Can someone tell me if we have a case?

[bl4ck]

What is the name of your state? California

Theres two situations:

In December of 2003 I recieved employment from a restaurant that had just opened its doors in my area. When I, along with several other employees were hired on, we were told that we would be hired on as full time. At time of employment, we were told that after three months of employment, full time employees would receive health benefits. Approximately 2 1/2 months after we were hired on, our hours were cut in half. We were now slated as part timers, leaving only the managers with health benefits. Now this upset us, because many of us have families that we need to support. We brought the situation to our manager and he told us that we should talk to the general manager about the problem. When we brought the situation to our general manager, he told us to go talk to our manager and refused to say anything else about the manager because our hours werent within his control. So, finally, after debating back and forth between our manager and our GM, our manager said that he would look into the issue. Within a months time, several new employees were hired 'because we didnt have enough employees to run the store' according to our manager. At this point, we had not received any response from our manager about the health care and drastic cut on hours... so we brought the issue back up. This time, his response was 'that we have too many employees for anyone to work full time'.

The second situation concerns hazardous working environments.

We worked in a restaraunt where food is cooked to order in front of the customers. So in order to keep things safe, we have vents that blow the fire from our stoves away from the glass that customers view through. However, there are caps that need to be placed on the vents in order to keep the air vents at a controlled level so that the flame isnt blown hard enough to burn us as we cook. The caps that needed to be placed on the vents were not the right size, so there was no way to control the vents. It was approximately a month before the caps were replaced, and it appeared that there was no priority in getting them replaced. We demanded several times weekly that the caps be replaced, because many of us were being burned severely due to the flames blowing in our faces. Unfortunately for us, not only were we being told that we had to cook regardless of the flame issue, but when we were burned, we didnt have the health insurance that we so desperately needed for emergency room or doctors visits as results of work related injuries.

I'm sorry if this took a long time, but I have no clue as to whether this is a solid case and I need some advisement.

Thanks

 

[rmet4nzkx]

The priority issue is that of employee safety.

Worker's compensation covers on the job injuries and your employer is required to provide this, so call the workers comp board in the morning in inquire how to proceed in making your reports, also Cal OSHA regulates work safety. You may also want to check with the state department of labor. Remember reports can cause other reprecusions but you do have rights and your employer, responsibilities.

Welcome to California DOSH In the Cal/OSHA program, we protect workers and by enforcement of California's occupational and public safety and health regulations, we provide consultation ...
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/dosh1.html

California Department of Industrial Relations Home Page California Home, ...
http://www.dir.ca.gov/

Cal-OSHA Reporter - The leading occupational safety and health ...
The Cal-OSHA Reporter- The Cal-OSHA Reporter, since 1974, is California's premier information source on issues relating to occupational health and safety. http://www.cal-osha.com/

Employer Records for Occupational Injury and Illness
http://www.californiaosha.info/

 

[bl4ck]

awesome. thank you very much for your quick response.

 

[dan148]

What is the name of your state? California

In December of 2003 I recieved employment from a restaurant that had just opened its doors in my area. When I, along with several other employees were hired on, we were told that we would be hired on as full time. At time of employment, we were told that after three months of employment, full time employees would receive health benefits. Approximately 2 1/2 months after we were hired on, our hours were cut in half. We were now slated as part timers, leaving only the managers with health benefits. Now this upset us, because many of us have families that we need to support. We brought the situation to our manager and he told us that we should talk to the general manager about the problem. When we brought the situation to our general manager, he told us to go talk to our manager and refused to say anything else about the manager because our hours werent within his control. So, finally, after debating back and forth between our manager and our GM, our manager said that he would look into the issue. Within a months time, several new employees were hired 'because we didnt have enough employees to run the store' according to our manager. At this point, we had not received any response from our manager about the health care and drastic cut on hours... so we brought the issue back up. This time, his response was 'that we have too many employees for anyone to work full time'.

Thanks

I am not sure of the laws in Cali, however I owned a restaurant in Florida and can only offer you opinion based on Florida law.

Florida is a, "At will" state, which means there are no contracts between employer and employee (Unless working in the union), It simply means you have the right to quit at any time with no reason, but I also have the right to terminate you for any reason within law guidelines. My point is, if you do not have a contract with your employer stating specifics (Ie: Hours, Benefits, etc..) than there is nothing that can be done on your part. I bet if you look in your "Employee handbook" it states any employee working an average of 32 or so hours per week for 90 days is eligible for such and such benefits...However, it doesn't say (unless union or contractual) You will defintely work an average of 32 hours per week, therefor you will defintely get such and such benefits....
If your hiring manager told you that you WILL get these benefits and you will work 32 or more hours every week, then he was telling you that with the assumption that the restaurant will maintain an expected sales volume of x-amount of dollars. However, if your complaint was in Florida there is nothing that can be done.

When I was the general manager of a restaurant and we had "New store openings" I would hire 80 employees, knowing damn well that in 1,2,3 months or so that I would only need 25-30. But do you think I told everyone I hired that they will only be here until sales decrease and I will terminate you or cut you down to 20 hrs per week,No.... That's just the way this business is and always will be.

