Skip to main content

Pittsburgh Mayor Signs Coronavirus Related Leave Ordinance

 

Earlier this month, Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto signed a new ordinance that will provide many workers in the city with leave to deal with a coronavirus sickness.

The ordinance will supplement The Pittsburgh Paid Sick Days Act (“PDSA”) which took effect earlier this year.  Under the ordinance, covered employees are expressly permitted to use sick time under the PDSA before it is accrued so long as the reason for the leave is related to the coronavirus.

Now for the all important specifics of the ordinance.  Employers in the city with more than 50 employees are required to provide paid coronavirus sick time to their employees for coronavirus related reasons such as the care of a family member due to a coronavirus related reason, a determination that an employee’s presence in the workplace could jeopardize the health of others because of the coronavirus, as well as an employee’s need to self isolate because of coronavirus related matters.  (The ordinance applies to employees that are working for an employer within Pittsburgh after the ordinance went into effect along with employees that normally work for a Pittsburgh employer but are currently working remotely as well as employees that work for an employer from mobile locations so long as 51% or more of the employee’s time is spent in Pittsburgh.)

Covered employees are able to take up to 80 hours of leave in addition to any other paid leave provided under the PDSA.  (Employees that work 40+ hours a week are entitled to 80 hours of paid leave; employees that work less than 40 hours a week are entitled to leave in an amount equal to the amount of time the employee is otherwise scheduled to work or works on average in a 14 day period, whichever is greater.)  Of note, this leave is in addition to any paid or sick leave already provided by the employer.

It is noteworthy that this leave is to be provided to employees immediately without the need to wait for the leave to accrue.  The only caveat is the employee must have been employed by the employer for the past 90 days.  If leave had already been provided by the employer prior to this ordinance, the leave established by this ordinance is in addition to the prior leave.


For additional information:  https://pittsburgh.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4701797&GUID=2D2C3863-DF9E-4127-A514-976420C4A7FD&Options=ID%7cText%7c&Search&FullText=1

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more