Property Loss May Not Be Worker’s Responsibility
Q: Can an employer make an employee pay for any missing money or property that disappears or is broken on his or her shift? My current employer has enacted such a policy.
--T.S., La Palma
A: An employee normally is not responsible for damages or losses on the job unless they were caused intentionally or were the result of recklessness, according to California state law.
Certainly, if the employer has proof that the employee has stolen money or property on the job, the employer can ask for reimbursement.
An employer cannot deduct the amount from a paycheck, however. An employer can terminate an employee for such improper conduct or ask for reimbursement with the threat of termination. Unless the money is paid voluntarily, all the employer can do is sue the employee to recover the money.
In your case, it appears that the employer is making you pay for property that disappears or is broken even if it is not your fault. That is clearly improper. The employer is trying to make you the insurer for its losses.
You can complain in writing that you are not the one who took or lost the money or damaged the property--and that even if your employer believes you were responsible, the company can’t show that it was done intentionally or recklessly.
If the company fires you because of your complaints or refusal to pay, it could face liability.
--Don D. Sessions
Employee rights attorney
Mission Viejo
Delayed Pay Raise Not Illegal, but Unwise
Q: When employees at my company are promoted, they don’t receive a pay increase until July 1, regardless of when the promotion occurred. If I were promoted in August, for example, I would not be entitled to higher pay until the following July. Is this legal?
--J.K., Woodland Hills
A: Legal, yes, but it is not the smartest approach from an employee relations standpoint.
No law requires that employees receive pay raises along with promotions. An employer therefore is entirely within its rights to delay a pay raise for a recently promoted employee.
In the current economy characterized by low unemployment and frequent employee turnover, however, such a policy may well induce valuable employees to seek employment elsewhere.
If an employee is worth promoting, he or she is probably worth keeping. Providing a pay increase at the time of promotion will make the retention of the employee more likely.
--James J. McDonald Jr.
Attorney, Fisher & Phillips
Labor law instructor, UC Irvine
Pension Plan Benefit Rates Not Protected
Q: For economic reasons, my employer has been through several reorganizations and is reducing its benefit programs, including the pension program. This has generated a significant concern among a number of employees.
I have been under the impression that pension plans were protected to some extent. Is it possible we could lose some or all pension benefits even though the company has been contributing to a pension fund since its inception? Are there any state or federal safeguards for employees facing this type of situation?
--C.K., Pasadena
A: Any state laws regarding pension plans are preempted by the provisions of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. This legislation established the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., a federal agency that insures the benefits under defined benefit pension plans.
Thus, if there are not sufficient funds in your pension plan to pay all of the benefits that you are entitled to receive, the PBGC will make up the deficiency, subject to certain dollar limits.
A wealth of information about the PBGC, including a number of publications oriented to pension plan participants, can be found on its Web site at https://www.pbgc.gov.
However, nothing in ERISA prevents your employer from reducing or eliminating the rate at which you accrue pension benefits in the future.
--Kirk F. Maldonado
Employee benefits attorney
Riordan & McKinzie
‘Show-Up Pay’ Rules Apply to Layoffs
Q: I worked several years as an hourly full-time employee for a small manufacturing company. At 7 a.m., the beginning of my scheduled eight-hour work day, I was called into the office and told I was being laid off.
Because I was not notified prior to that, shouldn’t I be entitled to four hours’ pay?
--J.M., Moorpark
A: You are correct. Under California law, nonexempt employees are entitled to show-up pay when they report for work as scheduled but are not allowed to work at least half the workday. This rule applies even when an employee is fired or laid off before clocking in.
An exception may exist if your employer made reasonable efforts to get in touch with you before your shift began.
Show-up pay is calculated at half the employee’s scheduled workday (up to four hours’ pay), but not less than two hours.
It appears that you are entitled to four hours’ pay. In addition, if you can show that your employer’s failure to pay you this amount on the date you were laid off was “willful,” you may also be entitled to “waiting-time penalties” equal to a full day’s pay for every day that the payment is late, up to a maximum of 30 days’ pay.
If your employer will not pay the four hours’ pay, you can file a claim with the labor commissioner for the show-up pay and possible penalties.
--Joseph L. Paller Jr.
Union, employee attorney
Gilbert & Sackman
*
If you have a question about an on-the-job situation, please mail it to Shop Talk, Los Angeles Times, P.O. Box 2008, Costa Mesa, CA 92626; dictate it to (714) 966-7873; or e-mail it to shoptalk@latimes.com. Include your initials and hometown. The Shop Talk column is designed to answer questions of general interest. It should not be construed as legal advice.
