McDonald’s faces joint-employer fight over franchise worker treatment

In July 2014, Richard Griffin, the National Labor Relations Board’s general counsel, allowed 43 unfair labor practice complaints against McDonald’s franchises to go forward under a joint-employer theory. For workers whose paychecks come up short, schedules keep changing, or safety complaints draw retaliation, that fight can decide whether a case stops with the local owner or reaches McDonald’s Corporation too. At McDonald’s, the franchise system can make it harder to tell whether the local owner or the brand itself is responsible.

Why the chain structure matters on a shift

A local franchise owner usually runs the day-to-day staffing and discipline, but the McDonald’s brand still sets standards, approves systems, and benefits from the labor performed in the restaurant. That split is why workers and labor advocates have spent years fighting over who really controls the workplace when the logo over the door is the same everywhere. If the brand helps shape the rules that govern hours, pay, training, or discipline, the worker consequences do not stay neatly inside one store.

If you are dealing with unpaid wages, sudden schedule cuts, unsafe staffing, or retaliation after speaking up, the question becomes whether the brand can be pulled into the case alongside the franchisee. For organizing disputes, that can matter even more, because a campaign aimed only at the store owner can leave the company setting the rules untouched.

How the McDonald’s fight became a national test

The McDonald’s case became one of the National Labor Relations Board’s largest cases in years. By December 2014, Griffin had also announced charges against McDonald’s Corporation itself as a joint employer in 86 allegedly meritorious unfair labor practice charges.

The fight also became central to the Fight for $15 era, when workers and supporters argued that the company behind the golden arches could not claim distance from the labor conditions inside stores that bore its name. That broader push helped put franchise accountability into the same conversation as minimum wage legislation, because the debate was never only about one worker or one restaurant. It was about whether the brand-level company could structure low-wage work through franchisees and still avoid responsibility for what happened on the floor.

What the current rule says

The National Labor Relations Board’s final joint-employer rule was published on October 27, 2023 and became effective December 26, 2023. Under that rule, two or more entities may be joint employers if each has an employment relationship with employees and shares or codetermines one or more essential terms and conditions of employment. The 2023 rule replaced the narrower 2020 standard, which had required more direct control.

For restaurant workers, that change matters because “essential terms and conditions” are the things that shape the shift you actually work. Wages, scheduling, discipline, and working conditions are not abstract legal labels when your hours disappear or a manager retaliates after a complaint. If the brand shares control over those terms, the worker has a stronger argument that the complaint should not stop at the franchise owner.

• If your pay problem comes from a system or policy the brand helped set, a joint-employer theory can expand who is answerable.

• If scheduling decisions are tied to corporate standards or approved systems, the brand may be pulled closer to the dispute.

• If you face retaliation after complaining about conditions, the question becomes whether corporate influence over discipline reaches far enough to matter.

• If workers organize around pay or scheduling, targeting only the franchisee can leave the larger company free to keep the same rules in place.

The National Restaurant Association has warned that the 2023 rule broadens joint-employer exposure for restaurant operators. From the worker side, the broader standard can mean more leverage when the store operator is not the only entity shaping the job.

The settlement history shows how much the line has moved

The McDonald’s case did not follow a straight path. On March 20, 2018, McDonald’s and the NLRB reached a settlement in the joint-employer case. Then, on December 12, 2019, the NLRB said McDonald’s should not be held liable for labor practices of its franchisees and directed a judge to approve a settlement instead.

In August 2021, the NLRB asked a federal appeals court to uphold the settlement in the McDonald’s case. In April 2022, McDonald’s beat back a challenge to the settlement with the U.S. labor agency.