Skip to main content

What I’ve Been Reading This Week: Labor Department Edition


Over the past week or so, the Labor Department has updated guidance as to several notable coronavirus related matters that impact employers and employees alike.  While there were several other non Labor Department related developments I came across this past week, given the timeliness of these updates, I think it is appropriate to focus on these two updates this week. 

As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week.


Labor Department Issues Guidance on Tracking The Remote Working Hours of Employees

At the end of August, the Labor Department issued guidance for employers and employees alike in regard to the tracking of the remote working hours of employees during the coronavirus pandemic.  Of note, while employers are required to pay their non exempt employees overtime for any work hours over 40 during the course of a work week (per the Fair Labor Standards Act), there is a bit of breathing room with this guidance.  For instance, the Labor Department confirmed that in a remote work environment, an employer must “exercise reasonable diligence” to ensure non exempt employees are paid for all time worked.  This “reasonable diligence” requirement can be satisfied by an employer establishing a system that requires non exempt employees to accurately record and report all time worked.  However, the Labor Department has stipulated that in a situation where an employee fails to report unscheduled work hours during the employer provided system, an “employer is generally not required to investigate further to uncover unreported hours.”  For those interested in the entire scope of the Labor Department’s guidance, I refer you to the link.


Labor Department Updates Informal Families First Coronavirus Response Act Guidance

Some readers might have kids already in school, or perhaps returning within the coming weeks.  Last Thursday, the Labor Department updated its FAQ section as to how the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) comes into play with many employees now juggling remote work and the opening of schools.  While I suggested readers take a look at the entire guidance for a thorough overview, I will point out that the Labor Department has stipulated that if a school opens on a hybrid attendance basis (open for in person education some days and virtual learning for other days), eligible employees may take paid FFCRA leave only on the days their children are required to participate in virtual learning...so long as the employee has the need for “leave to actually care for [the] child during that time and only if no other suitable person is available to do so.”  As well, if a school provides parents the choice of whether to allow their child to attend in person or participate virtually (and the parent chooses to have their child participate in virtual learning rather than in person), the employee is “not eligible to take paid leave under the FFCRA because [the] child’s school is not ‘closed’ du to COVID-19 related reasons.”

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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more