Differentian in vacation accumulation for employees

CarmenSuterTN

We have recently hired a Plant Engineer who has the title "VP Of Engineering". We gave this person 4 weeks vacation up front, which is the maximum that you may accrue. We have also hired a person in a supervisory position as well who has to follow the accrual rate which is stated in our handbook. (Two weeks per year for the first 5 years). Both of these persons are of the same exempt status. However, the plant engineer is paid on what is called the executive payroll which is ran monthly.
Something about this practice bothers me. Should we not be giving all exempt employees 4 weeks and not just higher level employees? Have we set a precedent? Have we been discriminatory? Is this something that should even be given discretion to? This was a decision made by the owner of our company and was not ran through the HR channel when this employee was hired.

NeedCoffee

I really don't think you've been discriminatory - if the supervisor was also paid on the executive payroll, then you may have had a problem.

It is perfectly legal to grant different benefits to different classes of employees - not just exempt vs nonexempt - but within those classifications. You can make classifications for executives, management, part time, etc. However, within those classes you need to treat all employees equitably.

You may have set a precedent regarding what vacation you grant to executives vs supervisors, but I don't see any problem with that.

Hope this was helpful.

davids

I agree that you have not been discriminatory (unless the reason for treating the two new hires differently is because of protected class status); but I don't think you have necessarily created a precedent. One action does not establish an on-going practice. I would, however, document why there was a compelling reason to deviate from the established practice of 2 vacation weeks per year.

CarmenSuterTN

Thanks so much, this is really helpful.

Should we give an option of negotiating more vacation time in for other new managerial employees? I feel as though they deserve as much time off as any other person in management. Maybe that's where I'm uncomfortable with this practice.

Here is another example of what concerns me:
A few years ago, we promoted a male QA supervisor to the plant manager and gave him the difference of what would make 4 weeks vacation as part of his promotion. Again this was not ran past HR. Then last year the HR VP retired and one of the HR managers took over his responsibilites. She was not given the title or the offer to make up the difference of 4 weeks vacation. However, she is doing the duties.

Thank you all so much. Just when I feel that I know so much, I come up against something that I can analyze to death and not have an answer on my own.

NeedCoffee

DavidS had a great point that one action does not make a precedent...if I were you, I would look at what your standard operating procedures are - if you can try to stick with what your normal business practices are, you are less likely to hear "Discrimination!"

As far as your last question goes, remember to compare apples to apples - and it sounds like you may be trying to compare apples to oranges, which doesn't work. When it comes to the management hierarchy, there are many different scenarios that wouldn't necessarily result in the same outcomes for 2 different managers. Unless a plant manager is on the same hierarchical level as a VP of HR, I don't think you should sweat it.

It also sounds like it may be time for upper management to be reminded of how important it is to run things past HR before they happen, just for the sake of a legal CYA...good luck - that's never a fun conversation!

System

The way I see it is that it's a negotiation tool. The same way that someone might negotiate for a higher salary, someone might negotiate for more vacation, and if the candidate is strong enough, and the employer really wants to hire the person, the employer will agree to the higher wage or to more vacation, or to whatever else might be part of the negotiation. Just because one applicant has the nerve to negotiate for something better doesn't mean that if the employer accepts it has to proactively offer the same thing to all employees. Everyone has the "option" of negotiating - it's just a matter of the employee taking the initiative and whether the employer thinks the particular candidate or employee is worth negotiating with.

Just don't tell the employees they can't talk with each other about how much vacation time they get. ;-)

dbutton111

All of our VP level and above get maximum accrual rate.

E Wart

Our Plant managers often do this to attract trained employees (of all levels). However, one thing I think I have them trained in is that we offer additional "personal time" not vacation time and they document all this for me. This way employees can carry it over if they wish and also, employer doesn't pay them for any of this personal time (and would pay if vacation) if they leave and not used it. (Several years agio we had Managers looking for experienced people. They made some poor decisions 0f people who were not qualified, but sounded as if they were. They kept the employee just a little over the amount of time worked when would be eligible... so we got stuck with paying a LOT Of vacation time to newly hired employees.) E Wart