Wage & Hour Counsel : Wage & Hour Lawyer & Attorney : Littler Mendelson Law Firm : Employment Law, Labor Relations

By Mary Walsh

In a matter of significance for California employers, in See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego, the California Supreme Court recently ordered the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, to review a trial court decision holding that rounding employee time entries violated California law.

Last year, in an unprecedented ruling, the San Diego Superior Court held that See’s Candy Shops, Inc. (“See’s") violated California law by rounding employee time entries to the nearest six minutes. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication on two of See’s rounding affirmative defenses, finding them at odds with sections of the California Labor Code dealing with the timing of wage payments.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Josh Kirkpatrick

On May 9, 2011, the U.S. Department of Labor announced the launch of its first smartphone application, an electronic timesheet employees can use to track their hours of work, including breaks. According to a DOL press release, the information tracked through this application “could prove invaluable during a Wage and Hour Division investigation when an employer has failed to maintain accurate employment records.” The app, currently available in English and Spanish and only for iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch devices, allows users to input their hourly rate of pay and calculates the amount of wages due to the worker. Additionally, through the app, users can add comments related to their work hours; view a summary of work hours in a daily, weekly and monthly format; and email the summary of work hours and gross pay as an attachment. A glossary, limited information regarding wage and hour laws, and contact information for the DOL are accessible through the app. The agency stated it will pursue the development of updates that allow employees to track their tips, commissions, bonuses, deductions, holiday pay, pay for weekends, shift differentials and pay for regular days of rest, among other pay information.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There is good news for New Jersey employers who utilize rounding. The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development has reconsidered its prior rejection of federal "rounding" rules. After a public comment period, the Department formally adopted a new rule which adopts, verbatim, the federal regulation regarding the use of time clocks and rounding practices. Under the new rule, rounding is lawful under New Jersey law so long as it "averages out ... over a period of time." This development means that New Jersey employers no longer need to assess the impact of rounding on a week-to-week basis. While this is a welcome development, employers who utilize rounding should remain vigilant to ensure that rounding is not "one sided" and that it does, in fact, average out over time.

This entry was written by Robert W. Pritchard.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the case of Kasten v. Saint Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered the question of whether verbal complaints may constitute protected activity under the FLSA. In this case, the plaintiff alleged that he verbally complained to his supervisors and the company’s human resources department about the legality of the location of the company’s time clocks. The plaintiff alleged that he told two supervisors and a human resources employee that the placement of the clocks was illegal because it prevented employees from being paid for time spent donning and doffing required protective gear.

The Seventh Circuit first affirmed the district court’s conclusion that internal, intra-company complaints may be protected activity for purposes of the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA. The Court then turned to the question of whether verbal, intra-company complaints may be protected activity.

The Seventh Circuit held that because the FLSA prevents employees from being retaliated against for filing complaints, the statute could not be interpreted as intending to protect unwritten complaints. The court viewed the “natural understanding” of the phrase “file any complaint” to connote the use of a writing. Therefore, to constitute protected activity under the FLSA, the “complaint” must involve the submission of a writing to an employer, court, or administrative body. Notably, other courts have reached a different conclusion.

This blog entry was authored by Theresa Waugh.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link