Effective 4/12/12, the DLSE updated its templates and FAQs to help employers comply with the Wage Theft Prevention Act. You can find the page of forms here. I guess they couldn't wait until the Brinker hoopla died down a little?
There are clarifications such as related to who is responsible for the notice when an employer hires a temp from a staffing agency (the agency), etc. Fortunately, the DLSE also says that employers don't have to distribute new notices every time the DLSE issues an update. Whew!
DGV
Showing posts with label Wage Theft Protection Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wage Theft Protection Act. Show all posts
Friday, 13 April 2012
Wednesday, 4 January 2012
DLSE revises FAQs on Wage Theft Notice...
I posted about the Division of Labor Standards' Enforcement's template Notice here and about the FAQs here. The DLSE apparently has thought better of its requirement that even current employees receive a notice (because that plainly was not in the statute). So, the agency revised its FAQ's, here. Slightly concerned employers I spoke with ... please take note.
DGV
DGV
Sunday, 1 January 2012
Wage Theft Protection Act - FAQs from the DLSE
Here are some FAQs regarding the new notices that must be provided to employees "at the time of hire."
Some thoughts:
1. The DLSE apparently takes the position that the notice must be provided to existing employees, although that requirement is not contained in the statute.
2. Remember that changes to any of the items in the notice have to be communicated, either by a proper wage statement or a new notice.
3. It is not mandatory to use DLSE's template form. Employers may create their own. However, all the information on the DLSE's form (even the information not specified in the statute, must be listed on a separate form, rather than incorporated into a larger contract, offer letter, or handbook).
4. If the notice is given electronically, the DLSE requires some method of obtaining an acknowledgement from the employee.
5. The DLSE's notice requires specification of whether there is an oral or written employment agreement. Every employee is employed pursuant to an "agreement," even if the employee is "at will." (An agreement is as simple as "I will pay you if you work today." It also could include a written offer letter or a formal employment contract). So, employers should specify whether the employment contract is oral or written without fear that this provision somehow compromises at-will employment.
6. The penalty for non compliance is not specified in the law and, therefore, will likely be the "PAGA" penalties of $100 per employee per pay period for the initial violation and $200 per pay period per employee for subsequent violations. So, it is wise to comply with this law.
Happy New Year anyway!
DGV
Some thoughts:
1. The DLSE apparently takes the position that the notice must be provided to existing employees, although that requirement is not contained in the statute.
2. Remember that changes to any of the items in the notice have to be communicated, either by a proper wage statement or a new notice.
3. It is not mandatory to use DLSE's template form. Employers may create their own. However, all the information on the DLSE's form (even the information not specified in the statute, must be listed on a separate form, rather than incorporated into a larger contract, offer letter, or handbook).
4. If the notice is given electronically, the DLSE requires some method of obtaining an acknowledgement from the employee.
5. The DLSE's notice requires specification of whether there is an oral or written employment agreement. Every employee is employed pursuant to an "agreement," even if the employee is "at will." (An agreement is as simple as "I will pay you if you work today." It also could include a written offer letter or a formal employment contract). So, employers should specify whether the employment contract is oral or written without fear that this provision somehow compromises at-will employment.
6. The penalty for non compliance is not specified in the law and, therefore, will likely be the "PAGA" penalties of $100 per employee per pay period for the initial violation and $200 per pay period per employee for subsequent violations. So, it is wise to comply with this law.
Happy New Year anyway!
DGV
Thursday, 29 December 2011
More on AB 469 Notice "Template"
Per my previous post, the DLSE issued its "template" for compliant AB 469 disclosures. See the post re DLSE template here.
An impolitic or imprudent employment lawyer might say that the DLSE's waiting until December 29 to issue a template implementing AB 469 disclosures (to begin on 1/1/12) was arrogant, unconscionable, and all but a gift to plaintiff lawyers. But I've never been one of those rash people. :::whistling::::
What makes this all more galling is that the DLSE has imposed requirements over and above what the statute actually provides for. DLSE had the right to expand on the law's requirements becuase the statute says that the required disclosure must include "any other information the Labor Commissioner deems material and necessary."
That's all fine, but how about more than 2 work days' notice of what you think is necessary? Not to mention that 90% of management is on vacation. Employers likely planned the new notices would include only the items expressly identified in the law, given DLSE's failure to promptly issue its template. Now they have to re-tool, which may be easier to do in a mom & pop store, but not so easy when there are multiple outlets and hundreds of new hires to process.
Perhaps the DLSE didn't care because the notice provision does not apply to...the DLSE (!) or other government employers. Go figure.
Oh well, enough whining. The DLSE model includes a couple of itsems not specified in the actual statute: 1) the name and address of a PEO or other third party that administers the hiring process (but not a payroll processor or recruiting agency) 2) whether the employment agreement is oral or written... there may be more. I just got the thing today and all...
DGV
An impolitic or imprudent employment lawyer might say that the DLSE's waiting until December 29 to issue a template implementing AB 469 disclosures (to begin on 1/1/12) was arrogant, unconscionable, and all but a gift to plaintiff lawyers. But I've never been one of those rash people. :::whistling::::
What makes this all more galling is that the DLSE has imposed requirements over and above what the statute actually provides for. DLSE had the right to expand on the law's requirements becuase the statute says that the required disclosure must include "any other information the Labor Commissioner deems material and necessary."
That's all fine, but how about more than 2 work days' notice of what you think is necessary? Not to mention that 90% of management is on vacation. Employers likely planned the new notices would include only the items expressly identified in the law, given DLSE's failure to promptly issue its template. Now they have to re-tool, which may be easier to do in a mom & pop store, but not so easy when there are multiple outlets and hundreds of new hires to process.
Perhaps the DLSE didn't care because the notice provision does not apply to...the DLSE (!) or other government employers. Go figure.
Oh well, enough whining. The DLSE model includes a couple of itsems not specified in the actual statute: 1) the name and address of a PEO or other third party that administers the hiring process (but not a payroll processor or recruiting agency) 2) whether the employment agreement is oral or written... there may be more. I just got the thing today and all...
DGV
California DLSE Issues Template AB 469 Notice... IMPORTANT
AB 469 requires employers to give new hires, at the time of hire, a notice containing certain information listed in the law. The statute also requires the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to issue a model notice. The DLSE finally did so, and it is here.
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)