Vision Payroll

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 (9^th 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.

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.

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.

This week’s question comes from Greg, a plant manager. We have a third shift that works from 11 pm to 7 am the following day. Some of the workers will work this Saturday night into Sunday. Do we need to pay for eight hours of work on the third shift Saturday night? Answer: Since Daylight Saving Time begins in most parts of the country at 2 am, Sunday, March 8, 2009 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.

The US Department of Labor recently issued non-Administrator signed Opinion Letter FLSA2008-13NA. 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). Unlike signed Opinion Letters, unsigned Opinion Letters do not “provide a potential good faith reliance defense for violations of the FLSA.”

This Opinion Letter discusses whether daycare instructors who spend a majority of their time teaching qualify as exempt teachers under the FLSA. The Opinion Letter stated “that the daycare center instructors [spent] a majority of their time teaching children between the ages of three and five a curriculum of basic reading, counting, and social skills.” The relevant State Department of Education did not license the daycare centers where the instructors worked, although they were licensed by the state’s Department of Public Welfare. The implication of this distinction is “that the state does not consider the day care centers to be providing educational services.” The Opinion Letter concludes that the instructors do not qualify for the teacher exemption since they do not provide elementary education under the laws of their state.

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 non-Administrator signed Opinion Letter FLSA2008-12NA. 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). Unlike signed Opinion Letters, unsigned Opinion Letters do not “provide a potential good faith reliance defense for violations of the FLSA.”

This Opinion Letter discusses whether a company that employs dump truck drivers uses an overtime calculation method in compliance with the FLSA. The company pays each dump truck driver a commission equal to 27% of the gross revenue that the company receives for the materials delivered by that driver. The company pays overtime based on one-half of the commission divided by the hours worked times the number of hours worked in excess of forty in that week.

For example, assume a driver delivers material that produces $5000 of gross revenue for the company and works fifty-four hours in that workweek. The driver would be entitled to commission compensation of $1350 ($5000 X 27%). This would work out to a regular rate of pay of $25 per hour ($1350 ÷ 54 hours). The driver would also be entitled, therefore, to $175 of overtime compensation ($25 per hour X 14 hours (hours worked in excess of forty) ÷ 2 (overtime premium rate)).

The DOL confirmed that this method of computing overtime pay was proper under the FLSA.

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 recently issued non-Administrator signed Opinion Letter FLSA2008-11NA. 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). Unlike signed Opinion Letters, unsigned Opinion Letters do not “provide a potential good faith reliance defense for violations of the FLSA.”

This Opinion Letter discusses whether Adult Detention Officers may volunteer as Reserve Sheriff Deputies under the FLSA. According to the Opinion Letter “[p]ublic safety employees taking on any kind of security or safety function within the same local government are never considered to be employed in a different capacity.” Therefore, volunteering as deputy sheriffs in the same public agency is not allowed for detention officers under the FLSA. The detention officers may volunteer, however, “[i]f the two employers are not the same public agency”. Opinion Letters FLSA2006-28 and FLSA2006-21NA both discuss how to determine if two employers are the same agency.

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 recently issued Administrator signed Opinion Letter FLSA2008-9. 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). This Opinion Letter discusses whether instructors in a cosmetology school are teachers who qualify for the professional exemption of the FLSA.

The instructors in the instant case are licensed cosmetologists in addition to being licensed as instructors by their State Board of Cosmetology. The school is licensed by that board and accredited by the National Accrediting Commission of Cosmetology Arts and Sciences. This accreditation qualifies the school as an “educational establishment”. Although the instructors do not have teaching certificates, their primary duty is “teaching and instructing students in cosmetology theory, as well as in the practical part of the curriculum.” This means that the instructors are “teachers of skilled or semi-skilled trades and occupations.” Therefore, the instructors qualify under the professional exemption of the FLSA.

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 recently issued Administrator signed Opinion Letter FLSA2008-8. 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). This Opinion Letter discusses which revenues of a non-profit shelter for homeless animals count toward “the $500,000 threshold for enterprise coverage under §3(s)(1)(A) of the FLSA”. Revenue for the shelter comes from the following four sources:

• Cash donations
• Fees for adoptions and spay/neuter certificates
• Membership dues
• Interest and dividends

FLSA provides coverage in two ways—enterprise coverage and individual coverage. Among other activities, enterprise coverage applies to enterprises with “sales made or business done” of $500,000 or more and two or more employees engaged in commerce or the production of goods for commerce. Since the US Department of Labor has generally held that income from eleemosynary activity does not count toward the $500,000 threshold, the shelter income from donations or dues would not be included in the calculation. Since services for adoptions and spay/neuter certificates are for a “business purpose…in competition with other businesses” they do not qualify as eleemosynary activities. Interest and dividends must also be counted toward the $500,000 threshold. Since the revenue of the shelter from these sources was less than $500,000, employees of the enterprise do not qualify for coverage under FLSA enterprise coverage.

Employees may still be covered under FLSA individual coverage for “any workweek in which they are engaged in interstate commerce, the production of goods for commerce, or activities closely related to and directly essential to the production of goods for commerce.” Examples given include the following:

• Making or receiving interstate telephone calls
• Shipping materials to another state
• Transporting persons to another state
• Transporting property to another state

The Opinion Letter states that the US Department of Labor does not require coverage for employees who only occasionally spend “an insubstantial amount of time performing” such work.

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 FLSA2008-7. 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). This Opinion Letter states that a substitute teacher may qualify for the Professional exemption of the FLSA if the substitute teacher’s primary duty is teaching. Generally, the Professional exemption requires a “knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction.” Under the state law at issue, substitute teachers do not need a college degree or teaching certificate if they have a state-issued substitute teaching permit. The DOL concluded that it was not the degree requirements that qualified teachers as learned professionals; indeed the requirements vary widely by state and even school, with no standard minimum qualifications. Since discretion and judgment is required for teaching, substitute teachers whose primary duty is teaching qualify for the exemption. Conversely, substitute teachers whose primary duty is not related to teaching do not qualify for the exemption. 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.