As we have been reporting, March 12 was the deadline for submitting comments regarding the U.S. Labor Department's proposal "to collect information about employment experiences and workers' knowledge of basic employment laws and rules so as to better understand employees' experience with worker misclassification."  Despite our having asked for a copy of the proposed survey in a letter to USDOL dated January 14, we never received one.  Those who responded to our February 20 straw poll said that neither had they received a copy.

We have now submitted a comment (link to reproduction below) taking the position that the proposed collection of information should not be cleared, approved, or undertaken.  As we said to USDOL:

[the] circumstances strongly suggest that the Labor Department has failed to provide an adequate opportunity for public comment on this proposed information collection.  The Labor Department has clearly failed to do so with respect to members of the public who have expressed their interest in commenting by requesting copies but to whom it has provided none.  This state of affairs does not comport with the requirements and purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

If USDOL nevertheless proceeds with its proposal at this point, the design and content of the survey, as well as the results produced by it and the use to which that outcome is put, might well be tainted and subject to challenge in light of the inadequate opportunity afforded for public comment on the proposal.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

Worker Classification Survey Comment 03 12 13 .pdf (47.81 kb)

Readers will recall our January post concerning the U.S. Labor Department's announced intention to "to collect information about employment experiences and workers' knowledge of basic employment laws and rules so as to better understand employees' experience with worker misclassification."  As we said then, this is likely to be a precursor to a renewed "Right to Know" initiative.

USDOL did not publish the actual proposed survey along with its January 11 Federal Register entry.  On January 14, we requested a copy from the official to whom USDOL directed that these requests be sent (link to reproduction below).  As of this writing, 38 days later, and after appreciably more than half of the comment period has elapsed, we have received neither a copy nor any other response.

The end of the comment period is March 12, 2013, 21 days from now.  As matters stand, one may reasonably conclude that the public has had no adequate, fully-informed opportunity to evaluate the proposed survey or to formulate and submit substantive comments.

We are led to wonder whether our experience is representative of the public's at-large.  If you requested a copy of the proposed information collection also, please respond to our poll to let us know whether you received one.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

Request For Proposed Information Collection.pdf (62.35 kb)

As we speculated in November, the U.S. Labor Department apparently does intend to reinvigorate its so-called "Right to Know" initiative.  This vague and ambiguous proposal first surfaced in 2010 but was eventually shelved.  USDOL has now announced its intention to conduct a survey "to collect information about employment experiences and workers' knowledge of basic employment laws and rules so as to better understand employees' experience with worker misclassification."

"Right to Know" About What?

In 2010, USDOL said that such a rule would require among other things the "notification of workers' status as employees or some other status such as independent contractors, and whether that worker is entitled to the protections of the [federal Fair Labor Standards Act]."  Many wondered at the time whether the provision would extend to disclosures about management's decisions as to which employees are considered to be exempt from the FLSA's pay requirements, and Wage and Hour Division officials seemed to be avoiding the question.  USDOL's recent announcement says, "Worker misclassification can be understood as the practice, intended or unintended, of improperly treating a worker who is an employee under the applicable law as in a work status other than an employee (i.e., an independent contractor)."  For the moment, then, the focus appears to be upon erroneously deeming workers to be independent contractors or incorrectly considering them to be functioning in some other non-employee capacity.

The announcement also provides at least some hint of what a "Right to Know" regulation will entail.  USDOL notes that "federal labor laws" do not require an employer to:

♦   Inform workers of their status as employees or non-employees;

♦   Provide the basis for these status determinations; or

♦   Notify the workers of their hours worked, pay rates, and wages paid.

Presumably, any "Right to Know" rules will obligate employers to provide this information, although to whom, when, in what form, to what extent, and at what level of detail remain unknown.

What Happens Next?

USDOL seeks comments on its proposed information collection by March 12, 2013.  However, it did not publish the actual information request.  Instead, a copy of this document must be obtained separately, raising the question of whether USDOL's announcement complies with the notice requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.  In any event, we have asked for a copy and will post the document when we receive it.

The notice specifies 30 months as the evaluation timeframe but then says in the same sentence that the period ends in March 2014.  Perhaps USDOL will later clarify which of these is its intention.

