute to avoid employee status, the employer should show that the worker who performs a service for him or her: (i) is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under his contract for performance of the service and in fact; (ii) the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and (iii) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed. Focusing on the second prong, Judge Young concluded that Coverall and its franchisees were not in separate and distinct businesses.
Secondly the Department of Labor made two important Administrator’s Interpretations that have an important bearing on the situation of franchise relationship; the Employee Misclassification Administrator’s Interpretation, 2015 and the Joint-Employment Administrator’s Interpretation, 2016. The AI of 2015 proposed that when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor, the application of the economic realities factors should be guided by the FLSA’s statutory directive that the scope of the employment relationship is very broad. At the Joint-Employment AI of 2016, the Administrator believes that additional guidance will be helpful concerning joint employment under FLSA and MSPA. This Administrator’s Interpretation (AI) provides guidance on identifying those scenarios in which two or more employers jointly employ an employee and are thus jointly liable for compliance under the FLSA or MSPA.
In the field of collective bargaining relations, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) also ruled very important new decision concerning with joint-employer doctrine. In the Browning-Ferris decision in August 27. 2015, the National Labor Relations Board refined its standard for determining joint-employer status which could exert a strong influence on collective bargaining relationship between a franchisor and workers employing by a franchisee. According to the new standard, two or more entities would be joint employers of a single workforce if they share or co-determine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment. In determining whether an employer possesses sufficient control over employees to qualify as a joint employer, it would be considered whether he/she has exercised control over terms and conditions of employment indirectly through an intermediary, or whether it has reserved the authority to do so.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 미국 노동법의 적용(1) : 가맹본부와 가맹점사업자의 관계
Ⅲ. 미국 노동법의 적용(2) : 가맹본부와 가맹점근로자의 관계
Ⅳ. 무엇을 어떻게 배울 것인가?
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
프랜차이즈 가맹본부의 공동사용자성 여부
노동법포럼
2020 .11
-
프랜차이즈 사업관계에서의 ‘사용자’ 판단
법학논총
2022 .06
-
사내도급 고용관계에서 부당노동행위 책임 - 미국 공동사용자 원리와 비교
노동법포럼
2017 .07
-
공동사용자 개념과 논의의 한국적 함의
노동법포럼
2018 .02
-
미국 오바마 정부의 노동개혁
노동법연구
2017 .03
-
미국 공동사용자 법리의 현황과 시사점 - 브라우닝 펠리스 결정과 그 이후의 전개를 중심으로 -
노동법학
2023 .06
-
다원적 근로자 개념에 따른 프랜차이즈 가맹점주의 근로자성 ― 가맹점주의 ‘근로기준법상 근로자성’ 검토를 중심으로 ―
노동법학
2022 .03
-
사업 네트워크와 사용자 책임
노동법학
2022 .03
-
다면적 노무제공관계에서 부분적･중첩적 사용자성 ― 중앙노동위원회 결정의 의의와 과제 ―
노동법학
2021 .12
-
단체교섭 당사자로서의 사용자와 부당노동행위 주체로서의 사용자 - 대상판례: 현대중공업 사건, 울산지방법원 2018. 4. 12 선고 2017가합20070 판결 -
노동법논총
2019 .08
-
사내하청에 관한 세 가지 판단 : Browning-Ferris, 현대중공업 그리고 KTX
노동법연구
2016 .03
-
간접고용과 노동쟁의 조정의 쟁점
노동법학
2020 .09
-
사용종속관계의 개념 및 기준
노동법논총
2018 .04
-
헌법이 보장하는 단체교섭권 실현을 위한 ‘사용자’ 찾기
노동법연구
2022 .09
-
다층적 고용구조에서의 노동조합법상 사용자 - 단체교섭 의무를 중심으로 -
노동법포럼
2025 .03
-
프랜차이즈 당사자 사이의 집단적 노사관계
법학연구
2020 .03
-
원청은 하청노동조합의 단체교섭의 상대방으로서 사용자인가? - 택배노동조합사건에 대한 중앙노동위원회 판정을 중심으로 -
노동법포럼
2021 .11
-
근로관계에서 사용자의 취업시킬 의무와 근로자의 휴식
법학연구
2017 .01
-
미국 연방노동관계법상 공동사용자 지위 결정에 관한 규칙 개정의 의미 - 초기업별 교섭에서 사용자 지위 및 교섭의무 판단을 둘러싼 쟁점을 중심으로 -
산업관계연구
2024 .06
-
지금 왜 다시 사용자인가?: 플랫폼 노동관계에서 사용자 찾기
노동법포럼
2020 .11
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2019-336-000859132