Part Time employee no fringe benefits?

WO

Greetings,

We have a new trend here that I call "convenience part-time" which is causing auditing problems for the payroll officers in the Auditor's office.

Some years back we allowed part time employees to accrue vacation, sick leave and holidays on a pro-rated basis. We had 2 or 3 part time people who were assigned to specific days of the week because that was all the work load required.

Today I have 15 part time and growing because managers are allowing their full time employees to go part-time at the employee's request They all receive pro-rated benes. These employees then work the days that are convenient to them each week and rarely follow their assigned days making it difficult for the payroll to audit their timesheets and properly pay vac/sick/holiday.

So to the question: One suggestion is to eliminate the benes for part-time, not health insurance but vacation, sick and holiday. It eliminates the audit problem but I am concerned about taking away those benefits. I know the employees won't like it but is there a legal issue?

WT

We live in a funny old world and so often, things get backward. It seems to me that you need to ask yourself whether the part time positions are your servant or your master. Do you create them to take care of a business need or to custom design jobs for employees? Your supervisors need to be reminded that their job is to be a part of the team working to reach the goals set by the employer. Rather than take away benefits to make the jobs less attractive, might it not be better to post and fill full time jobs to get the work done that you need. When these are filled, keep only the part time positions that benefit the employer and lay off the part time help that you do not need.

WO

Thank you, yes, I agree we are backwards and I definitely do have a management problem which my Board of Commissioners has allowed despite my advice.

I dont have the option of posting the full time and laying off the part time unfortunately, but can try to alleviate the auditing nightmare this custom designing has created by eliminating tbe vac/sick/holiday benefit.

It will be viewed as a taking by those affected but are there legal ramifications?

Down_the_Middle

WO:
Since I don't believe WA mandates certain benefits for part-time employees, the simple answer is YES....... you can unilaterally remove those benefits that are giving you fits. Now whether you can continue to recruit and retain these folks is another matter and presumably you'll wade thru that issue. As long as you remove the benefits in a non-discrim manner (not selectively, but to all that meet your definition), it's probably ok. This might become throwing the baby out w/the bath water, but you're wearing those shoes........ Good luck

WT

We often have to deal with politics in HR. If the door is closed we then must go through the window. If you have to take the method of diminished benefits to get where you need to go, first, is there a union and contract. If so, this is a past practice and you will have difficulties. If there is no union, you can take or diminish benefits. This can be considered an adverse job action so make sure the impact is across the board so no protected class can raise a claim about discrimination. If the employees in question have requested part time work, with the expectation of pro-rated benefits, they may well ask to go back to full-time. I assume that would not upset you.

atrimble

You may want to consider phasing out the paid time off benefits. I would think that giving EEs notice that some 30-60 days hence, they'll stop accruing these benefits (maybe start with vacation/sick leave this year, and eliminate holidays next year?), and then they have X number of days or months to use up anything they've got on the books before they're all zeroed out. If you make that change, publish it separately and put it in the employee handbook. I would then reissue the handbooks, and add particular emphasis on any attendance rules. If you don't have an attendance policy, add one to your handbook. Giving proper notice and at least a semblance of leeway should mollify any complaints about property rights.

njjel

You say you wouldn't eliminate health insurance however you may want to look at your policies and see if there is a minimum number of hours the ee is required to work in order to be eligible for coverage.

WO

Thanks so much for the responses. I like the phase out with timely notice. No there is no union and health insurance along with paid leave is provided to 3 days/week or more employees. So anyone losing paid leave would still be eligible for health insurance.

njjel

Just to clarify (if needed) When I said look at your policies I meant your medical insurance policy - not company policy.