Company Cars: Employers Giveth, Can Taketh Away

Q: Several years ago, I changed positions within my company. In my previous job, I qualified for a company car. My new position did not come with a car, but as part of the change, and in lieu of other compensation, I was allowed to keep my car and all the amenities that went with it--fuel, oil, tires, tune-ups.

After a few years I was able to pick from the company car pool a vehicle with lower mileage, and, when that one wore out, another. This continued for several years. While I did use the vehicle on company business (about 12,000 to 15,000 miles a year), my position did not officially qualify for a car by company guidelines.

I was allowed to use the vehicle to drive to work and for personal travel. In return, I had $90 deducted each month from my paycheck. The agreement on the use of the company vehicle was oral between me and the branch manager, however, and is not included in my personnel file as part of my compensation package.

Recently, the company attempted to cut back on expenses. About a dozen of us, all in similar circumstances, were told to turn in our company vehicles.

After a barrage of complaints, the company backed down slightly and issued a ruling that we could keep our vehicles for now, but when they break down or wear out, we will not get replacements.

Also, we will not receive other compensation in lieu of the vehicles when we give them up.

What are my options? Do I have legal grounds to receive compensation for the loss of my vehicle? This is about a 15% forced reduction in my salary.

--J.O., Costa Mesa

A: Use of a company vehicle is considered a fringe benefit. Unless your employer agreed to provide you with a company vehicle during the entire term of your employment, the company is free to revoke the benefit.

Your employer is not obligated to provide you additional compensation in lieu of use of the vehicle.

--William H. Hackel III, Employment law attorney, Spray, Gould & Bowers

Company Can Enforce Its Charitable Impulse

Q: I work as a checker for a large grocery chain. During one of the summer months, our employer wants us to urge our customers to contribute to a charitable organization. This bugs me and I think would make my customers uncomfortable. Do employers have the right to expect this from us?

--S.M., Huntington Beach

A: According to statute, it is illegal for an employer to retaliate against an employee on the basis of religious or political views. If the reason you are bothered by the request is because your own religious or political background conflicts with a particular charity chosen by the employer, then you have every reason to object.

If you don’t like the idea simply because you feel that you would be bothering the customers and for no other reason, then the employer can impose this requirement on you.

As a practical matter, evaluate the potential harm to your future with the company if you complain about its requests. Perhaps there is a way that you can make your employer happy by soliciting the customers but doing so in a low-key way that would not annoy them.

--Don D. Sessions, Employee rights attorney, Mission Viejo

Employers Required to Itemize Hours Worked

Q: Is a company obligated to supply employees with an accounting of the hours for which they are being paid? In our company, we clock in on a computer, but for some reason those times are not always recorded accurately. Is it our responsibility to make sure that we have not been shorted? If so, would we then go to human resources to have the problem corrected? Can we force an accounting of hours to accompany our paychecks?

--N.L.H., Fullerton

A: Yes. The California Labor Code requires every employer to accompany an employee’s paycheck with a written itemized statement showing (a) the gross wages the employee earned; (b) the total hours worked by the employee if his or her compensation is based on hours worked; (c) all deductions made from the employee’s check; and (d) the net wages earned by the employee.

In addition, an employer must allow its employees to inspect their own time records upon reasonable request. An employer that fails to honor its obligations is subject to fines and penalties for its failure. I would recommend that you bring the matter to your employer’s attention. If the employer fails to comply, contact the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement in Santa Ana.

--Michael A. Hood, Employment law attorney, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker

Sick Time Carries No Legal Requirements

Q: Previously our company paid 100% of accumulated sick time when an employee terminated. Now, we only pay for any hours over 100. Is there any legislation or legal repercussion we might face?

--A.S., Orange

A: No. Unlike accrued vacation, which must be paid upon termination of employment, accrued sick time carries no legal requirement. Some companies find it desirable to pay all accrued sick time upon termination to discourage employees from calling in sick when they really are not, just to use up their accrued sick leave. No law requires that, however.

--James J. McDonald Jr., Attorney, Fisher & Phillips, Law instructor, UC Irvine

Third-Party Evaluation Seems a Little Unusual

Q: My company does annual employee performance evaluations, but the ratings are made by someone other than the employees’ direct supervisors. Sometimes these evaluators rarely see the employees’ work and might not even know the individuals. How effective can an evaluation be when it is given by someone you hardly work with?

--C.P., Fullerton

A: It seems unusual to have performance appraisals conducted by evaluators who have little contact with the employees involved. Perhaps your company is trying to make the evaluations as objective as possible by having an unbiased third party evaluate performance from work samples or work records. If this is indeed the case, it is crucial that the company inform workers of what is going on.

In any performance evaluation, the goal should be accurate measurement of work performance, regardless of who does the evaluating. However, an important part of the process is providing feedback to employees so that they can know how they are doing, correct any errors or problems, and improve performance. This part of the performance evaluation might be missing if evaluators are third parties.

--Ron Riggio, Professor of industrial psychology, Cal State Fullerton