calwages.com

Posts Tagged ‘Labor Code section 203’

Collective Bargaining Exception to California Labor Code Section 227.3 (Right to Immediate Vacation Time Payment Upon Termination) Requires Clear and Unmistakable Waiver

In Labor Code Section 203, Labor Code Section 227.3, Termination Pay (Labor Code section 201), Vacation, Waiting Time Penalties on May 2, 2013 at 4:11 pm
Collective Bargaining Bill Signing

Collective Bargaining Bill Signing (Photo credit: Office of Governor Patrick)

The Second District today issued its ruling in Choate v. Celite Corporation, No. B239160, __ Cal. App. 4th __ (2d Dist. May 2, 2013).  The case involved Labor Code section 227.3, which provides for full payment of vested vacation time upon termination:

Unless otherwise provided by a collective-bargaining agreement, whenever a contract of employment or employer policy provides for paid vacations, and an employee is terminated without having taken off his vested vacation time, all vested vacation shall be paid to him as wages at his final rate in accordance with such contract of employment or employer policy respecting eligibility or time served; provided, however, that an employment contract or employer policy shall not provide for forfeiture of vested vacation time upon termination. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.)

The court rejected an implied waiver standard and held that for the collective bargaining agreement exception to apply, the CBA must clearly and unmistakably waive the right to immediate payment: Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Second District Holds That Piece Rate Employees Must Be Paid Separate Hourly Minimum Wage

In Averaging, Cal. State Court, Class Actions, Experts, Minimum Wage, Piece Rate, Use of Experts to Show Class Damages on April 2, 2013 at 4:02 pm
mercedes-driver at it’s best

mercedes-driver at it’s best (Photo credit: *MarS)

Today the Second District ordered published Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors, LP, et al., Case No. B235292, __ Cal. App. 4th __ (2d Dist. Mar. 6, 2013).  Gonzalez is a wage and hour class action where the question presented was whether California’s minimum wage law requires an employer that compensates its automotive service technicians on a “piece-rate” basis for repair work must also pay those technicians a separate hourly minimum wage for time spent during their work shifts waiting for vehicles to repair or performing other non-repair tasks directed by the employer.  Defendant automobile dealership contended it was not required to pay the technicians a separate hourly minimum wage for such time because it ensured that a technician’s total compensation for a pay period never fell below what the employer refers to as the “minimum wage floor” — the total number of hours the technician was at work during the pay period (including hours spent waiting for repair work or performing non-repair tasks), multiplied by the applicable minimum wage rate.  The employer supplemented pay, if necessary, to cover any shortfall.

The Court of Appeal concluded that class members were entitled to separate hourly compensation for time spent waiting for repair work or performing other non-repair tasks directed by the employer during their work shifts, as well as penalties under Labor Code section 203, subdivision (a).

The Court also affirmed the award of waiting time penalties in the amount of $237,840.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support an implied finding of willfulness. Read the rest of this entry »