So you’re thinking about offering your employees unlimited paid vacation time. Will you end up managing the office alone while your entire staff suns itself in Aruba? Not likely.

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.

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:

Employee theft is a big problem for small businesses.  According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 75 percent of employees steal from their employers (most repeatedly). A typical business loses as much as five percent of revenues due to employee fraud and, says the National Federation of Independent Business, an employee is 15 times more likely than a non-employee to steal from a company.

Barbara Wein Allen implicitly trusted her employees — until she found out that one of them had stolen some $250,000 from her firm, Multi-Point Communications of Birmingham, Ala.

Everyone appreciates a cheerful co-worker, but employees often experience negative feelings
on the job, too. Episodes of depression, anxiety, or anger can affect your company’s bottom line: The World Health Organization estimates that 35 to 45 percent of workplace absenteeism can be attributed to mental distress. Meanwhile, researchers at Tel Aviv Universityfound that those who described a workplace as “emotionally non-supportive” were 2.4 times more likely to die over the study’s 20-year period, The New York Times reports. Questions posed by researchers included whether or not subjects viewed supervisors and peers as approachable and friendly.

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of military status. Recently, a California court addressed for the first time whether supervisors could be held personally liable for military service discrimination under state law.

Seasonal employees can help keep your small business humming along during some of the busiest days of the year. But seasonal and full-time staffers don’t always integrate seamlessly. According to Deb Spicer,author of Power Teams: The New Square Root Model That Changes Everything, bringing in new people for the holidays can lead to some negative workplace dynamics, such as cliques or competing factions.