Over the last decade, California employers have witnessed a state-wide increase in wage-and-hour lawsuits filed in state and federal courts. Employers’ failure to pay split-shift premiums is often alleged as a cause of action. This post is written in a Q&A form to provide employers and employees with brief guidelines on how California split-shift law works. Keep in mind that these rules apply only to hourly non-exempt employees.
This is another post-Conception decision by the California Court of Appeal holding that notwithstanding Conception, in certain circumstances, based on a case-by-case analysis, class action waivers may be unenforceable.
Applicability of the Motor Carrier Act Exemption to California Bus Drivers for Purposes of Federal Overtime Pay.
In one of the previous posts, we discussed how some commercial bus drivers may be exempt from California overtime laws under Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 9 section 3(L). It is crucial to keep in mind that in addition to state law, hours and days of work of commercial bus drivers are also regulated by federal law, namely, the Federal Standard Labor Act of 1938 (“FLSA”.)
In establishing their payroll policies and procedures, many California transportation industry employers often have to decide whether they should pay the drivers an hourly rate or flat rate compensation. While both types of payments are legal under California and Federal wage-and-hour laws, employers must be particularly careful when drivers are paid on a flat fee basis (or “piece rate”).
Assembly Bill No. 2103 Outlaws Employment Agreements with Non-exempt Employees for a Salary that Includes Both Regular and Overtime Hours.
On September 30, 2012, the California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that amended Section 515 of the Labor Code. The bill did two things: first, it outlawed any agreement under which the employer sets a fix salary for non-exempt employees to compensate for both regular and overtime hours, and, second, it overruled a controversial decision Arechiga v. Dolores Press, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4th 567 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2011).
In its recent opinion Aleman (Michael) v. Airtouch Cellular, (Cal. 2012), (Cal. 2012), the California Court of Appeals examined the application of two important provisions from the Industrial Welfare Commission‘s Wage Order No. 4-2001 (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040): (1) reporting time compensation and (2) split shift premiums.
Both the Temporary Staffing Agency and Client-Employer May be Held Liable for Wages Owed to Temporary Workers.
In the past few years, it has become a common practice among many California companies to use temporary staffing agencies (or recruiters) to fill in various employment positions. The benefits of having temporary employees are great: no payroll expenses, reduced labor cost, no training necessary, flexible schedule, no overtime, etc.