smoke breaks
As I read in other questions, Oklahoma does not have any laws requiring an employer to allow breaks. So if an employee leaves the office to take their smoke break, is it required that we pay them? Currently we are asking employees to clock out ANY and EVERY time they leave the office whether it be for 5 minutes to smoke or 20 minutes to run an errand. Is this legal and does anyone have other ideas or policies that they use in a small office environment?
It is true that Oklahoma does not have any law that would require you as an employer to give breaks to workers. This includes meal breaks, rest breaks and smoke breaks. Because of this, you could eliminate all breaks if you wanted.
However, if you are covered by the federal FLSA or Fair Labor Standards Act, then you must pay workers for breaks shorter than 20 minutes, under federal law. The FLSA does not require that employers give breaks — but it does require that employers who choose to give breaks shorter than 20 minutes pay workers for them. The FLSA covers employers with annual revenue over $500,000. It also covers employees engaged in interstate commerce. If you are covered by the FLSA (the federal minimum wage and overtime law) then you can require that employees clock out for smoke breaks, but every employee must be paid for every break that is less than 20 minutes. Usually, this includes smoke breaks.
If you are not covered by the federal FLSA then your policy of not paying for smoke breaks is legal.
Frankly, what most employers do is permit all employees the same number of breaks, whether they smoke or not. Employees are given an unpaid meal break of 30 minutes to one hour, plus a 10 to 15 minute rest break in the morning and afternoon. Smokers are permitted to smoke only during that time. Employees who take additional breaks are subject to discipline or termination.
Giving extra breaks to smokers is bound to result in poor employee morale among non-smokers.
And yes, you should always require that employees clock out if they are running an errand. But you should also require that they only run errands on their lunch break.
Tardies to work
Are tardies different for salary employees and hourly employees?
This is a matter of your company policy as an employer, not employment law. There is no law that any employer has to take action against an employee who is late to work. But most do, for obvious reasons. It can be difficult or impossible to maintain business operations and deliver good service when employees are late.
How you treat exempt employees depends upon the industry. By law, if an exempt employee works part of the day — even 5 minutes — you must pay him or her for the full day. So you cannot dock an exempt employees wages because he or she comes in late.
In some industries it is not a big deal if the exempt employee comes in late. An exempt real estate agent or accountant may simply stay a little later to get the job done. In that case, you may want to be flexible with employees and not discipline an exempt employee for tardiness. In other industries, it can be a big problem if the exempt employee is late. Suppose a restaurant manager is late unlocking the store, resulting in the employees starting work late and the restaurant not opening on time. That could be a major problem. In that case you might want to discipline the manager (an exempt employee) for not being on time.
Whatever your policy for tardiness of exempt employees is, it should be consistent.
Payment of vacation and sick leave upon employee quitting
We have a sales person on base salary and commission that is quitting. He has given notice and wants all his vacation and sick leave payment. Is he entitled to all of it or is it to be prorated. Thanks.
This will depend upon your company policy, and what state you are in. A handful of states would require that you pay the employee for his vacation, but not sick leave. He would be entitled to payment only for vacation time earned — meaning time he was entitled to use on his last day of work.
In other states, the employee would be entitled only to payment for benefits as designated under company policy. It is very unusual for an employee to be paid for accrued but unearned vacation, except in California.
Different rules apply in California.
Threats made by staff.
Our company is in North Carolina. I spoke with a staff yesterday to let her know that we would need to discontinue her health insurance benefits due to not maintaining the required 30 hours per week. Which she was reminded of needing back in February. Part of this is due to her getting sick early in February and hurting her back due to falling, vomiting, and coughing excessively, per her statement. The doctors note for her to return to work stated that she has Osteoarthritis and would not be able to continue to pull, tug, and/or lift due to the strain on her back. I removed her from the one case that this was a good part of her job. Since then we have offered her other positions that either the parent did not want to use her or she stated that it would not fit into her schedule. While speaking with her yesterday she stated that the reason she needed to keep her insurance was to be able to go to the doctor because of a work related injury that she received back in December and that with out the insurance she guessed that she would need to file a workers comp claim. She stated that she did not do this before because she knew our rates would go up and she was trying not to cause that to happen. Since this is the first time hearing about this injury, we have followed up with our workers comp company and will file the claim but feel that this is a threat on her part so that we will continue to pay for her health insurance even though she not meet the 30 hours per week requirement.
Are we justified to fire her for “threatening” to file a workers comp claim if we cancel her health insurance for not having the required hours?
You may terminate this employee, but not because she threatens to file a workers comp claim. We agee with you that this supposed workplace injury is probably bogus. Most companies have policies that an employee can be terminated for not promptly reporting a workplace injury. Usually the injury must be reported to the supervisor on the same shift, or no later than the next shift. It is totally unaccpetable for an employee to wait 3 months to report an injury. That is why you will terminate this employee.
It sounds like you have been more than fair with this worker, by offering her additional assignments that would increase her hours and allow her to keep her healthcare benefits. We agree that she may be inventing a workers comp claim to try to encourage you to allow her to keep her insurance.
Allow this employee to file a workers comp claim. Be sure you note on it that she did not report the injury for more than 3 months. We suspect that there are not any witnesses to this so-called injury — also note that on the form. Be sure to speak with your workers comp insurance carrier and let them know your suspicions. Meanwhile, terminate the employee for not reporting the inury promptly.
We will caution you against using the word *threaten* to describe filing a workers comp claim. Reporting a legitimate workplace injury is not an act of agression against the employer. Using such language makes you sound irrational. However, we agree with you that this employee is probably fabricating a workplace inury.
FMLA
Under the definition, a worker must meet the requirement of having worked 12 continuous months to be eligible. If a worker has been employed for 12 months but has been on workers compensation (total disability) for the last 3 months, is he eligible? Employed is employed and worked is worked. In his case he worked for 9 months roughly. Is he eligible?
Actually, you are mistaken. In order to qualify for the federal FMLA, your employee must have worked for 12 months — but the months need not be continuous. So an employee could work for 9 months, then take time off and work for the same employer for another 3 months at some point. As long as the 12 total months of work occurred within 7 years, the employee would be covered by FMLA.
However, you are right — worked means worked. In this case, it sounds like your employee worked for 9 months and then was on disability for 3 months. The employee is not eligible for FMLA.
Just so you know, even if the employee were eligible for FMLA, most employers would have it run concurrently with workers comp, so he would be eligible only for 12 weeks of leave total.
-
Ask a Question
Categories
- Attendance Management (1013)
- Benefits (1495)
- Compensation (1584)
- Employment Training (308)
- Hiring and Staffing (800)
- Human Resources Management (2726)
- Labor Laws (1097)
- Management / Leadership Development (339)
- Performance Management (207)
- Structural Development (41)
- Termination (554)
- Workplace Health & Safety (256)
- Workplace Management (424)
Blogroll
Archives
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
Recent Posts
-
How many hours must be accrued to be eligible
March 18th, 2010 -
fmla for child
March 18th, 2010 -
HR confidentiality
March 18th, 2010 -
smoke breaks
March 17th, 2010 -
Payment of vacation and sick leave upon employee quitting
March 17th, 2010 -
PTO Plan — Discriminatory?
March 17th, 2010 -
Personnel Files
March 17th, 2010
Meta
Pages