Although I believe that most employers do not draft their employee handbooks with the object of prohibiting or restricting conduct protected by the National Labor Relations Act, the law does not allow even well intentioned rules that would inhibit employees from engaging in activities protected by the Act. Richard F. Griffin, Jr. General Counsel for the NLRB.
The franchise world has taken considerable heat from the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] over the issue of joint employment. But that is not the only area of scrutiny that franchisors are facing from the NLRB. Wendy’s International LLC is taking heat about some of the employee Rules.
On its website, it affirmatively says: The National Labor Relations Board protects the rights of most private-sector employees to join together, with or without a union, to improve their wages and working conditions.
Pursuant to an informal, bilateral NLRB settlement agreement, Wendy’s International LLC agreed to modify its handbook Rules. The unmodified Rules were found to be “unlawful and overboard.” Here is a look at the Rules before and after modification:
There is one other thing. While not mentioned as a modified Rule, the NLRB made a point of calling out Wendy’s International LLC’s third-party representation provision, which “communicated that unions are not beneficial or in the interest of Wendy’s: [b]ecause Wendy’s desires to maintain open and direct communications with all of our employees, we do not believe that third party/union involvement in our relationship would benefit our employees or Wendy’s.” Now, if that doesn’t make the NLRB salty? Unions are not beneficial. Don’t write that in your employee rules. Really!
Take a look at your employee rule book and operating manuals. Are there provisions that are unlawful or overboard? Sometimes the slightest clauses intended to protect business interest can be viewed by the NLRB as unlawful or overboard.
Category: Uncategorized
Why Offering Unauthorized Products and Services May Be an Infringement of the Franchisor’s Trademark.
The holder of a trademark has certain rights, among them the power to prohibit another entity from using its mark without its consent. Those rights are subject to equitable defenses, including acquiescence, where the markholder affirmatively represents to another that it may use its mark, who then relies on that representation to its prejudice.
Under a franchise agreement, franchisors grant franchisees the limited license to offer ‘Authorized Products and Services’ using the franchisor’s trademark. But what happens if the franchisee offers products or services that are unauthorized or unapproved by the franchisor?
A recent case outside of the franchise realm suggests using the franchisor‘s trademark for the sale of unauthorized goods or services may be trademark infringement. The case is Pennzoil-Quaker State Company v. Miller Oil and Gas Operation, et al [Miller Oil] out of the fifth circuit federal court.
Pennzoil was granted and had an understanding with Pit Stop [Miller Oil] for a ‘non-exclusive license’ to use and display the Pennzoil marks. In return, Miller Oil agreed that it would not blend any Pennzoil products with non-Pennzoil products, or represent a non-Pennzoil liquid as one produced by Pennzoil. Pennzoil got a third party inquiry. Was Pit Shop oil really Pennzoil? Pennzoil did some investigating. A laboratory test was done on the oil. The oil that Miller was selling under the Pennzoil signage was not Pennzoil. Pennzoil sued for trademark infringement. And, they won. Miller Oil hence forth was prohibited from using the Pennzoil name.
Remember trademark infringement is all about consumer confusion. A trademark denotes the maker of the product. When folks buy a brand trademarked product or service, they are buying on an expectation. Customers are buying on the goodwill and reputation of the brand trademarked name. The sale of the off labeled, mislabeled products is an attempt to fool, misguide, and confuse the customer into buying a product that does not come from the trademarked entity.
Most, if not all, franchise agreements say that franchisees may only sell authorized products and services. The selling of unauthorized products and services probably, if not assuredly, is a breach of the franchise agreement. And, franchisees’ offering and sales of unauthorized products and services may very well be trademark infringement.
Discover more information about franchising.
Get our free newsletter.
Click here
What do Auditors look at when giving Consent?- Updating the FDD
In order to include audited financials in the franchise disclosure document [FDD] and for state registration purposes, auditors must give consent for the franchisor’s audited financials to appear in the FDD. In order to get consent from the auditors, the auditors may request to see a copy of the FDD.
