New York Labor and Employment Law Report : New York Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Bond Schoeneck & King Law Firm : NY Labor Relations, Employee Benefits

We have posted previously on the amendments to New York Labor Law Section 195, the so-called Wage Theft Prevention Act, which creates certain employer obligations to notify employees of their wage rates and other information. As the April 9, effective date approaches, employers should be preparing to provide the following notifications and information.

Notification at Time of Hire

Whenever a new employee is hired, Section 195 now requires employers to provide the following information to each new hire before the new hire begins work:

• Rate or rates of pay
• Basis of pay (e.g. hourly, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or other)
• Allowances, if any, claimed against the minimum wage (e.g., tips, meals, lodging)
• Identification of the regular pay day.
• Name of employer (including any doing business as name)
• Address and phone of employer
   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 21, 2010, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed legislation establishing a 2% cap on the aggregate increase in base salary per year that can be provided in an interest arbitration award. The New Jersey law may serve as a model for a similar effort in New York. Since he has taken office, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has vowed to introduce changes to reduce the cost of State and Local government. He has stated that “New York is at a crossroads, and we must seize this opportunity, make hard choices and set our state on a new path toward prosperity…We simply cannot afford to keep spending at our current rate. Just like New York's families and businesses have had to do, New York State must face economic reality.” In order to achieve his cost saving measures, Governor Cuomo has introduced legislation calling for a 2% cap on property taxes. In addition, he has established by Executive Order a Mandate Relief Redesign Team as well as theSpending And Government Efficiency (Sage) Commission which will conduct a rigorous and comprehensive review of mandates imposed on local taxing districts and government spending “with the goal of saving taxpayer money, increasing accountability and improving the delivery of government services.”

With Governor Cuomo calling for such wide-reaching changes, and groups such as the New York Conference of Mayors (NYCOM) calling for the Governor to implement changes to Interest Arbitration (e.g., redefining “ability to pay”, prohibiting the consideration of non-economic items, limiting the number of times that a union can consecutively go to interest arbitration), it is possible that legislation similar to that signed by Governor Christie in New Jersey will be introduced in New York. In fact, former Gubernatorial candidate and Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy has already publicly embraced New Jersey’s 2% interest arbitration cap, and has indicated that he plans to call on the New York State Legislature to enact similar legislation. According to Mr. Levy, such a cap would, “save the county of Suffolk between $7 million and $10 million per year for the police force alone, considering the police union received a 3.5 percent increase in the most recent round of mandatory arbitration.”
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

An appellate court in California recently held that an employee’s email exchanges with an attorney via the employee’s work email account were not protected by the attorney-client privilege, Holmes v. Petrovich Development Co. According to the Court’s opinion, when Gina Holmes began working for Petrovich Development Co., she read and signed the company’s employee handbook, which contained a policy regarding use of the company’s technology resources. The policy advised employees that: (1) the company’s technology resources, such as computers and email accounts, were for business purposes only; (2) employees had no expectation of privacy in the information or messages “created or maintained” on the company’s technology resources, including any emails sent or received on a company email account; and (3) the company could “inspect all files or messages … at any time for any reason at its discretion” and would periodically monitor files and messages. When Holmes got into an argument with the CEO about becoming pregnant a month after being hired, she exchanged two emails with an attorney via her company email account in which she explained her situation and asked about her rights. The next day, and after meeting with the attorney, Holmes quit her job claiming a hostile work environment and constructive discharge.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The United States Department of Labor announced recently that its Office of Labor-Management Standards will begin collecting data on employers and their representatives who are involved in representation cases before the National Labor Relations Board. The initiative, termed the Persuader Reporting Orientation Program or “PROP,” may be part of the Department of Labor’s efforts to stem the tide of union losses in organizing campaigns. We reported previously on the Agency’s plan to revise the longstanding interpretation of the “advice exception” to reporting obligations under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”) 29 U.S.C. § 433.

Pursuant to PROP, the Office of Labor-Management Standards will review certain petitions filed with the National Labor Relations Board. It will then send what the Agency calls an “orientation letter” to the employer and its representative, “informing them of their potential reporting obligations under the LMRDA.” Under the LMRDA, an employer is required to file an annual report with the federal government in which it discloses agreements (and associated payments), where a purpose of the agreement is to persuade employees with respect to their right to organize. A willful failure to file such reports can result in criminal liability.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 15, 2010, we reported that former New York Governor David Patterson signed the Wage Theft Prevention Act (the “Act”) into law on December 13, 2010. Because the Act states that it shall take effect 120 days after it is signed into law, we reported the effective date as Tuesday, April 12, 2011. However, it appears that Governor Patterson signed the Act twice – first on December 10, 2010 and then again during a public ceremony on December 13. Because the Act was first signed into law on December 10, 2010, the effective date is actually Saturday, April 9, 2011. As a result, employers must implement the Act’s new notice, employee acknowledgment and record retention requirements by April 9, 2011. Because implementation may require significant changes in current policies and procedures, employers should begin a review of payroll and wage notification practices now.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As many employers are aware, under the Federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act, employers must provide affected employees with 60 days’ written notice of a plant closing.  In Collins v. Gee West Seattle, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had the opportunity to decide whether employees who left their employment after learning that their company was closing “voluntary departed” under WARN, thereby excusing the employer from sending out WARN notices.

In that case, Gee West, a car dealership that employed approximately 150 employees, experienced severe financial losses in July 2007, and decided to sell the company. Despite its efforts, the business was not sold, and on September 26, Gee West announced that it was closing 11 days later, on October 7. After the announcement, employees stopped going to work, and only 30 employees were present the day the plant closed.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link