The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed that police officers in the city of Mesa, Arizona were not entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to be paid for time spent donning and doffing their uniforms and protective gear, in the case of Fred Bamonte, et al. v City of Mesa, 08-16206 (9th Cir. 3/25/2010). According to the appeals court, since “officers had the option of donning and doffing their uniforms and gear at home, the district court determined that these activities were not compensable pursuant to the FLSA and the Portal-to-Portal Act.” The court agreed with this determination and affirmed the district court granting of summary judgment in favor of the City of Mesa. Since many factors affect determinations of compensable time under the FLSA, Vision Payroll strongly recommends employers consult with a competent labor law attorney to assure compliance with the FLSA.
Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, employers must provide a nursing mother a reasonable break time to express breast milk for up to one year after her child’s birth. There is no quantified limit on the number of breaks to be allowed or the duration of such breaks. Employers must provide “a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public” for mothers to use. Nothing in this amendment requires this break time to be compensated, although other federal and state laws may require compensation. Employers with fewer than fifty employees are exempt if the “requirements would impose an undue hardship” either through the relative difficulty or expense of complying with the law. As in other sections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), state laws may provide rules that are more beneficial to the employee and must be followed. Due to the vagueness of the law and possibility of conflicts with other statutes, Vision Payroll strongly recommends that affected employers consult with a competent labor law attorney to ensure compliance.
Since Daylight Saving Time begins in most parts of the country at 2 am, Sunday, March 14, 2010, many workers on a third shift will only work seven hours. At 2 am on that day, clocks are turned ahead to 3 am. The Fair Labor Standards Act does not require employers to pay employees for the hour not worked. Contact Vision Payroll if you have any further questions on the switch to Daylight Saving Time.
Many employers have real concerns about avoidable expenses resulting from employee damage to company property. Some employers have specific policies requiring employees to reimburse for the damages often in the form of payroll deductions or a deduction from the employee’s final paycheck. A common question, however, is whether or not such a workplace policy is appropriate.
Does it matter if the damage was accidental or caused by gross negligence, dishonest or willful acts (i.e., theft), or intentional misconduct? Does the employer need written authorization to make the deduction? What is the impact of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act?
To learn the answers to these questions and much more, be sure to read the featured article by the HR pros at MyHRSupportCenter, Making Employees Pay for Damaged Company Property. If you’re not yet signed up or would like a free trial of MyHRSupportCenter, contact Vision Payroll today.
The US Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued Administrator signed Opinion Letter FLSA2009-26. Although Opinion Letters only apply to the exact set of facts and circumstances presented in each case, they are a valuable aid in understanding current interpretations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Because the letter was apparently never mailed after it was signed, the DOL under new Secretary Hilda L. Solis has decided to withdraw the letter for further consideration. Therefore, this letter may not be relied upon as a statement of agency policy. It is possible that a different conclusion may be reached when the Opinion Letter is reissued.
In this Opinion Letter, the DOL had stated that client service managers (CSMs) at an insurance agency were exempt administrative employees. The general qualifications for an exempt administrative employee are an employee:
- Compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not less than $455 per week . . . ;
- Whose primary duty is the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers; and
- Whose primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.
It was assumed for the purposes of this opinion letter that the first qualification was met. Since the work the CSMs performed was similar to work performed by employees “ordinarily considered to meet the duties requirements for the administrative exemption” and since “the CSMs primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance”, the CSMs were considered to have met the “requirements of the administrative exemption and are accordingly exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA.”
State laws may provide rules that are more beneficial to the employee and must be followed. The DOL may come to a different conclusion when it reissues the Opinion Letter after further consideration. Contact Vision Payroll if you have questions about this Opinion Letter.
The US Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued Administrator signed Opinion Letter FLSA2009-25. Although Opinion Letters only apply to the exact set of facts and circumstances presented in each case, they are a valuable aid in understanding current interpretations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Because the letter was apparently never mailed after it was signed, the DOL under new Secretary Hilda L. Solis has decided to withdraw the letter for further consideration. Therefore, this letter may not be relied upon as a statement of agency policy. It is possible that a different conclusion may be reached when the Opinion Letter is reissued.
In this Opinion Letter, the DOL had ruled that employers could take deductions from an exempt salaried employee based upon the number of work hours missed when an employee misses an entire day of work. The employee in question was a Registered Nurse (RN) who was paid a salary to be on call and available for surgery. She was paid whether or not she was actually called in to the hospital. At some times, the RN was not available to be called for a full day. As long as the employee was absent for at least one full day, a deduction from her salary was permissible.
