Does HR has to have an accurate record?

[xa-xa]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

I was hired by big corporation(more than 85,000 employes) on 6/28/1999. Still is working for the same employer and planning to retire soon.

I requested the employee pension estimate. When I received the estimate I noticed that it was only 920 hours of work instead of 1072 hours.

Per employer policy if an employee worked 1000 or more hours it counts as one year of service.

All HR document shows that my date of hire is 6/28/1999. I am exempt employee and all payed days(vacation, sick, jury duty, holidays...) counts as payed days and not reduce the work days counts.
HR is asking me to provide them a proof that I was working 1072 hours in 1999. I am sure that they have to have an accurate record , not me to provide a proof my record and provide the pay stubs for 1999.(Who keeps the pay stubs that were 15years ago?)

I do not want to loose a one year of service (it is tight to numerous retirement benefits if you have 15y of service or more).

Please provide an advise "What I need to do in this situation?"

Thank you.

 

[racer72]

(Who keeps the pay stubs that were 15years ago?)

I do. Still have some from my time in the Navy back in the 70's.

 

[cbg]

The employer, whether it be HR, Payroll, your hiring manager, or someone else, is required to have an accurate record of hours worked for NON-EXEMPT employees.

There is no such requirement that they have a record of hours worked for exempt employees.

What, if anything, does the pension plan document say about hours that were paid but not worked? The difference in 8 hour days between 920 and 1072 is 19 - did you really have 19 paid days off between 6/28 and 12/31 in your first year of work?

 

[swalsh411]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law) I am sure that they have to have an accurate record

I wouldn't be so sure. It's entirely possible that detailed timekeeping records that far back have been purged. There is no requirement to keep this data for 14 years. In fact one can make an argument that keeping records past when legally required to is a bad idea, because anything you still have you can be audited on or used against you in a lawsuit. If you don't have them, then they can't be used against you.

The employer, whether it be HR, Payroll, your hiring manager, or someone else, is required to have an accurate record of hours worked for NON-EXEMPT employees.

Not from 14 years ago they don't.

 

[cbg]

True enough. Even for non-exempts, there's likely no record this long after the fact. But my point was that for exempt employees, there's no requirement to keep the records at all.

 

[xa-xa]

clarification

The employer, whether it be HR, Payroll, your hiring manager, or someone else, is required to have an accurate record of hours worked for NON-EXEMPT employees.

There is no such requirement that they have a record of hours worked for exempt employees.

What, if anything, does the pension plan document say about hours that were paid but not worked? The difference in 8 hour days between 920 and 1072 is 19 - did you really have 19 paid days off between 6/28 and 12/31 in your first year of work?

Thank you for your interest in my question.
When I was hired I worked all days in 1999 or got compensated hours. Quote from the Summary Plan Description:Chapter " Service" - that "An hour of employment is defined as time for witch you are compensated such as hours of work,Designated Holidays, ETO,and Extended Sick leave hours,as well as periods during witch you received Long Term Disability,Military leave..."
Any advise?
Best Regards,

 

[xa-xa]

grammer error

Sorry,
Please read which.

 

[cbg]

The only advice I can give you is to come up with some form of proof that you actually put in the hours you say. And you didn't answer my question; did you, in fact, have 19 paid days off in the six months you were employed during 1999?

Because if you did, unless a significant portion of them were jury duty or reservist time or something like that, personally I'd be happy I still had a job in 2000.

 

[xa-xa]

n/a

Hello CBG,

Yes, all 1072hours (including 19 days the difference between my and HR records) in 1999 were compensated(payed) hours.

Thank you.

 

[cbg]

Then once, again, I suggest you come up with some proof of that since the employer doesn't have (and isn't required to have) records of your hours worked 14 years ago. The burden of proof is on you to show that their records are wrong.

 

[swalsh411]

Where are you getting 1072 hours?

 

[xa-xa]

From 1999 calendar and the date of hiring, 6/28/1999.

 

[ecmst12]

Based on how many hours per day and how many work days?

 

[cbg]

So it's not that you have records showing that you worked all this time; you're just adding up the days and multiplying?

Have you asked to see their records to see what 19 days they are not crediting you with and why?

 

[xa-xa]

So it's not that you have records showing that you worked all this time; you're just adding up the days and multiplying?

Have you asked to see their records to see what 19 days they are not crediting you with and why?

Yes, I did. I am requested and waiting for HR record.
My employer pay us every two weeks and I found out that last payment was 12/26/1999. The week 12/26-12/31= 80hours( 1 compensated observed holiday + 72 hours of work) was payed in the first pay period of year 2000.