Labor: Temporary staffing and PEOs
Employers that have decided to supplement their workforce with temporary or permanent workers must be aware of the nature of the assignment and their responsibilities under their states workers compensation laws and policies.
April 15, 2013 at 08:08 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Employers that have decided to supplement their workforce with temporary or permanent workers must be aware of the nature of the assignment and their responsibilities under their state's workers' compensation laws and policies. There are five basic staffing arrangements:
1. Temporary Services. This is the oldest and most frequently used of the staffing arrangements. The employer retains a staffing company to provide its workers for a defined period. These positions may be needed for a high-volume project or result from a current employee taking an extended leave. The arrangement is contractual and at no time is the temporary staff member an employee of the contracting employer.
2. Long-Term and Contract Staffing. This can take on many different contract terms and often arises for long-term project or off-site customer services. The assigned worker contractually remains the staffing company's employee. However, over an extended period of time—usually more than one year—and depending on the employer's supervisory role, joint employment issues can arise.
3. Payrolling/Professional Employer Organizations (PEO). This system involves an outside organization—often called an Employee Leasing Company (ELC)—providing payroll services and becoming the employer of all or part of the customer employer's workforce. The difference between payrolling and PEO arrangements is limited to the duration and number of employees involved. Payrolling generally involves only a subset of the employer's workforce. PEO arrangements apply when the employer surrenders all employees to the ELC. In these cases, the PEO is established as the employer of record. As a result, it is the PEO that assumes liability for workers' compensation and related employee services.
4. Outsourcing. In this arrangement, a staffing company with a specialty in a particular field or industry accepts responsibility for a performing a specific company function on a long-term or on-going basis. Generally, the employees are employed by the staffing firm and are supervised by it while on the customer's site. An example would be information technology service.
5. Temporary-to-Permanent. This arrangement allows customers to use the candidate's expertise without an initial long-term commitment. This is helpful to employers that are looking for a particular skill set but which do not have the time or resources to conduct an in-depth recruiting or hiring function.
Issues often arise in the above arrangements as to the responsible party for the provision of workers' compensation benefits if an assigned worker is injured. In all five arrangements, the employee remains employed by the staffing company. It is the staffing company or PEO that is required to provide workers' compensation coverage consistent with the statutory requirements of the employees' work state. If, however, the staffing company has no workers' compensation coverage, the employee in most states will be identified as a “statutory employee” of the customer and the customer's workers' compensation carrier will be responsible for providing coverage.
For employers that wish to use staffing companies, PEOs or ELCs there are affirmative steps that to insure that workers' compensation coverage is in place:
1. Do not accept oral representations that “all our workers are covered by our comp.” Require contractual terms that include confirmation that workers' compensation is provided consistent with state limits.
2. Require the staffing company to provide certificates of insurance at least every six months to verify coverage remains in place.
3. If possible, negotiate to be an additional insured or require the staffing company to provide an alternate employer endorsement under the terms of the workers' compensation policy.
Employers that have decided to supplement their workforce with temporary or permanent workers must be aware of the nature of the assignment and their responsibilities under their state's workers' compensation laws and policies. There are five basic staffing arrangements:
1. Temporary Services. This is the oldest and most frequently used of the staffing arrangements. The employer retains a staffing company to provide its workers for a defined period. These positions may be needed for a high-volume project or result from a current employee taking an extended leave. The arrangement is contractual and at no time is the temporary staff member an employee of the contracting employer.
2. Long-Term and Contract Staffing. This can take on many different contract terms and often arises for long-term project or off-site customer services. The assigned worker contractually remains the staffing company's employee. However, over an extended period of time—usually more than one year—and depending on the employer's supervisory role, joint employment issues can arise.
3. Payrolling/Professional Employer Organizations (PEO). This system involves an outside organization—often called an Employee Leasing Company (ELC)—providing payroll services and becoming the employer of all or part of the customer employer's workforce. The difference between payrolling and PEO arrangements is limited to the duration and number of employees involved. Payrolling generally involves only a subset of the employer's workforce. PEO arrangements apply when the employer surrenders all employees to the ELC. In these cases, the PEO is established as the employer of record. As a result, it is the PEO that assumes liability for workers' compensation and related employee services.
4. Outsourcing. In this arrangement, a staffing company with a specialty in a particular field or industry accepts responsibility for a performing a specific company function on a long-term or on-going basis. Generally, the employees are employed by the staffing firm and are supervised by it while on the customer's site. An example would be information technology service.
5. Temporary-to-Permanent. This arrangement allows customers to use the candidate's expertise without an initial long-term commitment. This is helpful to employers that are looking for a particular skill set but which do not have the time or resources to conduct an in-depth recruiting or hiring function.
Issues often arise in the above arrangements as to the responsible party for the provision of workers' compensation benefits if an assigned worker is injured. In all five arrangements, the employee remains employed by the staffing company. It is the staffing company or PEO that is required to provide workers' compensation coverage consistent with the statutory requirements of the employees' work state. If, however, the staffing company has no workers' compensation coverage, the employee in most states will be identified as a “statutory employee” of the customer and the customer's workers' compensation carrier will be responsible for providing coverage.
For employers that wish to use staffing companies, PEOs or ELCs there are affirmative steps that to insure that workers' compensation coverage is in place:
1. Do not accept oral representations that “all our workers are covered by our comp.” Require contractual terms that include confirmation that workers' compensation is provided consistent with state limits.
2. Require the staffing company to provide certificates of insurance at least every six months to verify coverage remains in place.
3. If possible, negotiate to be an additional insured or require the staffing company to provide an alternate employer endorsement under the terms of the workers' compensation policy.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDigging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
5 minute readFTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
6 minute readPeople and Purpose: AbbVie's GC on Leading With Impact and Inspiring Change
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1From 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Rollercoaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
- 2Critical Mass With Law.com’s Amanda Bronstad: Why Jurors in California Failed to Reach Verdict Over Zantac, Bankruptcy Judge Tables Sanctions Against Beasley Allen Attorney
- 3Jones Day Client Seeks Indemnification for $7.2M Privacy Settlement, Plus Defense Costs
- 4Elections Have Consequences: Some Thoughts on Labor and Employment Law Topics in 2025 and Beyond
- 5Law Firm Associates, Staffers Continue to Put a Premium On Workplace Flexibility, Study Finds
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250