 

[cbg]

Right to work means that you can't be forced to join a union in order to get work. What you are talking about is the presumption of at-will employment. At-will means that you can quit at any time and for any reason, and I can fire you at any time and for any reason that does not violate the law. Both Florida and California are at-will states; in fact, the only state in the US which is not, is Montana (and even Montana follows at-will in some circumstances).

No law in any state except Hawaii requires an employer to provide health benefits. It is perfectly legal for them to provide health benefits only to management.

 

[dan148]

Right to work means that you can't be forced to join a union in order to get work. What you are talking about is the presumption of at-will employment. At-will means that you can quit at any time and for any reason, and I can fire you at any time and for any reason that does not violate the law. Both Florida and California are at-will states; in fact, the only state in the US which is not, is Montana (and even Montana follows at-will in some circumstances).

No law in any state except Hawaii requires an employer to provide health benefits. It is perfectly legal for them to provide health benefits only to management.

"At will" is what I meant, I will go and correct that.
Thank's

 

[cbg]

Clarification:

No state except Hawaii requires an employer to provide health insurance benefits. However, an employer who chooses to must abide by the eligibility rules within the plan.

It is legal to offer benefits only to managers. It is legal to offer benefits only to full time employees. It is legal to change the plan so that only managers, or only full time employees, are eligible for benefits.

It is legal to reduce someone's hours to part time because there are legitimate business reasons to do so. It is legal to hire other part timers instead of increasing the original employee's to full time if that makes legitimate business sense.

However, if the original employees are being kept on part time SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DENYING THEM BENEFITS TO WHICH THEY WOULD OTHERWISE BE ENTITLED that is illegal.

It is impossible to tell in a one paragraph post whether this is what is happening or not. I can think of several legitimate business reasons why they might prefer to hire more part time employees and keep EVERYONE but management on part time, that have nothing to do with health insurance.

But IF they are keeping you on part time SOLELY to prevent you from having health insurance (which I find unlikely but not impossible) that is illegal.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

CBG,
Actually that is what happened they were hired "full time" with the promise of health plan, after 2 1/2 months cut to part-time, they complained etc. then: "Within a months time, several new employees were hired 'because we didnt have enough employees to run the store' according to our manager. At this point, we had not received any response from our manager about the health care and drastic cut on hours... so we brought the issue back up. This time, his response was 'that we have too many employees for anyone to work full time'."

It does appear they are in violation and it was to prevent provided the promised healthcare and the original promise of full time work, nor did they cover worker's comp injuries. That is why I refered him to the department of labor in addition to OSHA and worker's comp, I also warned him there could be reprocussions eg "at will state". Insofar as safety I am concerned that a new business would have so many safety violations so soon after opening. Ms. Cupcake

 

[cbg]

I see your point and it's quite possible that you're right. But what we don't know is whether or not there were legitimate business concerns or changes to the company's finances, or what other things may have happened to cause them to make these changes. Particularly in the current economy, that's entirely possible. On the basis of what we KNOW, rather than SURMISE, it's just as possible that the company had to withdraw the promise of benefits for unrelated reasons due to business concerns, as it is that they are DELIBERATELY withholding benefits.

BTW, just as an FYI, in this instance IF a violation exists (and I'm not denying that possibility) I would suggest that they want to contact the Federal DOL rather than the state. ERISA, which is the law that is being violated if ANY law is, is a Federal, not a state law.

I have no quarrel whatsoever with your answer to the second question, and I'm not saying you're wrong on the first one. I'm saying we don't have enough information to say CONCLUSIVELY that there is or is not a case. Your suggestion that they contact the DOL is perfectly appropriate.

I don't think we're as far apart as you might think.

 

[dan148]

I can answer with certainy (if this a corporate restaurant) why the OP hours amongst several others were cut. When a new restaurant opens, that restaurant is not given a budget initially. Management hires an over abundance of staff to ensure excellent guest service as they are opening with the expectation of a certain dollar amount in volume. After 1,2 months or so when the restaurant steadies itself the management and corporate gurus of the company have a pin point figure on sales volume to the exact hour. At which time the management is handed down a period budget. It is the responsibility of the management to ensure costs stay in line in conjuction with that budget so that the management and the upper management get thier bonus checks at the end of the month. I have known some restaurant managers to send the entire kitchen staff home while he ran the kitchen in order to hit his "Labor cost" in which case the "Profits after contollable expenses" is high, hence a nice big bonus check for the manager and no benefits for the employee.
That is why the OP hours were cut...The management doesn't care about the employees. But it will backfire on the restaurant...eventually the guest service department will be horrendous as one manager cannot run an entire restaurant and then sales will drop and then finally the doors will close.
I hate managers like that, I have always made it a point to do whatever I could to make my "Good employees" happy, even missing bonus...I would rather try to solitify higher sales volume which would than allow me to give all the hours the employees needed. But hey, that's just me.
It's all about the money my friend