Does HR has to have an accurate record?

[swalsh411]

There were exactly 27 whole M-F weeks between 6/28/99 and 12/31/99. So that is 1080 hours. But that's just looking at a calendar and counting the weeks. It's not proof of hours you worked or were paid for.

Be prepared for HR to say the records are no longer available.

 

[cbg]

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.

Then that week is applied to the year 2000 and not to the year 1999.

 

[xa-xa]

The hours worked in 1999. Why it applied in 2000? It is not logical.

 

[cbg]

It goes by when they were paid.

 

[xa-xa]

I worked in 1999 and this week belongs to 1999, not a 2000. It is a common sense.

 

[cbg]

You can argue the point all you want. The answer is not going to change.

 

[swalsh411]

I worked in 1999 and this week belongs to 1999, not a 2000. It is a common sense.

What cbg is saying is that what counts is when the hours are paid not when they are worked. Similar to how you pay taxes based on wages when they are paid not earned. You can argue "common sense" until you are blue in the face but if that is the way the plan is written then that is how the plan is written.

Having said that, 152 hours (1072 - 920) is a lot of hours to be worked in one year and paid in the next. That would mean paying a full month in arrears, which is illegal in most states.

Regardless, the burden of proof is on you to show the hours you worked/paid in 1999 and merely looking at a calendar and counting weeks isn't good enough.

 

[cbg]

He's only saying 72 hours were paid in 2000 after being worked in 1999. He still hasn't accounted for the rest.

 

[Zigner]

I worked in 1999 and this week belongs to 1999, not a 2000. It is a common sense.

You didn't pay 1999 taxes on that money either - it is counted from when it is paid.

 

[xa-xa]

It is understandable that the taxes payed in the year that you were payed, but the hours worked in 1999 are the hours worked in 1999.

 

[swalsh411]

You're just going in circles now.

Bottom line - The burden of proof is on you to show that you worked more hours than HR is reporting.

 

[xa-xa]

Placed a call to the Department of Labor and got right information and what to do next...
Please do not give ill advise. It is better not provide any advise that to give wrong one.

 

[TheGeekess]

Placed a call to the Department of Labor and got right information and what to do next...
Please do not give ill advise. It is better not provide any advise that to give wrong one.

So, tell us what the correct advice is, then. We're waiting with bated breath.

 

[xa-xa]

DOL clarification and advise:

1. The hours worked in 1999 reflected in the time sheet/time card for year 1999 and it is irrelevant if the payment for these hours was done next year.

2. The employer has to request from SS or IRS the dollar amount I earned and received working for this employer. The employer knows the hourly rate I was hired. Simple arithmetic will give hours of worked or payed holidays, sick...in 1999. I need to give the employer OK to contact SS or IRS for this request.

This is the end of my communication with this forum thread.

 

[cbg]

1. The hours worked in 1999 reflected in the time sheet/time card for year 1999 and it is irrelevant if the payment for these hours was done next year

That's not what they told MY employer.

But okay, whatever you say.