PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER? – Joint Employer, Single Employer, and Alter Ego Doctrines

Single Topic for Decision 2600M


View all topics for Decision 2600M

Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text

201.00000 – PARTIES; DEFINITIONS; WHO IS AN EMPLOYER?
201.04000 – Joint Employer, Single Employer, and Alter Ego Doctrines

In assessing a single employer claim, centralized control of labor relations does not necessarily depend on centralized authority over day-to-day matters. (El Camino Hospital District (2009) PERB Decision No. 2033-M, pp. 20-21 (El Camino) [entity has centralized control by virtue of its right to ratify collective bargaining agreements, even though it neither negotiated such agreements nor exercised day-to-day authority].) (pp. 20-21.) Moreover, common management can be found even in the presence of a dispersed management structure. (California Virtual Academies (2016) PERB Decision No. 2484, p. 73 (CAVA); accord Sakrete of Northern California, Inc. v. NLRB (9th Cir. 1964) 332 F.2d 902, 907, cert. den. (1965) 379 U.S. 961 [common management, centralized control of labor relations, and integration of operations can be demonstrated at the executive or top level, even where there is separation at a more localized level].) Practical and economic realities of the entities’ relationship also taken into account. (p. 24-25.) Strong evidence of common ownership and financial control exists between County and private for-profit Clinic corporations where County owns all Clinic premises, as well as all Clinic equipment and all Clinic revenues. All such revenues, and many Clinic expenses, are integrated into the County’s budget. The County covers all Clinic losses. The Clinics’ operating expenses exceed their revenues every year, and the County absorbs this shortfall. (p. 26.)