Businesses and other organizations (particularly those whose operational models include the use of non-employee workers) would be wise to take the opportunity to weigh-in on this proposed survey, to participate in the survey when it occurs, and otherwise to follow these developments closely.  It is foreseeable that the actual information collection might be orchestrated so as to provide a predicate for unprecedented new requirements.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

For many years, some employers have chosen to "round" non-exempt employees' time entries in computing their wages.  News items in recent days have reported on a California appellate court's ruling in See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court and Silva that a properly administered "rounding" practice does not violate California wage-hour law.

This is of course good news for California employers, and to some extent for employers across the nation (See's Candy is not binding precedent outside of California or under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act).  Nevertheless, management should not take it as a foregone conclusion that "rounding" worktime is beyond dispute in every situation.

It is first necessary to attach a common understanding to the term "rounding", because the word is used to describe a multitude of different practices.  This can be done with reference to the U.S. Labor Department's enforcement policy that played a central role in See's Candy.  USDOL says that, under the FLSA, it will not challenge an employer's practice of rounding a worker's starting and stopping times to the nearest 5 minutes or to the nearest tenth or quarter of an hour in calculating his or her pay, assuming that the practice "averages out over a period of time" such that employees are properly paid for all of their worktime.  See, e.g., 29 C.F.R. § 785.48(b).

USDOL appears to mean that rounding should result in an employee's being credited with at least as much time as he or she has actually worked over the long-term.  Consequently, the ultimate question under USDOL's approach gets down to the impact of such a policy or practice:  If rounding does not result in a failure to pay the legally-required wages in the long run, then its effect is not unlawful under the FLSA.  Given the uncertainty that USDOL embraces in using a phrase like "averages out" and the imprecision surrounding what "period of time" might be appropriate for judging this, evaluating rounding's effect might reasonably be viewed as a question of probability, rather than exactitude:  Is it probable that the employer's practice will, over time, capture and properly compensate at least as much time as the employee actually works?

See's Candy underscores that rounding is emerging as yet another source of potential wage-hour claims.  However, the case also supports the view that there is nothing inherently unlawful about rounding worktime consistently with USDOL's policy.  Even so, it is likely to be a while before a court consensus emerges to refine the parameters of the principles and considerations underlying USDOL's policy.  And, as always, an employer should continue to take into account whether and how state or local laws address rounding under their own wage-hour requirements.
 

◊ Have a comment or something else to add? Please use our comment feature below.

Now that the election is behind us, employers should consider what they might anticipate in the field of wage-hour law, which is already one of the largest sources of employment-law claims.  While the nature and number of the possible developments are practically unlimited, some of the foreseeable ones include these:

♦   The push to increase the minimum wage under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which was at fever-pitch before going dormant as the election season approached, will now re-emerge.  There will be similar efforts under many analogous state and local laws and ordinances.

This will probably include proposals to increase the FLSA's cash-wage requirement for tipped employees for whom employers take that law's tip-credit.  The public-relations approach will be that this increases "the minimum wage for tipped workers", despite the fact that the FLSA minimum wage for tipped employees is already the same as it is for everyone else.

 ♦   Analogous moves might well seek to increase the salary amount required for some of the FLSA's exemptions from minimum-wage and overtime, as well as to impose paid-leave requirements.  Recall the March bill introduced by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin which proposed both, including requiring most employers of at least 15 employees to accrue an hour of paid "sick time" for every 30 hours an employee works, up to at least 56 hours each calendar year.

Another possible measure might involve an attempt to raise the FLSA overtime-pay multiple from its current 1.5 times the regular rate to 2.0 times that rate.  This might be joined with reducing the threshold number of hours for FLSA overtime from 40 hours in a workweek to, say, 35 hours.  Similar FLSA amendments were proposed in the late 70s and early 80s, during another period of high unemployment and persistent economic stagnation.  A further impetus this time around might be the already-burgeoning rates of part-time employment, taken in conjunction with what could be a further trend toward part-time work driven by looming Affordable Care Act requirements.

 ♦   Aggressive government enforcement at federal and state levels is likely to expand.  There will be an even-more-intensified focus upon whether workers treated as independent contractors should instead be viewed as employees.  Employers should expect further national or regional enforcement initiatives undertaken with respect to entire industries.  These initiatives will include (among others) those directed at what the U.S. Labor Department has called "low wage" sectors, such as hospitality businesses and food retailing, retailing in general, some healthcare segments, landscaping, some construction segments, temporary-help agencies, daycare/homecare, agriculture, janitorial services, garment manufacturing, and guard services.

