California’s Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) has released two opinion letters (OpLtrs) that should please employers by sanctioning their use of alternate, electronic wage payment methods. The OpLtrs approve the use of payroll debit cards and “Money Network checks” for the payment of wages under the California Labor Code, provided that:
…
Under California Labor Code section 351, tips are the “sole property” of the employees for whom they are left. As such, “employers” may not “collect, take, or receive” employee tips.
The issue in this case was who is the “employer” for purposes of section 351? At Starbucks, “shift supervisors” shared tips with other baristas. A…
State Court:
In Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum), a group of hourly non-exempt employees brought a class action against the restaurant employer claiming that the employer failed to comply with meal and rest period obligations and also required employees to work off the clock. The employees specifically claimed that: 1) the employer’s practice of having employees take “early lunches” shortly after starting their shift and then requiring them to work another five to ten hours without receiving another meal period violated Labor Code section 512(a) and the wage orders; 2) they were not provided their rest periods between their second and fourth hour of work, and were not provided the rest period before the first meal period; and 3) they were required to work off the clock when they were clocked out for their meal periods.
The employees argued that the wage and hour violations were amenable for class treatment because the employer’s non-compliance with wage and hour requirements could be determined by time card records and the employer’s policies and practices. The trial court agreed and granted class certification. The employer petitioned for a writ of mandate to the court of appeal. The court of appeal issued an unpublished decision which went up to the California Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeal’s original decision and transferred the matter back to the court of appeal for reconsideration. It was on reconsideration that the court of appeal concluded that the class certification order from the trial court was erroneous and must be vacated because the trial court failed to properly consider the elements of the employees’ claims in determining whether they are susceptible to class treatment. In discussing the elements of the employees’ claims, the court of appeal handed down the following encouraging pronouncements:
This case concerns the lawfulness of defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s formula for computing overtime compensation on semi-annual bonuses paid to hourly employees. The trial court determined that defendants’ bonus overtime formula for the class of employees who qualify for the maximum base bonus (plaintiffs) violates California law, and ordered use of a different formula. The court concluded that defendant’s formula violated neither California nor federal law, and reversed the judgment with directions to enter judgment for defendant.
a. The Base Bonus.
Costco pays a formula-based bonus, based on paid hours, to long-term hourly employees. To be eligible for the bonus, paid in April and October, these employees must: (1) have been paid a specified number of hours for continuous service — 8,000 hours (approximately four years) for those hired before March 15, 2004, and 9,200 hours (approximately 4.6 years) for those hired after that date; (2) generally be at the top of their pay scale; and (3) have been employed by defendant on April 1 for the April bonus and October 1 for the October bonus. The maximum semi-annual base bonus amount is $2,000 for those with less than 10 years of service, $2,500 for those with 10 to 14 years of service, $3,000 for those with 15 to 19 years of service, and $3,500 for those with 20 or more years of service.Continue Reading The Proper Calculation of Overtime Pay on Bonus Compensation: Marin, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
Effective January 1, 2009, Senate Bill 940 creates new wage and hour requirements for temporary service employers. Along with adding section 210.3 to the California Labor Code, SB 940 also amends sections 203, 203.1, 204, 210, 215, 220, and 2699.5 of the Labor Code. Existing law requires that employers pay their employees twice during each…
