Vacation Time Changes

[cindyc]

What is the name of your state? New York State

I have been working in my current job for 6 years.
I was given the year 2000 Handbook and was told that the benefits I receive in that handbook is what I should be following (fringe benefits)
I work a four day work week in which I work 40 hours in 4 days (10 hour days)
In the 2000 year Handbook it stated that an employee working for more than five years would receive 27 days Vacation/Sick Time
Over the years the handbook has been amended. The way the company administer time has changed. Instead of administering it in days they have changed it to hours.

My question now is the company is now trying to modify the amount of time I receive.
Up to last year I was still receiving all my days/hours but the company is stating that because I work 4 day weeks I am not entitled to that time and can only receive 200 hours which is equivalent to 20 days.
It was to my understanding that a company can only amend how they administer a benefit but if I was hired with those fringe benefits they cannot take them away from me.

Please let me know if what they are doing is legal. I believe there is a specific law about this.

 

[seniorjudge]

Your alternative is to look for a new job.

 

[moburkes]

Your alternative is to look for a new job.

Right. They can change the rules at any time. There is no law that states that they are required to offer you ANY benefits.
You are arguing over 16 hours?

20 days x 10 hours = 200 hours
27 days x 8 hours = 216 hours

You WANT
27 days x 10 hours, which is WAY unfair.

 

[cindyc]

I don't know if you are understanding me.
They gave me this time and I have spoken to the Employment Labor Law makers and they cited a particular law which states that if a benefit has been given to me it can't be taken away. I was hired with these benefits promised to me. And any changes made for future employees can be changed but I am grandfathered in because I was hired with the handbook from 2000 and not 2007. I want someone who knows NY state law to answer this question insightfully,not with what they think is fair or not fair. For information I had this time 270 hours for two years. I don't need you to tell me what I WANT, I already have it, can they take it away under NY State law.

 

[mlane58]

I don't know if you are understanding me.
They gave me this time and I have spoken to the Employment Labor Law makers and they cited a particular law which states that if a benefit has been given to me it can't be taken away. I was hired with these benefits promised to me. And any changes made for future employees can be changed but I am grandfathered in because I was hired with the handbook from 2000 and not 2007. I want someone who knows NY state law to answer this question insightfully,not with what they think is fair or not fair. For information I had this time 270 hours for two years. I don't need you to tell me what I WANT, I already have it, can they take it away under NY State law.

Whom ever you have been speaking to is wrong. As Moburkes stated, there is a law in any state or federal that requires an employer to provide any benefits unless you have a bona fide contract or are part of a collective bargaining unit. The employer is free to change or take the benefits away as the see fit and there also isn't a law that dictates how employers can manage the benefits they provide to there employees and BTW, lose the attitude.

 

[cindyc]

I spoke to representatives from the Dept of Law - the Section # 198C
which states that:
Fringe benefits are not required, a company can give it if they see fit.
But once they are given, they have to be pretty explicit
Whatever has been accrued cannot be taken away.
A company can only change how they administer the benefit.

 

[moburkes]

Nothing in your original post states that they are retroactively removing hours that you have already earned. Your post only asks can they CHANGE them, which they can. When I gave my example, I was only showing that you are arguing over 16 HOURS.

 

[seniorjudge]

I spoke to representatives from the Dept of Law - the Section # 198C
which states that:
Fringe benefits are not required, a company can give it if they see fit.
But once they are given, they have to be pretty explicit
Whatever has been accrued cannot be taken away.
A company can only change how they administer the benefit.

Not true, but it is still completely different from:

"...They gave me this time and I have spoken to the Employment Labor Law makers and they cited a particular law which states that if a benefit has been given to me it can't be taken away...."

 

[cindyc]

Nothing in your original post states that they are retroactively removing hours that you have already earned. Your post only asks can they CHANGE them, which they can. When I gave my example, I was only showing that you are arguing over 16 HOURS.

I am sorry if I was unclear. These are days that I have already earned that they are trying to retroactively removed. I thought I was being clear when I said I have been with the company for more than 5 years and that I have already accrued the time. So thank you for answering me, I know they can change how they administer my time - like changing it from days to hours, but I have been working for the company now for 7 years and after passing the 5 year mark which I accrued this time, they want to reduce it from 270 hours to 200 hours. So it 70 hours I meant. I'm sorry again if I didn't make sense. So can they do this, can they take away hours I have earned?

 

[moburkes]

I am sorry if I was unclear. These are days that I have already earned that they are trying to retroactively removed. I thought I was being clear when I said I have been with the company for more than 5 years and that I have already accrued the time. So thank you for answering me, I know they can change how they administer my time - like changing it from days to hours, but I have been working for the company now for 7 years and after passing the 5 year mark which I accrued this time, they want to reduce it from 270 hours to 200 hours. So it 70 hours I meant. I'm sorry again if I didn't make sense. So can they do this, can they take away hours I have earned?

You should have never gotten 27 hours. Period. The 27 days was based on 5 days per week, not 4 10 hour days.


If their rules changed over the last 5 years, then they changed. They are not bound to honor a 2000 document, when they've changed their rules. Would you want to be bound by your 2000 salary 5 years later? It works both ways.

