Is it possible for a municipal library and an association library to share one employee? The association library would handle payroll and manage benefits, the municipal library would pay the association library their percentage for the employee's time. Could this happen with two association libraries and one municipal library? Individually, our libraries are unable to offer full-time with benefits, but collaboratively, we could provide a full-time position. What are the legal steps to creating such a job share?
I have good news, and bad news.
First, the bad news: most of the legal factors involved do not support this type of “job share.”
Now, for the good news: the type of capacity-adding at the heart of the member’s question is feasible…with a slightly different legal structure.
What are the legal steps to creating such an arrangement? For chartered libraries, they are numerous and intricate, but considering the goal (added service), the work might be worth it.
Here are the factors to consider:
1. The libraries’ chartered identity
The question cites a potential collaboration between a municipal and an association library. Just in that coupling, there are issues, since depending on entities’ size and type, the institutions will have different staffing requirements. When considering a capacity-adding staffing model, those requirements should be kept in mind at all times.
2. The libraries’ bylaws and staffing policies
Staffing requirements and other factors impacting staffing might be recited in the libraries’ bylaws and policies. So those documents, too, should be factored into this exercise.
3. The libraries’ plan(s) of service
Does the resulting staffing schema fit into their respective plans of service?
4. Labor law details, such as workers’ comp, unemployment, FMLA, and ADA
Here is where the technical nitty-gritty, and the concerns that generally bar “shared” staff between separate entities, starts. Whenever an employee is brought on to work at more than one legal entity, it is important to confirm who would actually be the employer, so the arrangement complies with state and federal labor regulations.
One example of why this is important is workers’ compensation. Per New York state law, if a worker sustains an injury on the job, that worker is covered by “comp,” and the employer is indemnified for (almost) any personal injury claim. This protects both the employee (who gets some wage/salary continuance) and the employer (who generally does not face additional liability for the injury). In a truly “shared” employee arrangement, with debatably two (or more) employers, the resulting ambiguity could result in a contested or denied coverage claim.
Another example of how a “dual employer” arrangement could be risky is revealed by considering the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under the ADA, employers are responsible for providing employees with reasonable accommodations for permanent and temporary disabilities; failure to do so can result in serious liability (and fines). But with a “shared” worker, it can be tough to know who would have that responsibility…and be responsible for failing to follow the law.
There are many more reasons along these lines.
5. Salary equity and benefits-related details
This is a critical one, because employees who are not treated equitably in comparison to other employees can have an array of legal claims. Examples abound: If one library offers more paid time off than the other, how do the libraries offer the “shared” employee a fair and legally compliant arrangement? If the libraries have different systems for evaluation and promotion, how does the employee advance? If one library is found to be treating a particular class of employee unfairly, does that impact the other library? While minimal staffing at the employing institutions might limit some of these concerns, even if there is one other part-time staffer to compare to, ambiguity could turn into liability.
6. The actual legal relationship between the libraries and the “shared” employee
From the legal perspective, this is where the rubber hits the road. For the reasons set out above (and many others), it would be almost impossible for both libraries be “joint,” employers: even if possible, it would likely be too risky. But with another legal relationship, this resource-sharing might be feasible.
What is that “legal relationship?” Well, it would depend, but the most feasible solution would likely be one library hiring an employee specifically to add to the capacity of other libraries. In this model, there would be no “shared,” employment; rather, the first library would offer their employees as extra capacity on a contractual basis.
In such a “Capacity Contract” scenario, money paid by the second (or third) library would not be a salary/benefit contribution, but rather, a fee for services (that happened to help pay for the salary and benefits of a full-time librarian). The relationship would need to be carefully set out in a detailed contract and hiring documents that confirmed how any performance evaluation, employee discipline, civil rights, personal injury, and other claims would be handled. And the factors I list above (starting with the identity of both libraries, and considering the various regulatory, bylaw, and policy obligations they have) would have to be assessed to see if it was even feasible. Most critical would be: is adding to the capacity of others consistent with the hiring library’s plan of service?
With careful planning by leadership and trustees,and input from an attorney and HR professional, this type of “shared” staffing could be built. The end result would be:
As I said at the beginning, this could be a fair amount of work. But if it provides a small library with access to specific expertise and a diversity of talent it might otherwise not be able to afford, it could be worth it. Just approach the details with care.
Thank you for this important question.
 In addition to those considerations, although it is not legal, I feel I must mention a quasi-political or strategic element. As we know, once taxpayers, municipal leadership, and other entities see cost-cutting, it is hard to close Pandora’s (newly efficient) box. So while it is not a legal consideration, per say, being mindful of how any innovations in staffing efficiency will play out long-term is wise. You don’t want a clever solution to become the tool of a permanent budget cut!