At the request of the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Supreme Court ordered a review of a trial court decision to clarify whether rounding employees’ time card entries is legal.  

Previously, CalChamber urged the 4th District Court of Appeal to grant a petition by See’s Candy Shops, Inc. to review a San Diego County Superior Court decision that the practice of rounding employee time entries to the nearest six minutes violates California law.

Employers have long relied on the position of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and state Division of Labor Standards Enforcement that rounding is a lawful practice, the CalChamber said in its October letter to the 4th District Court of Appeal, and that approval is reflected in DOL regulations and the California Labor Commissioner’s enforcement policy, which follows the DOL regulations.

The issue of rounding time card entries is a matter of widespread concern to California employers, and the CalChamber regularly receives inquiries from its members concerning the rounding of time card entries. 

Some class action lawsuits already have been filed in California by plaintiffs alleging that rounding is illegal and seeking damages and penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Many employers will feel they have no choice but to stop their practice of rounding time to avoid the risk of class litigation.

After extensive research, the CalChamber concluded that the California Labor Code does not prohibit rounding and no California appellate decision has held that rounding is illegal. The CalChamber believes it would be best for this issue to be resolved now so California businesses will have certainty regarding this important timekeeping issue.

HR Allen Consulting Services is reminding employers that they must post a summary of job-related injuries and illnesses from 2011 at their place of business by February 1.

The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) requires employers to display the Cal/OSHA Log 300 Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses (Form 300A) from February 1 to April 30 for employee review.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by California grocery store owners, who challenged the authority of cities to enact ordinances that protect workers from being immediately fired when a grocery store changes ownership.

Last summer, HR Watchdog blogged on the California Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a Los Angeles ordinance that forbids new owners of large grocery stores from laying off non-managerial employees for 90 days after the new ownership takes over.

After the California Supreme Court decision, the California Grocers Association (CGA) appealed to the nation’s high court to review the case. The CGA argued, in part, that the National Labor Relations Act pre-empts cities from enacting these ordinances. The CGA also argued that the ordinance violates owners' negotiating rights by forcing them take on workers that they did not choose and grant benefits and terms of employment that the employer did not agree to. 

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the plea for review. This was the final avenue for appeal, and grocery store owners in Los Angeles must follow the ordinance.

In 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) increased its oversight activity relating to employer disciplinary actions for social media postings made by employees. HR Watchdog blogged frequently in 2011 on the NLRB’s activity in this area. 

Yesterday, the NLRB’s General Counsel issued its second report describing 14 social media cases reviewed by its office. The NLRB’s first report on 14 other social media cases was released in August, 2011. 

The purpose of this second report, as stated by the NLRB, is to provide further guidance to labor and employment law practitioners and HR professionals — many of whom grapple with how to handle employees who use social media to air workplace complaints or simply bad-mouth the company. 

Seven of these 14 cases involve questions about an employer’s social media policies. Five of the social media policies were found to be overly broad and unlawful. 

The problem occurs when a social media is written so broadly that it prohibits employees from discussing wages or working conditions. Employees, in both union and nonunion workplaces, have the right under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to engage in concerted activities, including discussing working conditions, pay or other work-related issues. 

If those discussions occur using social media accounts (such as an employee’s Facebook or Twitter account), the discussions may be protected under the NLRA.

The NLRB also stated that it intends to develop a practice of tracking all social media cases and developing a consistent approach. The Acting General counsel asked all regional offices to send cases which they believe to be meritorious to the NLRB’s Division of Advice in Washington, D.C.

The NLRB noted that its report represents its “interpretation” of the NLRA as it applies to social media communications and that some of these decisions are currently pending before the Board. The Board’s eventual determinations in those pending cases will provide further guidance as the law develops.

As CalChamber members know, a new state law that took effect January 1, 2012, requires employers to provide nonexempt employees with a notice at the time of hire containing specified wage information. 

Employers have had many questions regarding putting the new notice into practice and how to comply with the law. Employers sought guidance on several issues, including:

The California Court of Appeal has issued a published decision holding that denial of class certification in one lawsuit may not prevent similar class action claims in a later lawsuit.  On January 18, 2012, inBridgeford v. Pacific Health Corporation, the court expressly disagreed with a prior Court of Appeal decision from the same district that held collateral estoppel could prevent class actions that are similar to prior cases where class certification was denied.

We recently reported that a San Diego Superior Court found that See's Candy Shops violated California law by rounding employee time entries to the nearest six minutes.  The Fourth District Court of Appeal let the ruling stand.  Yesterday the Supreme Court orderedthe Court of Appeal to review the case and decide the rounding issue.

Insurance agents and other types of salespeople with the discretion to determine when, how, and whether to sell a company’s products may properly be classified as independent contractors, according to the California Court of Appeal’s recent holding in Arnold v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company — the first California decision to detail the circumstances under which insurance agents, and potentially other types of salespeople, may be classified as independent contractors. The Arnold court utilized California’s Borello “control test” -- a test similar to other control tests used in jurisdictions around the country -- to determine whether the plaintiff was correctly classified as an independent contractor. The court’s analysis provides a checklist of relevant factors for employers to consider when determining whether a particular worker should be classified as an independent contractor or an employee, as well as a roadmap for summary judgment in cases where the independent contractor status is challenged.

Every time someone leaves your company, it costs you money — and more than you may think. According to a study by the University of Wisconsin, replacing a $9.50-an-hour employee costs more than $2,200when you factor in the hiring and training of a new worker. (To determine the replacement cost for one of your staff members, plug your numbers into this Online Employee Turnover Calculator.)

A California court ruled favorably for employers in a case concerning two technical wage and hour rules that can cause confusion: reporting time pay and split shift pay.