You haven't earned the hours. It appears that you are only saying that, since you've started, the rules have changed to accumulate more slowly, and you want to keep the same "plan" that they used when you were hired, which is not a requirement by any law.

Sorry if I was confusing, but you are not going to win this one. Nothing that they've done is illegal.

 

[cindyc]

Can you help me understand Section 198C of the NY Dept. of Labor Law which states this then:
FRINGE BENEFITS
An employer is guilty of a misdemeanor if he or she fails to provide employees the benefits and wage supplements that were agreed upon.

There are other employees who work a four day work week as I do and who have had these benefits in places, this way from their start date, having accrued this time as well. (Never under the premise of working 5 day work weeks, they have always worked 4 day work weeks - can you help me understand how this would apply then, if I can prove they intended to have this benefit to fit 4 day a week employees?

Thank you for all your help by the way

 

[seniorjudge]

Can you help me understand Section 198C of the NY Dept. of Labor Law which states this then:
FRINGE BENEFITS
An employer is guilty of a misdemeanor if he or she fails to provide employees the benefits and wage supplements that were agreed upon.

There are other employees who work a four day work week as I do and who have had these benefits in places, this way from their start date, having accrued this time as well. (Never under the premise of working 5 day work weeks, they have always worked 4 day work weeks - can you help me understand how this would apply then, if I can prove they intended to have this benefit to fit 4 day a week employees?

Thank you for all your help by the way

http://www.labor.state.ny.us/workerprotection/laborstandards/workprot/fringben.shtm

FRINGE BENEFITS

An employer is guilty of a misdemeanor if he or she fails to provide employees the benefits and wage supplements that were agreed upon. Wage supplements include vacation or holiday pay, paid sick leave, reimbursement of expenses and other similar items. Every employer is required to notify employees in writing or by publicly posting the employer's policy on sick leave, vacation, personal leave, holidays, and hours of work.

The Department of Labor has the authority to administer the law requiring payment of agreed fringe benefits.

 

[cindyc]

thank you for posting the entire law
But can someone please explain to me how is it that I haven't really "earned" this time, when I accrued it over the 7 years that I have worked for the company. I know for a fact there are atleast two other employees in this company that they have not tried to enforce this new change to the handbook. Now is that illegal? I guess not because it looks like a company can just about flat out tell you are going to receive all this time after working with us for over 5 years but after they realize that it doesn't work to their advantage they take it away.

Just to give a little bit of background for the past two years (after I passed my 5 year accrual time to be able to get 27 days/270 hours of vacation/sick time) All 4 day work week employees were receiving all of these paid vacation days without question. And at the present time two other employees who work the same schedule as me have lost this granted benefit while two others have not lost it. Maybe this particular issue has been adjudicated in the past but I fail to see how I did not earn this vacation time as I have put in the working years to receive it. I was hired on the basis that I would receive this vacation time and now it can just simply be taken away because the company amended it. That seems unfair...

 

[moburkes]

This is what you are not getting. You work 4 10's for a total of 40 hours. Others work 5 8's for a total of 40 hours. No company intentionally gives you 270 hours for working the same number of hours that they pay the next person 216 hours. THAT is what you are missing. If they ACCIDENTALLY did it for 5 years or 20, they are allowed to correct their mistake. And it certainly IS a mistake to pay you 270 hours when others get 216. They didn't plan for that or budget for that or whatever.

You have a handbook dated 2000. Lets say that they changed their "plan" in 2001, and published that plan. Let's say they LOWERED their vacation time accrual in 2001. They are NOT required to "grandfather" you in to the "better" plan (of 00), simply because that was the plan at the time you were hired.

If they agreed (usually in WRITING) to pay you 270 hours, and at the end of the year old paid you 200, for example, that is illegal. However, they can correct any mistake that they made prevoiusly.

**The question then becomes, what did they AMEND the vaca policy to? Are they paying you in accordance with that. Again, do NOT expect to get paid at the 10 hours/day rate. Expect it to be 8 hrs/day.

 

[cindyc]

Thanks for the clarification.
I guess I am a bit bitter because when the president of the company first changed our time from days to hours 7 months ago she specifically had a meeting with us 4' 10 hour works and said we would most certainly not be losing any of our hours. She said that it would only affect the new employees. We were her fantastic five as she put it. She even wrote it down for me to translate the hours and assured me that none of us would lose it.
I wish I had a contract now for all the eloquent words she used. Since the new amendment, only three of the original five have been affected. How is this at all fair?

To give you a bit of background, our company only has 20 employees, in the early years we were underpaid, understaffed...and because she couldn't pay overtime she switched us to 4 day a week schedules but we were still working long hours, with no breaks...etc...

Now they want to enforce that on a week where there is a holiday, we have to either work four days or work three days (take our given day off) and lose two hours of vacation time or work 40 hours in three days. Because the holiday is a 8 an a half hour paid holiday and we have to give back two hours of vacation time if we take our given day off and work only three days. Can you clarify this ruling for me, is it true that the holiday is considered as being paid at the 8 an a half hour paid holiday?