As you hand over a copy of the FDD to the auditors, you may wonder, what are they looking at? To give consent you may ask, what are the auditors looking for?
What auditors look at is not congruent. There is no protocol or perimeters of what the auditors can or should be looking at. Different auditors may look at different things. Some auditors will just do a demonstrative glance at the FDD. Other may do a granular read. There is no consistency. But there are some commonalities. Here are some tips for preparing for the auditor’s review.
1. Make sure the list of the franchise outlets and total number of outlets in item 20 matches the revenue source that you reported to the auditors. If the numbers are different, be prepared to explain the difference.
2. Make sure the audited financials are properly identified in item 21 of the disclosure document.
3. Make sure the total franchisor revenues and profits stated in item 8 regarding earnings from franchisee and vendor purchases mesh with the audit numbers.
4. Make sure the litigation disclosures in item 3 are consistent with information provided to the auditors.
5. Make sure that the issuance date is acceptable to the auditors. In all cases the issuance and effective date should be after auditor has give consent.
Discover more tips for updating your FDD. Get our free franchisor FDD Update Workbook!
Click here
What you need to know about offering Franchise Fee Discounts.
Have you heard about 7-Eleven’s Zero Franchising Fee program? Under the Zero Franchising Fee offer, 7-Eleven is waiving the Initial franchise fee until June 30th on 200 stores for prospective franchisees ‘21 or older that are permanent U.S. residents, have excellent credit and $50,000 in liquid assets.’
Attracting qualified prospective franchisees is a challenge faced by many, most, if not all franchise systems. Offering discounts and special offers can be great way to attack prospects. However, franchisors need to be careful about discrimination and disclosure when offering discounts and special offers.
Many states have relationship laws, which prevent discrimination of franchisees. Yes, discrimination laws. When we think of discrimination, we think of employment issues and public accommodations. We don’t think of franchising. But, there are discrimination laws in franchising. Discrimination laws prohibit franchisors from treating similarly situated franchisees differently. Hence, charging one prospective franchisee an Initial Franchisee Fee and not another, because one is of foreign nationality or is over 50 years old, can go awry of franchise discrimination laws.
And, if you offer discounts or special offers, you must disclose the discounts and specials in the franchise disclosure document [FDD] at the time the special or discount is being offered and forever more. When the special or discount is being offered, the discount or special must be disclosed. When the offer expires or is withdrawn, the discount still needs to be disclosed in the disclosure documents, forever more.
It is common place for new or developing franchisors to offer Initial Franchise Fee discounts. It is common place for franchisors to offer discounts to defined groups such as military veterans or existing franchisees. It is all good. However, introducing such discounts should be done carefully. Before introducing discounts or specials, franchisors should:
1. Properly and clearly define perimeters and qualifications for the any discounts or specials, and
2. Amend franchise disclosures documents to reflect any discounts or specials.
Get our free franchisor FDD Update Workbook
Click here
What else do I need to include in the Annual FDD Update?
Every year franchisors are required to update their franchise disclosure documents [FDD] 120 days after the close of their fiscal year. For most franchisors the close of the fiscal year is December 31st. That means that under franchise disclosure laws, the FDD must be updated by April 30th.
To update the FDD, disclosures must be amended to include information about the previous year’s franchise outlets, franchisees, and franchisor financials. But, don’t stop there. Take a glance through the disclosures. Are some of the disclosures antiquated? For example do the disclosures talk about a POS system that you used 4 years ago. Are you considering an increase in initial franchise fees? Have you made changes to initial franchisee training program? During FDD updating process, it is also a good idea to review and make any changes to the FDD. These changes may include New Year initiative or simply updating any out-of-date information.
Franchisors are free and obligated to update the FDD throughout the year if material changes occur. But, amending the FDD during the year can be costly and delay franchise sales. If a change is made to the FDD during the fiscal year, franchisors may have to re-disclose prospective franchisees. And, the franchisor may be required to file amended registration with some states, which costs money and can result in delays for state registration effectiveness.
