Vision Payroll

The US Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued Administrator signed Opinion Letter FLSA2009-15. 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).

In this Opinion Letter, the DOL confirmed that time spent studying for city-required training programs, seminars, and classes is compensable under the FLSA, but the time spent studying may be limited by the city. Regardless, all time spent studying is compensable even if it exceeds the limits set.

The city in question requires employees to attend and pass certain training programs designed to assist the employees in their jobs. Although the training is during normal working hours, “homework” is often assigned by the instructor. The homework is generally reading or studying certain material in preparation for future classroom discussion.

There are four criteria to determine if training programs and similar activities should be treated as compensable time:

1. Attendance is outside of the employee’s regular working hours;
2. Attendance is in fact voluntary;
3. The course, lecture, or meeting is not directly related to the employee’s job; and
4. The employee does not perform any productive work during such attendance.

Since criteria 1. ,2., and 3. are not met, the time spent by the employees in class must be compensated.

Homework required as part of a compensable training program is also itself compensable. The city may set a realistic limit on the time that employees spend studying. It is the responsibility of the city to see that such limits are not exceeded, but any time spent over the limit is still compensable. Alternatively, the city could allow employees time during their normal work day to complete any homework.

State laws may provide rules that are more beneficial to the employee and must be followed. Contact Vision Payroll if you have questions about this Opinion Letter.

The US Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued Administrator signed Opinion Letter FLSA2009-14. 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).

In this Opinion Letter, the DOL ruled that reducing a salaried employee’s pay due to a reduction in hours mandated by the employer may violate the salary basis requirement and jeopardize the employee’s exempt status.

In certain cases in which there is a low patient census, the employer offers voluntary time off (VTO). VTO allows the employees to take time off and “use paid annual, personal, or vacation leave, but continue to accrue employment benefits.” An insufficient number of volunteers under this system results in the implementation of an MTO (mandatory time off) system. Employees may then use accrued leave or take unpaid MTO. If an employee does not have sufficient time to allow payment under the leave policy or elects not to use accrued leave the employer deducts the VTO or MTO from the employee’s salary for that week. If the leave lasts the entire week, no salary is paid.

Under the FLSA, deductions from salary are not allowed when work is not available if the salaried employee “is ready, willing and able to work.” A reduction may be allowed “if it is a bona fide reduction not designed to circumvent the salary basis requirement, and does not bring the salary below the applicable minimum salary” (currently $455 per week). Deductions are allowed when exempt employees “voluntarily take time off for personal reasons, other than sickness or disability, for one or more full days.” The employee must truly volunteer, however, and it must not be “occasioned by the employer or the operating requirements of the business.”

State laws may provide rules that are more beneficial to the employee and must be followed. Contact Vision Payroll if you have questions about this Opinion Letter.

The US Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued Administrator signed Opinion Letter FLSA 2009-13. 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).

In this Opinion Letter, the DOL ruled that employees who take “web-based prerequisite classes at home in preparation for a voluntary job-related training class” must be compensated for the time spent. In this case, technicians could volunteer to take a training class during regular working hours to learn new and advanced features on Tellabs 5500 equipment. Tellabs required that the technicians, who did not work for Tellabs, complete four prerequisite classes, each lasting approximately four hours. These classes would be completed at home on the technicians own time.

There are four criteria to determine if training programs and similar activities be treated as compensable time:

1. Attendance is outside of the employee’s regular working hours;
2. Attendance is in fact voluntary;
3. The course, lecture, or meeting is not directly related to the employee’s job; and
4. The employee does not perform any productive work during such attendance.

Since criterion 3. is not met, the time spent by the technicians on the pre-requisite classes must be compensated by the employer, even though the other three criteria were met.

State laws may provide rules that are more beneficial to the employee and must be followed. Contact Vision Payroll if you have questions about this Opinion Letter.

The US Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued Administrator signed Opinion Letter FLSA 2009-11. 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).

In this Opinion Letter, the DOL concluded that a concessionaire at a privately-owned recreational establishment did not qualify as a recreational establishment. A recreational establishment is an “establishment that is an amusement or recreational establishment, organized camp, or religious or  non-profit educational conference center that either ‘does not operate for more than seven months in any calendar year,’ or, ‘during the preceding calendar year,’ has ‘average receipts for any six months of such year [of] not more than 33 1/3 per centum of its average receipts for the other six months of such year.’” Although a restaurant may qualify as a recreational establishment if the host establishment qualifies and the acts with the concessionaire as a single establishment, in this case the entities were separate and distinct.

State laws may provide rules that are more beneficial to the employee and must be followed. Contact Vision Payroll if you have questions about this Opinion Letter.

The US Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued Administrator signed Opinion Letter FLSA2009-10. 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 that community members who coach athletic teams qualify as teachers under the FLSA. Although a teaching certificate indicates that an employee qualifies for the exemption, there is no requirement that a teacher possess a certificate to qualify. Further, “there is no minimum education or academic degree required” for the exemption. Coaches qualify as teachers if their primary duty is “teaching and imparting knowledge to students in an educational establishment.” Since these community members apparently do not provide other services to the school district and there is no salary requirement for teachers under the FLSA, the coaches qualify and are exempt from minimum wage and overtime requirements.