 ♦   Following a noisy notice-and-comment period that ended in March, proposals that would essentially spell the end of the FLSA exemptions for companions and live-in domestic-service workers suddenly dropped from view as the election season commenced.  These provisions will probably be released in their final form in the not-too-distant future.

Another distinct possibility is the revival of the so-called "Right to Know" regulations, which USDOL said would require "notification of workers' status as employees or some other status such as independent contractors, and whether that worker is entitled to the protections of the FLSA."  USDOL further said that the proposal would "also explore requiring employers to provide a wage statement each pay period to their employees," apparently so as to convey to employees "how their pay is computed."  The reach of these provisions would likely be even broader than USDOL has so far disclosed.

 ♦   The "wage theft" movement toward increasingly-draconian penalties and punishments will move forward with renewed energy, especially at the state and local levels.  For proponents of these measures, wage-law violations are unrelated to the multi-jurisdiction, patchwork nature of differing, obscure, sometimes-conflicting, ambiguous and ill-defined, rapidly-changing requirements that are proliferating across the nation.  No, as this publication [Editor's Note:  Link Apparently Taken Down] illustrates, in their eyes employers are instead "dishonest", unscrupulous scofflaws who are "stealing" money from workers.  Employers who remain disengaged on this front and who acquiesce in these pejorative campaigns do so at their peril.

It has never been more important for employers to remain vigilant, informed, and assertive about all of these matters.  It is also essential that each employer ensure right now that it is in compliance with all applicable wage-hour requirements.

◊ Have a comment or something else to add? Please use our comment feature below.

In thinking-through and implementing their recovery plans in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, employers will want to review our August post summarizing a number of federal Fair Labor Standards Act issues that typically arise following a natural disaster.

Readers will recall our typical reminder that the requirements and limitations of other laws must also be taken into account.  This is especially important where Sandy's impact is concerned, because the laws and regulations of some jurisdictions in the hardest-hit areas are often different and/or much tougher on employers than the FLSA is.

As just one example, New Jersey law provides, "No employer shall terminate, dismiss or suspend an employee who fails to report for work at his or her place of employment because he or she is serving as a volunteer emergency responder during a state of emergency declared by the President of the United States or the Governor of this state or is actively engaged in responding to an emergency alarm . . .," subject to certain notices and verifications.  This law does not require an employer to pay for the time missed (although treating some such time as unpaid might create problems under other requirements, such as the "salary basis" principles applying to certain exemptions under the FLSA), but it does say that "a volunteer emergency responder may charge his or her absence as a vacation day or a sick day, if the volunteer has such days available."  N.J. Stat. Ann. § 40A:14-214 (link to reproduction below).

The important take-away is that employers should be sure to consider all of the relevant directives and prohibitions as they decide how to proceed.  Haste and conventional wisdom could lead to trouble down the road.

 N.J. Volunteer Responder Statute.pdf (17.01 kb)

◊ Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

Recurring wage-hour issues tend to arise during the recovery from a natural disaster.  We posted the following item last year in connection with Hurricane Irene, and the points are equally relevant this time around:

*     *     *

Affected employers will no doubt have a variety of wage-hour questions in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene.  The number and scope of the issues raised might well be practically endless.  In this post, we address in very general ways the federal Fair Labor Standards Act topics that experience suggests will be among the most-pressing.

◊   What do we do about lost time records for work already performed but not yet paid?

If the only records of hours worked are lost or unusable, then there is no perfect solution.  Re-create the most accurate accounting you can under the circumstances.  Perhaps the preferred approach is to ask each employee to make the best-possible estimate of his or her hours worked. You should obtain the employee's written acknowledgement of his or her best recollection and should include the employee's authorization allowing later corrections in worktime and pay should more accurate hours-worked information become available.

◊   How do we track employees' worktime without our electronic/computerized time clocks?

Employees may record all hours worked by using handwritten timesheets.  To ensure accuracy, each employee should enter his or her own time and should record the actual times when the employee's work starts and stops each workday.

◊   As we recover, must we keep paying overtime on top of our other burdens?

At this time, there is no FLSA "emergency" exception that relieves the obligation to pay FLSA-required wages.  Employees subject to the FLSA's overtime provision must receive overtime premium at a rate of at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in the designated seven-day workweek.

If employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, it might contain additional overtime provisions requiring more than the FLSA does.  Perhaps the terms of the agreement relax those requirements in emergencies.  However, a collective bargaining agreement cannot override the FLSA's requirements.

◊   Can an employee volunteer to perform recovery services for us without pay?

The FLSA does not permit employees to "volunteer" unpaid time to the employer under any but the narrowest of circumstances.  For example, if a manufacturing facility sets up a hotline or makes other arrangements to provide a clearinghouse for information about the status of the workplace and employee reporting times, non-exempt employees volunteering to perform such services are engaged in compensable hours worked for FLSA purposes.  Employers considering any kind of unpaid "volunteer" services by their employees should evaluate the legality of doing this carefully and in advance.

◊   Must we keep paying employees who are not working?

Under the FLSA, for the most part the answer is "no".  FLSA minimum-wage and overtime requirements attach to hours worked, so employees who are not working are typically not entitled to the wages the FLSA requires.

One possible FLSA-related exception is for employees treated as FLSA-exempt whose exempt status requires that they be paid on a "salary basis".  Generally speaking, if such an employee performs at least some work in the designated seven-day workweek, the "salary basis" rules require that he or she be paid the entire salary for that particular workweek.  There can be exceptions here, too, such as might sometimes be the case where the employer is open for business but the employee decides to stay home for the day.

Also, non-exempt employees paid on a "fluctuating-workweek" basis under the FLSA normally must be paid their full fluctuating-workweek salaries for every workweek in which they perform any work.  There are a few exceptions, but these are even more-limited than the ones for exempt "salary basis" employees.

Of course, an employer might have a legal obligation to keep paying employees because of, for instance, an employment contract, a collective bargaining contract, or some policy or practice that is enforceable as a contract or under a state wage law.

◊   What can we do about charging missed time to vacation and leave balances?

The FLSA generally does not regulate the accumulation and use of vacation and leave.  The "salary basis" requirements for certain FLSA-exempt employees can implicate time-off allotments under various circumstances, some guidance on which the U.S. Labor Department has provided in opinion letters accessible here and here.

Again, however, what an employer may, must, or cannot do where paid leave is concerned might be affected by an employment contract, a collective bargaining contract, or some policy or practice that is enforceable as a contract or under a state wage law.

◊   When is travel time "hours worked" for purposes of computing FLSA wages due?

FLSA travel-time "rules" are not seamless, up-to-date, or necessarily logical or consistent with common sense.  The best-known ones are that:

•   Normal commuting between home and work typically is not considered to be hours worked, and

•   Travel between one assignment and another during a workday typically is hours worked.

However, even these principles are subject to exceptions and elaboration.  The best starting point is to consider each scenario an employer faces under the U.S. Labor Department's basic interpretations on travel time.  They are compiled at 29 C.F.R. §§ 785.33-785.41 and may be accessed here.

Remember that other requirements, such as those applying to government contractors or subcontractors and those of states or other jurisdictions, can also be relevant to these questions.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

The best answer to last week's Quick Quiz is, "No", it is not likely that Alan's time between calls would be found to be worktime under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The idle time during which an otherwise off-duty employee is available to be called upon to do something might or might not be compensable FLSA "hours worked", depending upon the situation.  Generally, the question is whether this idle time while "on call" is spent predominantly for the employer's benefit as opposed to the employee's.  The answer usually turns upon the extent to which the employee is able to use the time effectively for personal purposes.

What Are The Important Factors?

The U.S. Labor Department and the courts say that this determination requires an evaluation of all the relevant facts.  Among the things often considered are whether:

♦   The employer requires the employee to remain on the employer's premises;

♦   The employer requires the employee to wait at home for calls or messages or confines the employee to an excessively-restricted geographical area;

♦   The employee receives numerous, frequent, and/or lengthy work assignments during the on-call period;

♦   The employee must respond within a short timeframe under the circumstances (especially if the employee must travel somewhere to do the work);

♦   The employer requires the employee to be on-call frequently, never relieves the employee from on-call status, does not permit the employee to exchange calls or call periods with another worker, or does not allow the employee to turn down at least some calls;

♦   There is an agreement or understanding covering the arrangement (although an employee may not agree to anything that violates the FLSA).

