Protecting Independent DSP Ownership: Why the NLRB’s Joint-Employer Standard Matters to DSP Owners

Amazon Delivery Service Partners (DSPs) are independent businesses. We hire employees, handle payroll, maintain vehicles, secure insurance, meet performance requirements, and take on significant financial risk.

But here’s an important question: If another company has meaningful control over how your employees work, should that company share some employer responsibility too?

That question is at the heart of something called the joint-employer standard, set by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Every DSP owner should understand it.

What Is a Joint Employer?

Under federal labor law, two companies can share responsibility for the same workers if both have meaningful control over employment decisions.

For example:

• Company A hires the workers and issues paychecks.
• Company B may be considered a joint employer if it has enough control over important working conditions.

A joint employer may be required to participate in labor negotiations and could be held responsible for certain violations of federal labor law.

Important note: This applies specifically to labor relations law. Other workplace laws—covering wages, discrimination, workers’ compensation, and taxes—use different legal standards.

What Changed in 2023?

Before 2023, the NLRB required a company to have direct and substantial control over employment decisions before it could be called a joint employer.

In 2023, the NLRB broadened that definition. Under the new rule, a company could potentially be considered a joint employer if it had the authority to control even one key employment condition—even if it rarely used that authority. Indirect control (exercised through another company) was also given more weight.

The key employment conditions included:

• Wages, benefits, and compensation
• Work schedules and hours
• Assignment of duties
• Supervision
• Workplace rules and discipline
• Hiring and termination
• Health and safety conditions

In plain terms, the central question shifted from:

“Does this company directly control the workers?”

to:

“Does this company have the authority to control any important part of their employment—directly or indirectly?”

What Happened to the 2023 Rule?

The 2023 rule never took effect.

A federal court struck it down in March 2024. In February 2026, the NLRB officially restored the earlier 2020 rule. Under the current rule, a company must actually exercise substantial, direct, and immediate control over at least one key employment condition to be considered a joint employer. Indirect influence or contract language alone is generally not enough.

This history still matters, though. The 2023 rule sparked an important national conversation:

When one company carries the formal employer responsibilities, but another company shapes how the work gets done—where should accountability fall?

For DSP owners, that question hits close to home.

Why This Matters to DSP Owners

DSP owners value their independence. We are entrepreneurs who want the authority to build sustainable businesses, take care of our employees, and own our results.

At the same time, DSPs operate within a highly structured delivery system—which makes it especially important to understand the difference between:

• Delivery standards (what the work should look like), and
• Employment control (how individual employees are managed day-to-day)

A company can define what service it needs, set safety expectations, and require specific results—without necessarily becoming the employer of a contractor’s workers.

The joint-employer question becomes more significant when another company directly controls how individual employees perform their work or influences major employment decisions.

Questions worth asking:

• Who sets employees’ actual schedules and hours?
• Who assigns specific routes or tasks?
• Who gives employees detailed instructions on how to do the work?
• Who evaluates individual employee performance?
• Can someone outside the DSP require an employee to be disciplined or removed?
• How much independence does the DSP have when responding to performance issues?
• Are outside instructions occasional, or do they regularly affect employment decisions?

No single question settles the issue. The full picture of the working relationship—both on paper and in daily practice—is what matters.

Business Control Is Also Part of the Fairness Conversation

The NLRB’s current test focuses on control over employment conditions. But DSP owners experience control on a much broader level.

Rate cards, route volume, scorecards, fleet requirements, insurance costs, technology systems, operating procedures, and contract-renewal risk all affect an owner’s ability to run a sustainable business.

These forms of operational and economic control don’t automatically create joint-employer status under the current NLRB rule. But they do raise an important fairness question:

If an owner carries the employment liability and financial risk, how much real authority does that owner have to manage the business responsibly?

The American Association of Franchisees and Dealers (AAFD) has raised a similar concern in the franchise world. Their position: legitimate brand standards shouldn’t automatically make a larger company a joint employer. But when a larger company controls both the workplace and key elements of business ownership, responsibility should follow that control. (Read the AAFD white paper.)

DSPs aren’t conventional franchisees, and franchise law doesn’t directly apply here. But the broader principle is relevant:

Authority, responsibility, and risk should be reasonably aligned.