State laws may provide rules that are more beneficial to the employee and must be followed. The DOL may come to a different conclusion when it reissues the Opinion Letter after further consideration. Contact Vision Payroll if you have questions about this Opinion Letter.
The US Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued Administrator signed Opinion Letter FLSA2009-24. Although Opinion Letters only apply to the exact set of facts and circumstances presented in each case, they are a valuable aid in understanding current interpretations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Because the letter was apparently never mailed after it was signed, the DOL under new Secretary Hilda L. Solis has decided to withdraw the letter for further consideration. Therefore, this letter may not be relied upon as a statement of agency policy. It is possible that a different conclusion may be reached when the Opinion Letter is reissued.
In this Opinion Letter, the DOL had opined that a proposed pay system complied with the fluctuating-workweek method of payment. Under the proposed method, the employer would calculate the regular rate of pay by dividing a non-exempt employee’s fixed salary by 40 hours, regardless of the number of hours actually worked in that week, and using that rate to determine any overtime premium or double-time premium to be paid.
State laws may provide rules that are more beneficial to the employee and must be followed. The DOL may come to a different conclusion when it reissues the Opinion Letter after further consideration. Contact Vision Payroll if you have questions about this Opinion Letter.
The US Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued Administrator signed Opinion Letter FLSA2009-23. Although Opinion Letters only apply to the exact set of facts and circumstances presented in each case, they are a valuable aid in understanding current interpretations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Because the letter was apparently never mailed after it was signed, the DOL under new Secretary Hilda L. Solis has decided to withdraw the letter for further consideration. Therefore, this letter may not be relied upon as a statement of agency policy. It is possible that a different conclusion may be reached when the Opinion Letter is reissued.
In this Opinion Letter, the DOL had redefined its definition of a tipped employee in situations in which an employee performs some duties related to a tip-producing occupation and some duties unrelated to a tip-producing occupation. Such employees may have dual jobs, such as a maintenance man in a hotel who also serves as a waiter and a single job with dual responsibilities such as “a waitress who spends part of her time cleaning and setting tables, toasting bread, making coffee and occasionally washing dishes or glasses.”
Different courts had issued conflicting rulings as to whether and to what extent unrelated duties could be performed in tip-producing occupations, how those duties were to be determined, and when the tip credit could be taken. The DOL had attempted to clarify in which situations the credit could be claimed. It had listed certain duties that it considered “core or supplemental for the appropriate tip-producing occupation.” It also wanted to clarify that some time spent performing unrelated duties may be exempt under a de minimis rule in the regulations.
State laws may provide rules that are more beneficial to the employee and must be followed. The DOL may come to a different conclusion when it reissues the Opinion Letter after further consideration. Contact Vision Payroll if you have questions about this Opinion Letter.
The US Department of Labor (DOL) has announced that it has cited Robert Ferrari, Inc. for “child labor and minimum wage violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).”
According to the DOL, the investigation revealed both employment of individuals under the age of twelve and federal minimum wage violations. As a result, Ferrari was penalized $2,282 and $4,888, respectively. Additionally, a $700 penalty was assessed “for transportation and recordkeeping violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Protection Act (MSPA).”
Due to the complexity of the laws involved and the penalties that may be assessed for violations thereof, Vision Payroll strongly recommends employers consult with competent labor law attorneys to ensure compliance.
The US Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued Administrator signed Opinion Letter FLSA2009-22. Although Opinion Letters only apply to the exact set of facts and circumstances presented in each case, they are a valuable aid in understanding current interpretations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Because the letter was apparently never mailed after it was signed, the DOL under new Secretary Hilda L. Solis has decided to withdraw the letter for further consideration. Therefore, this letter may not be relied upon as a statement of agency policy. It is possible that a different conclusion may be reached when the Opinion Letter is reissued.
In this Opinion Letter, the DOL confirmed its previously stated position “that where a state law requires a minimum wage less than the federal minimum wage and forbids a tip credit, the employer may nevertheless take a tip credit in the amount of the difference between state and federal law.” The Opinion Letter was specifically concerned with a Minnesota law that “purports to prohibit taking a credit for gratuities ‘towards the payment of the minimum wage set…by federal law.’”
State laws may provide rules that are more beneficial to the employee and must be followed. The DOL may come to a different conclusion when it reissues the Opinion Letter after further consideration. Contact Vision Payroll if you have questions about this Opinion Letter.
Vision Payroll