Ordinarily, some combination of restrictive factors is present when idle on-call time is found to be compensable work.

But the time need not be free from any restrictions whatsoever.  For example, courts have found these periods not to be worktime even though the employer required the employee to remain sober and not to take any mind-altering drugs, or to stay well-groomed and appropriately dressed.  Neither is it necessary for the employee to be able to engage in literally any personal activity he or she might wish.

So What About Alan's Situation?

Alan is on-call only for seven days a month, and only for six hours on each on-call day.  He need only phone within 30 minutes after receiving a message, rather than physically report somewhere within that time.  He averages far less than one duty-message per on-call day and spends roughly 5% to 7% of his on-call period performing work.  Although he cannot drink alcohol and must stay in the area, these restrictions standing alone do not mean that he is unable to use the on-call time for a wide variety of personal purposes.  It is probable that a decisionmaker would not see these particular circumstances as causing Alan's idle on-call time to be FLSA "hours worked".

Of course, the predominant-benefit question is necessarily fact-specific.  Therefore, each situation should be separately evaluated.

And Don't Forget . . .

States and other jurisdictions might have "on call" rules that are tougher on employers than the FLSA is.  Employers should look at every applicable wage-hour law to find out whether this is the case.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

Alan is a Help Desk Associate for The Big Corporation.  He is subject to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum-wage, overtime, and timekeeping requirements.

Alan normally works from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m., Tuesday through Saturday.  Once each calendar month, Alan is on-call between 5 p.m. and 11 p.m. each day for a seven-day period.

He has to call-in within 30 minutes after receiving an e-mail on his cellphone.  While he is on-call, he cannot drink alcoholic beverages, and he cannot leave the metropolitan area in which he lives.  Typically, Alan receives two or three messages in a seven-day on-call period and spends about an hour dealing with each problem that prompted the e-mails he received.  He accurately records all of the time he spends handling those problems, and his employer pays him properly under the FLSA for this worktime.

But what about the remaining time for which Alan is on-call?  Is it likely that his idle time between calls will be deemed to be FLSA "hours worked"?

A recent Time magazine item by Dan Schawbel of Millennial Branding discusses what he sees as a growing trend to abandon the traditional on-premises, 9-to-5 workday in favor of permitting employees to "work odd hours, telecommute and otherwise tweak the usual 9 to 5 grind."  Schawbel says that Generation Y employees (those born between 1982 and 1993) are spearheading this because they prioritize workplace flexibility so highly.  He warns that employers who fail to offer the option to telecommute, to work atypical hours, and to use technology to facilitate alternative work patterns run the risk of turning away a group of prospective workers projected to comprise 75% of the global workforce by 2025.

Be that as it may, it is also essential to take wage-hour compliance into account in deciding how to accommodate this trend.  Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act alone, thorny issues are presented by employees who spend less worktime on-premises in favor of working at home and elsewhere and at unpredictable times.  Complicating matters is the fact that the FLSA is in many ways an unforgiving creature of a bygone era in which workplace flexibility was largely irrelevant.

As just one illustration, an employer's responsibility to keep an accurate record of non-exempt employees' hours worked has been a challenging task even when the employees report to a single workplace and perform their duties during a normal, fixed-schedule workday.  Employers have now been hit with FLSA claims based upon the additional timekeeping difficulties posed by the advent of helter-skelter, offsite work activities made possible by computers, personal digital assistants, and other remote-access electronics.

The U.S. Labor Department is also following these trends.  We reported last May about DOL's release of a smartphone app designed to help employees "independently track the hours they work and determine the wages they are owed."  This development likely represents an increased threat of claims by tech-savvy employees who work under non-traditional circumstances.

And while employees might favor a flexible approach in the beginning, experience suggests that some will not hesitate to make wage-hour claims later when it behooves them to do so.  Employers cannot count on successfully defending against these claims simply on the basis that the workers agreed to the arrangement, or even that they sought it out.  Neither is it is likely to be a broad-based solution to "make them all exempt."

In the end, employers who move toward letting employees "tweak the 9 to 5 grind" must commit themselves to joining this with effective methods to maintain wage-hour compliance, including measures ensuring that all hours worked by non-exempt employees are accurately recorded.  Moreover, these compliance steps will not be an autopilot proposition; they will always require vigilant, hands-on management.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.