- Written by Susannah L. Ashton
California’s Paid Sick Leave (“PSL”) law went into effect just two months ago, and in that time, the law has already undergone one major amendment, as we previously advised on July 14, 2015. Now, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) has issued an Opinion Letter (“OL”) addressing the applications of the time periods set forth in the law. Not such a great start for new legislation.
The law as written requires 24 hours or three days of PSL, based on a standard eight-hour day/40-hour week schedule. The legislature did not consider harvesters and other agricultural workers who work a varying schedule that often requires at least 10-hour days, or employers whose employees have elected an alternative workweek schedule. The OL, dated August 7, 2015, addresses this issue and clarifies that employees should be given the greater of either 24 hours or three days of PSL, regardless of whether the frontloading or accrual method is selected. This means that employees whose regular work day is 10 hours would get the greater of 24 hours or three 10-hour days.
Under the frontloading method, while an “8 and 40” worker would receive three days or 24 hours of leave at the beginning of each year (which may be defined as the beginning of the calendar year, anniversary date, or other twelve-month basis), an agricultural worker covered by Wage Order 14 would receive three days or 30 hours of leave at the beginning of the year. Similarly, under the Accrual Method, which requires that an employer provide one hour of PSL for every 30 hours worked, employers may limit the use of PSL to 24 hours or three days within each “year” (which is any twelve-month basis as defined by the employer’s policy). Again, employees who work 10-hour days should receive the greater of 24 hours or three 10-hour days.
BREAKING: YOU ARE GOING TO NEED A BIGGER BARGAINING TABLE - NLRB OVERTURNS NEARLY 30 YEARS OF PRECEDENT AND ADOPTS ALL-INCLUSIVE NEW JOINT EMPLOYER STANDARD.
- Written by Carl Larson
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has adopted an expansive new definition of what it means to be a joint employer and it includes you. Any business that uses a temp agency, farm labor contractor, or any other outsourced labor arrangement should be aware of the implications of this new standard. This threatens processing plants, coolers, and shakes agricultural industry operations, all outsourcing arrangements used throughout U.S. manufacturing as well as the franchise systems to their core. Prior to this new standard, a company could feel relatively safe from the complications of labor relations by outsourcing labor and staying out of the human resources function.
Those days are gone.
Under the previous standard a party was only considered a joint employer if they exercised direct and immediate control over the terms and conditions of employment. As explained in Browning-Ferris Industries Inc. 362 NLRB No. 186, the new standard forces parties to come to the bargaining table with unions and subjects them to liability for unfair labor practices even if they merely possess the potential to indirectly control even a single term or condition of employment. Given such a broad definition of joint employer, it is easy to see how just about everyone who conducts business in the U.S. and even individual consumers might be on the hook. In a last grasp to prop up dying unions, the NLRB has given them the gift of a lot more pockets to pick.
Counsel To Management:
The Saqui Law Group will be releasing a series of articles this week which analyze the implications and inconsistencies of this new decision from all angles. All businesses should be united in opposing this new standard and the Saqui Law Group will provide the ammunition necessary to attack it.