Protecting Drivers and Owners Is Not an Either-Or Choice

Discussions about employment protections are sometimes framed as a conflict between drivers and DSP owners. That framing misses something important.

DSPs are not large corporations. They are businesses built by individual owners who often invest enormous time and effort getting their operations off the ground. Responsible owners care deeply about the safety, stability, and well-being of their teams.

• Drivers deserve fair treatment and safe working conditions.
• DSP owners need fair policies, sustainable economics, and enough authority to manage the responsibilities placed on them.

These are not opposing goals.

Policies that destabilize responsible DSP businesses create uncertainty for employees too—and for the families who depend on those businesses.

The better objective is a delivery model that supports safe workplaces, responsible ownership, operational sustainability, and fair accountability throughout the system.

Joint Employment Is Already a Live Issue for DSPs

An open NLRB case names Amazon and Battle Tested Strategies as alleged joint employers. The case includes allegations related to bargaining obligations and changes to employment conditions.

These are allegations—not final legal determinations. This case should not be taken as proof that Amazon is a joint employer across the entire DSP program.

It does confirm, however, that joint employment is not just a theoretical issue for DSP owners. (View the NLRB case docket. https://www.nlrb.gov/case/31-CA-317349 )

Any eventual decision would also need to be read carefully. Joint-employer determinations are highly fact-specific. Contracts, local practices, management decisions, technology use, and the specific evidence in a case can all affect the outcome.

Where DEFT Fits In

DEFT was created to give DSP owners an independent, collective voice on policies that affect the sustainability of our businesses.

Our goal is not to predetermine whether Amazon should be considered a joint employer—nor to eliminate independent DSP ownership or transition owners into corporate roles.

Our goal is to understand how the DSP model actually works in practice and advocate for a fairer alignment of authority, accountability, and financial risk.

Where Amazon’s policies are harmful to DSPs, DEFT’s approach is constructive, collective engagement aimed at practical solutions.

A clear understanding of the joint-employer issue supports that work by helping owners distinguish between:

• Legitimate delivery, safety, and service standards
• Restrictions on independent business decisions
• Direct control over essential employment decisions
• Financial risks assigned to DSPs without corresponding authority

These distinctions matter.

A difficult or expensive business requirement is not automatically evidence of joint employment. And calling a DSP an “independent business” doesn’t automatically resolve questions about control.

Effective advocacy requires facts, context, and a clear understanding of how policies operate in practice.

Questions DSP Owners Should Be Asking

Understanding where your authority begins and ends—especially when it affects your employees—is essential.

Here are questions worth examining:

• Which decisions can you make independently as a DSP owner?
• Which decisions require outside approval—or are effectively made for you?
• How are driver performance concerns communicated to you?
• Who determines how your business should respond to those concerns?
• Can you use your own judgment when coaching, disciplining, or removing an employee?
• How do changes in route volume or operating requirements affect your employees?
• Do you have enough financial and operational flexibility to respond responsibly?
• Do your written agreements reflect what actually happens in daily operations?

Approach these questions with facts. The strongest information clearly identifies what happened, who made the decision, what authority was exercised, and what options the DSP actually had.

Any formal guidance on document preservation, active proceedings, or potential legal claims should be developed with DEFT’s legal counsel.

The Bigger Picture

DSP owners are not asking to operate without standards or accountability. Standards are necessary in a large delivery network—especially when safety, service, and customer expectations are involved.

What owners are asking for is equally important: enough real authority to responsibly manage the businesses, employees, and risks assigned to us.

The joint-employer debate is one part of that larger conversation. A legal ruling is not DEFT’s only—or necessarily preferred—path to improvement.

The more fundamental goal is a sustainable DSP model in which responsible owners can remain independent entrepreneurs, care for their teams, and work cooperatively with Amazon to address policies that cause harm.

For DEFT, the principle is clear:

Responsibility should come with meaningful authority. And control should carry an appropriate measure of accountability.

This article provides general educational information and does not constitute legal advice. Joint-employer determinations are fact-specific. Any DEFT position concerning NLRB proceedings, proposed legislation, member documentation, or potential legal consequences should receive leadership and legal-counsel review before publication.