Vision Payroll

According to the US Department of Labor, in the week ending February 28, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 639,000, a decrease of 31,000 from the previous week’s revised figure of 670,000. The 4-week moving average was 641,750, an increase of 2,000 from the previous week’s revised average of 639,750.

According to the US Department of Labor, in the week ending February 21, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 667,000, an increase of 36,000 from the previous week’s revised figure of 631,000. The 4-week moving average was 639,000, an increase of 19,000 from the previous week’s revised average of 620,000.

The US Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued Administrator signed Opinion Letter FLSA2008-19. 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 confirms that exempt store managers do not lose their exempt status while training to become area sales managers. The company chooses store managers who are top performers to enter a seven-week training program to become area sales managers. Eight to ten store managers report to one area sales manager. At the beginning of the training period, the trainee performs little to no exempt work. As the program progresses, the trainee gradually assumes most to all of the responsibilities of the trainer. Successful trainees return to their store manager position to await an opening and a promotion. Unsuccessful trainees just return to store manager duties.

For this letter, the DOL assumed that both the store manager and area sales manger positions were exempt. Even though for some weeks of the training, the trainees may have performed mostly non-exempt work, the executive exemption need not be met or tested on a week-by-week basis. Since the primary duty of the trainees remained as store managers and since they did not perform “work that would otherwise be performed by nonexempt workers”, there is no reason for the trainees to lose their exempt status during the training program.

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 FLSA2008-18. 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 is a response to a request to treat itamae-sushi and teppanyaki chefs as tipped employees and thus allow them to participate in tip pools. Itamae-sushi chefs work in the bar area and prepare sushi that they serve to customers. Teppanyaki chefs prepare meals at customer tables on a teppan table and also serve the meals to the customers. Along with the itamae-sushi and teppanyaki chefs, servers, bussers, bartenders, and counter workers participate in the tip polls, while cooks and dishwashers do not. All participants regularly receive more than $30 per month in tips.

Itamae-sushi and teppanyaki chefs are more akin to counter workers who cook and serve food to customers than to typical chefs. Counter workers are allowed to share in tip pools. Since “any employee engaged in an occupation in which he customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips” is a tipped employee, itamae-sushi and teppanyaki chefs may both participate in the tip polls and be considered tipped employees.

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 FLSA2008-17. 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 clarifies that Certified Occupational Therapist Assistants (COTAs) employed by a school district do not qualify as either exempt professionals or exempt administrative employees in educational establishments. The COTAs were requesting to be reclassified from nonexempt paraprofessionals to exempt professional employees.

The educational requirement for COTAs “is that which is sufficient to obtain certification by the state Board of Occupational Therapy Examiners.” This requires “at least 60 academic semester credits or the equivalent from an accredited institution of higher education.” The DOL ruled that completion of only “60 semester hours does not qualify as a ‘prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction.’” Additionally, COTAs do not meet the standards to qualify as registered or certified medical technologists.

Also, since COTAs primary duty is related to the health of the students, they do not qualify under the administrative exemption for employees in educational establishments.

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 FLSA2008-16. 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 considers whether a Latino Victim Specialist (LVS) may also volunteer as a Reserve Police Officer (RPO) for the same public agency. As an LVS, the employee provides “counseling and other assistance to, among others, victims of crime, families experiencing domestic violence, citizens with mental or psychological difficulties who become involved in law enforcement matters, homeless persons, and parents having difficulties with delinquent children.” Since these duties are not the duties of law enforcement personnel, the employee is not considered to provide the “same type of services” when volunteering as when performing regular paid duties.

A second consideration is that volunteers cannot receive compensation, but may receive a combination of “expenses, reasonable benefits, or a nominal fee.” In certain situations when it needs extra police help for special assignments, the Police Department requests that the RPOs work and pays the RPOs the equivalent of entry-level pay for a regular Police Officer. Since this payment is clearly more than the DOL established standard of twenty percent of pay for a comparable position, this pay is more than nominal. There is no need to combine the hours worked as an LVS with the hours worked as an RPO, however, to determine if the employee is entitled to overtime pay for a particular pay period. Employees who “work occasionally or sporadically on a part-time basis for the same public agency in a different capacity from their regular employment” do not need to have their hours combined for overtime purposes under the FLSA.

Lastly, even though the LVS may not volunteer during weeks in which the individual receives compensation as an RPO, those weeks are not a part of regular duties as an RPO. Therefore, the LVS may volunteer as an RPO during weeks in which the Police Department does not request compensated RPO service. The Police Department may “terminate the LVS’s occasional and sporadic part-time employment as an RPO at the conclusion of such special assignments and return him or her to volunteer RPO status during other workweeks in which no compensated work is performed” so long as it is not done with intent to circumvent 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.

According to the US Department of Labor, in the week ending February 14, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 627,000, unchanged from the previous week’s revised figure of 627,000. The 4-week moving average was 619,000, an increase of 10,500 from the previous week’s revised average of 608,500.

The US Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued Administrator signed Opinion Letter FLSA2008-15. 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).

This Opinion Letter reviews a plan by a fire protection district to provide monthly stipends to its volunteers. Apparently, the plan provides for the following stipends for volunteers who perform twenty-four or more hours of service per month:

Volunteers cannot receive compensation, but may receive a combination of “expenses, reasonable benefits, or a nominal fee.” Generally, the DOL finds that a fee is nominal “as long as it does not exceed 20% of the amount that otherwise would be required to hire a permanent employee for the same services.” Since the district did not provide the DOL with market data to perform the 20% test, the DOL was unable to make the determination whether or not the fee was nominal. The district itself could make that determination, however, upon gathering the appropriate economic data.

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 FLSA2008-14. 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).

This Opinion Letter examines whether under the FLSA paid firefighters may also volunteer their services for the private, nonprofit volunteer fire department (VFD) for which they work. According to the DOL, the FLSA “permits public sector employees to volunteer their services to their employing public agency, assuming they provide their services for civic, charitable, or humanitarian reasons and there is no coercion or undue pressure on the employee, so long as they do not volunteer to provide the same type of services for which they are employed.” Although paid office employees of the VFD may volunteer as firefighters during their off-duty hours, paid firefighters may only volunteer as firefighters so long as their volunteer hours are added to the regular hours for the purpose of determining if these firefighters received the required minimum wage and overtime pay. This is true even if there is no evidence of coercion, since employees are not allowed to waive their rights 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 (DOL) recently issued Administrator signed Opinion Letter FLSA2008-13. 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).

This Opinion Letter examines whether under the FLSA paid emergency medical technicians (EMTs) may also volunteer their services for the local volunteer emergency crew (crew). The crew in question started providing emergency services in the county in 1970. A tax-exempt volunteer organization, it maintains it own by-laws and policies, elects a Board of Trustees made up of the general public, and maintains virtually complete control over its volunteers. In 2002, the county hired a Director of Emergency Services and five EMTs. The question is whether the paid EMTs may continue to volunteer for the crew under the FLSA.

The DOL considered both the FLSA and the decision in Benshoff v. City of Virginia Beach, 180 F.3d 136 (4^th Cir. 1999). It found the following similarities between Benshoff and the instant case:

1. The volunteer squads provided services before the county became involved.
2. The volunteer squads had their own officers and directors.
3. Even though the county holds certification power, the rescue squads reserve the right to accept or reject certified volunteers.
4. The county provides some funding to the squads, but the squads also have other funding sources.

One difference was that in the case under consideration, the county EMTs performed the same services as the volunteers, while in Benshoff, only the volunteers performed advanced life support.

The DOL concluded that the county has not eviscerated the independent nature of the crew and that the crew remains separate and independent 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.