The number of disclosures and the amount of information contained in the FDD is huge. Trying to distill down any changes that may have occurred and not be reflected in the FDD can be confounding. To make it a little easier, we put together a checklist of the possible changes that may have occur. Take a look. Complete the check list.
Get our free franchisor FDD Update Workbook
Click here
Who Should be Required to Sign a Non-Compete?
Non-Competition agreements are common place in the general business world and particularly in franchise world. But have non-compete covenants gone too far? The state of New York and members of Congress are asking just that question. The inquiry stems around Jimmy Johns franchisees. Members of Congress have asked the Federal Trade Commission [FTC] to investigate the non-compete practice of Jimmy Johns and New York Attorney General has stated intent to request non-compete agreements distributed by franchisor Jimmy Johns.
Non-competition agreements, by general definition, prevent the signer from working in or having ownership in a business that offers or sells the same products or services for a specified period of time.
Unfettered non-compete agreements are thought to be a restraint on trade and thereby are only permissible to enforce a legitimate business. The enforceability of non-compete agreements is governed by state laws. And, the enforceability varies among states. Most notably, for example, California does not enforce non-compete agreements. California is an exception to the general rule, however. Most states will find non- competes are enforceable if they are for reasonable time period [1-2 years] in reasonable radius [i.e. 25 miles from the place of employment or other locations] and narrowly define what constitutes a competing business.
In a letter, which was intended to be sent to the franchisor of Jimmy Johns, released to HuffPost by Attorney General investigator Schneiderman’s office asserted that Jimmy Johns’ practices may be disfavored by New York law in that they target employees including those that “make tuna sandwiches or deliver food by bike from getting a job a sandwich shop 3 miles from a Jimmy Johns and there are multiple locations in nearly every state. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/22/eric-schneiderman-jimmy-johns-noncompete_n_6369146.html
As Huffington Post article points out, Jimmy Johns is not the only franchise with broad non-compete practices. Camp Bow Wow requires its dog sitters to sign non-compete agreements.
Attorney General Investigator Schneiderman, acknowledges in his letter to Jimmy Johns that, in many cases, an employer may have a “legitimate concern” regarding the theft of trade secrets, but it isn’t clear how that applies to people who make tuna sandwiches or deliver food by bicycle.
When developing and implementing non-competes, franchise’s non-compete policies should consider:
1. What information is trying to be protected?
2. Which employment levels or positions come into contract with trade secrets and confidential information?
3. What are the state laws in the franchise territory?
4. Are there less alternative agreements that would be more appropriate or more enforceable in situations as a substitution or in addition such as confidentiality agreements and non-solicitation agreements?
Stay informed about issues that matter to your business. Sign-up for our free Newsletter!
Click here
What you need to know before doing employee background checks?
Performing an employee background check is not as simply as turning an employee’s name, birth day¸ and social security number over to a credit reporting agency and waiting for the results.
Employers are bound to follow a prescribed set of steps when securing and using employee background checks. If you fail to follow the proper steps the consequences can be dire.
The prescribed steps are listed below:
1. Secure proper authorization for employee and applicants background checks. Authorization should be on a separate form. It should not be just a check-box on your job applications.
2. Notify affected employees or applicants of intent to take any adverse employment action based wholly or in partly of a background check prior to taking any adverse action.
3. Notify affected employees or applicants of adverse decision.
Employers are required to provide employees and applicants with a standardized form entitled A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The form must be given prior to taking any adverse action against an employee or applicant (i.e. not hiring an applicant, denying an employee promotion, firing an employee). A copy of the prescribed form can be obtained by clicking here or at https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/pdf-0096-fair-credit-reporting-act.pdf
Ignoring the employer mandates regarding employee background checks is not a good idea. Employers can be subject fines up to $1,000 or the actual damage for each violation plus attorney fees.
