Labor

Subscribe to Labor via RSS

By:   Shauna N. Correia

Governor Brown recently approved SB 1255, AB 1744 and AB 2674, amending existing Labor Code section 226 relating to wage statements. Existing law requires all employers to provide employees with accurate itemized statements with specific information, either semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages. Penalties up to $4,000 or actual damages, plus attorneys’ fees and costs, can be imposed on employers who willfully violate these requirements. Now, wage statements for temporary services employees must contain additional information. New law also clarifies when an employee has suffered an “injury” for purposes of obtaining the penalties, and provides employers with an affirmative defense for inadvertent, one-off violations.Continue Reading Amendments to Labor Code §226 Clarify Employers’ Wage Statement Obligations and Add Specific Requirements for Temporary Services Employers

By:   Lizbeth V. West, Esq.

As the L&E Law Blog readers may recall from the August 31, 2011 blog post and the teleseminar I conducted on September 14, 2011, the court in Arechiga v. Dolores Press, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 567 was the sole California decision that held that “mutual wage agreements” were legal in California despite the express language in section 515 of the Labor Code.Continue Reading Governor Brown Signed AB 2103 to Make Clear that “MUTUAL WAGE AGREEMENTS” ARE ILLEGAL IN CALIFORNIA

By:   Lizbeth V. West, Esq.

On September 7, 2012, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued an opinion in Costco Wholesale Corp. v. NLRB. The case is an important one for all employers (regardless of whether their employees are union or non-union). It deals with the NLRB’s continuing focus on what it believes to be over-reaching employment policies that violate Section 7 and/or 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In fact, in the last 12 months, the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel has issued three reports on the issue. Continue Reading DO YOUR EMPLOYMENT POLICIES VIOLATE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT? You’d Be Surprised – But They Very Likely Do!

Countless employers have now been faced with class action litigation, making claims for various deviations from the California Labor Code. Many times employers will face these head on with evidence that the claims made by one former employee are not sufficiently common to a substantial number of other past and current employees to merit class action treatment. Other times, employers argue the plaintiff’s allegations don’t demonstrate a uniform set of facts such that the Court would be able to decide a single legal question that would be applicable to an entire class. However, before dealing with these issues head on, California employers should always look beyond our borders to see if Federal law preempts the California Labor Code.
Continue Reading Make Sure to Review Federal Exemptions When Fighting Class Actions in California: Court Finds Truck Route Drivers’ Break Claims Preempted By FAAAA

The State of California Signed an MOU with the Federal Department of Labor Together They Will Locate and Punish Those Who Misclassify Independent Contractors

By: Lizbeth V. West, Esq.

In my November 4, 2011 post, I discussed a new California law (Labor Code § 226.8) that imposes serious monetary fines and other sanctions against those who willfully misclassify workers as “independent contractors” rather than “employees.” Those who violate the law can find themselves paying up to $15,000 per violation and up to $25,000 if there is a pattern and practice of misclassification. Also, if the violator is a licensed business, it runs the risk of having its license revoked. Finally, the law provides for publication of a notice to employees and the general public for a period of one year, stating that the violator committed a serious violation of the law.Continue Reading Employers Beware – The Crackdown Continues