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 FLSA2009-9. 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 ruled that civilian helicopter pilots employed by the Division of State Police do not qualify as exempt employees under the FLSA. The pilots are not executive employees since “their primary duty is not managing the department or subdivision in which they are employed.” They are not administrative employees since piloting a helicopter is not “office or non-manual” work. The DOL has long held that pilots do not qualify under learned professional exemption since their primary duty does not have any “advanced knowledge that must be customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction.”

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 FLSA2009-8. 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 reviews the pay policy of a company that engages primarily in “drain cleaning and other minor plumbing repair and replacement services involving such items as water heaters, disposals, and toilets.” Eighty to ninety percent of the company’s revenues are from retail sales or services to private homeowners. The technicians receive pay based on twenty-three percent of the revenues attributable to their labor and five percent of the revenue attributable to their parts sales. They also receive a monthly bonus that is dependent on monthly sales. Their pay is guaranteed to be more than 150% of the minimum wage and is generally three to six times the minimum wage.

The DOL ruled that “because more than seventy-five percent of its annual dollar volume of goods and services it not for resale”, it qualifies as a “retail or service establishment”. Employees of such establishments are exempt from minimum wage if:

1. The regular rate of pay of such employee is in excess of one and one-half times the minimum wage, and
2. More than half of the employee’s compensation for a representative period (not less than one month) represents commissions on goods and services.

Since the employees apparently qualify under these standards, they are exempt from the minimum wage laws.

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 FLSA2009-7. 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, a county ambulance service requires its employees to be on-call approximately forty hours per week. On-call employees must carry a pager, respond in uniform within five minutes, and abstain from alcohol and other substances. Over a test period of two months, the typical on-call employee responded twelve or thirteen times in a month.

Generally, on-call time is compensable when the restrictions are too burdensome or callbacks are too frequent to allow employees to use the on-call time freely. The DOL concluded that since the town was small enough that employees could travel anywhere in town and still be able to respond in the allotted time, since on-call employees were not disciplined even when taking as long as eight minutes to respond, and since the number of callbacks was not too frequent, employees had effective use of the on-call time for personal purposes and were not required to be compensated (other than time spent on call-backs).

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 FLSA2009-6. 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).

In this Opinion Letter, an employer requested an opinion as to whether its pilots are exempt under the learned professional exemption. The employer has eight full-time pilots to fly its Gulf Stream and Citation-Excel jet aircraft and its medium Sikorski S76A helicopter. The pilots transport the Company’s executives, customers, and guests on an as needed basis. “The Chief Pilot and all of the Captains (pilots ## 1 – 7) hold FAA Airline Transport Pilot Certifications; all of the pilots (including the First Officer, pilot #8) hold commercial pilot licenses with instrument and multi-engine ratings and each one meets or exceeds the FAA’s requirements to qualify as a pilot-in-command.”

The DOL reaffirmed that since aviation isn’t “a field of science or learning” and that pilots do not acquire their knowledge through a “prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction”, they are not eligible for the learned professional exemption.

For pilots and co-pilots of airplanes and rotorcraft with an FAA Airline Transport Certificate or Commercial Certificate who are paid a salary of at least $455 per week, the DOL takes a “position of non-enforcement”. This position also requires that the pilots or co-pilots be engaged as follows:

1. Flying of aircraft as business or company pilots;
2. Aerial mineral exploration;
3. Aerial mapping and photography;
4. Aerial forest fire protection;
5. Aerial meteorological research;
6. Test flights of aircraft in connection with engineering, production, or sale;
7. Aerial logging, fire suppression, forest fertilizing, forest seeding, forest spraying, and related activities involving precision flying over mountainous forest areas;
8. Flying activities in connection with transmission tower construction, transmission line construction, transportation of completed structures with precision setting of footings, concrete pouring; or
9. Aerial construction of sections of oil drilling rigs and pipe-lines, and ski-lift and fire lookout constructions.

State laws may provide rules that are more beneficial to the employee and must be followed. Contact Vision Payroll if you have questions about this Opinion Letter.

The US Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued Administrator signed Opinion Letter FLSA2009-5. 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).

In this Opinion Letter, the DOL confirmed that lifeguards employed for less than seven months of the year are exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA. The lifeguards in question were employed by a town “to protect swimmers at the local beach.”

Since employees of an “establishment that is an amusement or recreation establishment, organized camp, or religious or non-profit conference center” that is not open more than seven months in a calendar year are exempt from the FLSA, a key factor was the definition of “establishment”. The Opinion Letter also confirmed that an amusement or recreational establishment supported by tax revenues cannot qualify under a second test involving the seasonality of the revenue collected.

The Opinion Letter clarified that “the term ‘establishment’ refers to a distinct physical place of business rather than to an entire business or enterprise, which may include several separate places of business.” Also, the fact that some employees may work more than seven months in a year does not deny the exemption as long as the beach is not open for protected swimming for more than seven months.

State laws may provide rules that are more beneficial to the employee and must be followed. Contact Vision Payroll if you have questions about this Opinion Letter.