Stay informed about issues that affect your business! Signup for our newsletter.
Click Here.
How Defend-able is Your Trademark?
What do you do when you find out someone else is using your name to sell products or services? Send a cease and desist notice? Sue for trademark infringement? So is the case of POM Wonderful, LLC [“POM Wonderful”] v. Robert G. HUBBARD, Jr., DBA Portland Bottling Company, DBA Pur Beverages [“Pur”]. Pur Beverages began selling its pomegranate flavored energy drink using the word pom. POM Wonderful took exception. POM Wonderful filed a trademark infringement claim against Pur Beverages seeking to stop the use of the word pom in association with Pur Beverages energy drink. POM Wonderful sought an injunction. The trial court denied the preliminary injunction. The appeals court remanded the case back to the trial court to reconsider the issues.
When issuing a preliminary injunction, the court looks at the likelihood of prevailing on the trademark infringement claim. Here is a listing of factors considered by the appeals court:
1. trademark interest
2. likelihood of confusion
3. strength of trademark
4. the relatedness between goods or services
5. consumer care
6. similarities of the marks
7. marketing channels
8. actual confusion, intent, and expansion
When examining whether a trademark infringement is present all factors are considered. Not all factors have to present and no one factor is determinative if a trademark infringement is present.
If you see, someone else using your marks take a moment to evaluate the factors. It is not a deductive reasoning process. In the POM Wonderful case it required to 2 courts. And, we still don’t know the answer.
Discovery more about Trademarks and Branding. Get our free newsletter.
Click Here!
Are You Ready for the New Multi-Franchise Disclosure Changes?
Franchising has become increasingly a vertical structured system. There are franchisees owning several numerous territories. There are third party sellers and advisers all with varying licenses and developmental rights. Within the franchise industry there is lack of the consistency about the definitions used to describe the tiers under the vertical franchise structures. And, there is confusion about the appropriate and required disclosure regarding these tiers. The NASAA has stepped in to provide some clarity!
Back on September 16, 2014, the Franchise and Business Opportunity Project Group of the North American Security Administrators Association [NASAA] finalized Multi State Commentary on ‘practical guidance for disclosing certain multi-unit franchising arrangements that have become common in franchising but that are not specifically addressed under NASAA’s 2008 Franchise Registration and Disclosure Guidelines or the Federal Trade Commission’s [“FTC’s”] Franchise Rule.’
Below is a table of the 3 types of the franchise structures identified by the NASAA guidelines.
The effective date of this Commentary is March 16, 2014. If the franchisor or subfranchisor has an effective Franchise Disclosure Document, the franchisor or subfranchisor must comply with the Commentary 120 days after the franchisor’s or subfranchisor’s next fiscal year end- April 30th for most franchisor/subfranchisors.
If the franchise system offers one of these structures, numerous tweaks may need to be made to the existing franchise disclosure document and a new disclosure document may need to drafted.
Discovery more about Franchising. Get our free newsletter.
Click Here!
Save the Date!
We are pairing up with Michelle Hummel from Web Strategy Plus to present a lunch and learn for Social Media Enthusiasts. The topic is How to Increase Positive Reviews and Handle Negative Ones.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
11:30 AM to 1:00 PM
Newport Syndicate
18 East 5th Street, Newport, KY
This is an extension of our recent podcast entitled Patient Reviews: Getting Fans and Making Friends Online presented by the NAIMP [National Association of Independent Medical Practices].
During the lunch and learn, we will conduct tutorial demonstrations on how to respond to comments using different platforms such as Yelp and FaceBook and discuss tips on how to turn disgruntled customers’ complaints into positive customer relations experiences- AND still maintain privacy of customer information.
Michelle will key you into many social sites your business needs to be listed on to start collecting positive reviews!
Don’t worry, if you are not a health care provider. We promise to have plenty of the useful information for everyone! Visit the Social Enthusiast Website for more information: http://www.meetup.com/Social-Media-Enthusiasts/events/219719654/