Mandatory unpaid "furlough" for exempt employees
kjohnson
1 Post
Management has just announced that all staff (all classified as salaried exempt) will be "given" a leave from December 24 through January 1. This will be leave without pay, unless one has enough remaining Leavebank hours to cover it.
This seems to me to be in violation of 29 CFR 541.118(a) in at least 2 ways: (1) such a mandatory furlough effectively reduces the salary of these employees without their consent, and (2) also because the employees will be performing work at the beginning of one week (December 23) and the end of the following week (January 2 and 3). Thus, shouldn't the company be required to pay them for each week in which work is performed? If the employee doesn't have any Leavebank remaining, isn't this a gross violation of the FLSA, such that the company has just made the employees non-exempt? Can one of the attorneys let me know if they know of any cases on point? Thanks!
This seems to me to be in violation of 29 CFR 541.118(a) in at least 2 ways: (1) such a mandatory furlough effectively reduces the salary of these employees without their consent, and (2) also because the employees will be performing work at the beginning of one week (December 23) and the end of the following week (January 2 and 3). Thus, shouldn't the company be required to pay them for each week in which work is performed? If the employee doesn't have any Leavebank remaining, isn't this a gross violation of the FLSA, such that the company has just made the employees non-exempt? Can one of the attorneys let me know if they know of any cases on point? Thanks!
Comments
According to what I have been advised by attorneys, you cannot dock a salaried employee if they work any portion of a week. We have run into this issue occasionally when salaried employees run out of PTO and are out of work a day or two in a week. Since we are paid time off and don't have sick leave as such, we cannot dock the salary of these people. We can force them to use future PTO for this. (One just hopes they don't build up a negative PTO bank and then resign.) The timing does look suspicious of making employees exempt and then implementing this policy. I am sure DOL would look at it the same way.
I'd be interested in what others have to say.