Vacation Wages and New Ownership - Lost Pay

[JohnErick]

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

I had a conference at the Labor Enforcement office today in Santa Ana that went horribly. I am confused and the lady was very hostile, so I went away very confused and I need advice.

This may be very confusing, or I may just be making it so. Our company paid out 80 hours of pto for working a full year. The PTO was paid out every January 1st. During 2012 talks ensued to sell our company. We had been allotted our 80 hours earned by working through 2011 on Jan 1, 2012. At the end of the year, as the merger was taking place, the original owner paid out all remaining unused PTO people still had not taken. Also, we were completing an application process and drug screen as the new owner technically had us "re-apply". Even though we had been accruing PTO towards Jan 1, 2013, the new ownership took over on Jan 1, 2013 and started us over at zero hours, which we had to start earning under their policy.

We want to know what happened to the 80 hours we were accruing through 2012 that we would have received on January 1, 2013. Was the previous owner supposed to pay that out as accrued wages earned? Was the new owner required to pay this out or allot us 80 hours or do we just lose that accrued time by working through 2012?

The Labor officer stated that they only deal with vacation wages once an employee severs ties with their employer, but I believe we technically did that when we had to re-apply and complete an application and drug screen process. She also said that it would also depend on if the new owners assumed liability for the debts of the previous company when they bought our old employer out. The end result is that somewhere a year's accrued PTO wages disappeared and we're all confused. Of course this would only relate to our company's 2 California locations.

Also, without the Labor Board, my claim would literally only amount to $855, although with the "fines" they put on the initial claim, it would have pushed it to a few thousand. This would have affected about 80 employees or so total. Is this too small for a labor attorney to even consider?

 

[justalayman]

did your employer change or did the ownership of the employer change? If your employer did not change, regardless of what it took to retain your job, it is still the same employer. If they are a new business entity, then you have severed the relationship with the prior employer.

 

[JohnErick]

did your employer change or did the ownership of the employer change? If your employer did not change, regardless of what it took to retain your job, it is still the same employer. If they are a new business entity, then you have severed the relationship with the prior employer.

The ownership of the company changed. It was privately held by a family, and was sold to a different company that had no prior presence in our field of business. The DLSE person told me regardless, I had to leave my current employer in order to even have them look at the issue further. But the old owner sold the company off.

 

[justalayman]

if it was the ownership of the company and you are still employed by the same company, then you have not severed your relationship with the company.

 

[JohnErick]

if it was the ownership of the company and you are still employed by the same company, then you have not severed your relationship with the company.

Well, even though we still use the old name to comfort customers, the name of our company has actually changed to another. I'm not sure if that has anything to do with severed relations. We are a new entity for my current owner/employer, as they did not have any previous dealings with operator services, only medical waste collection. But either way, if you have time for one more answer, is there even a possibility of a claim after I find a new job? I am beginning to think it's a lost cause. We'll probably all have to just get used to it.

 

[justalayman]

do everybody a favor and edit out the name of the company before somebody quotes it.


but what I am after (and it doesn't matter if the original company makes toilet seats and the company that bought them operates satellites. association of business types is irrelevant), is;

if you go to California's site on business registrations, is the old business still in business but with changes like the registered agent is now part of the new owners group.




before it is settled if this is a new company or not, the rest of your query really cannot be answered.

 

[JohnErick]

do everybody a favor and edit out the name of the company before somebody quotes it.


but what I am after (and it doesn't matter if the original company makes toilet seats and the company that bought them operates satellites. association of business types is irrelevant), is;

if you go to California's site on business registrations, is the old business still in business but with changes like the registered agent is now part of the new owners group.




before it is settled if this is a new company or not, the rest of your query really cannot be answered.

Well going to the state business look up site, it says that the name is the same as it was before, as of today, with a status of Active. Our company info and logos on everything have changed to the new company stuff, but it still shows the old name as active, with jurisdiction in Delaware. This is by going to http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/ . I am assuming that I am at the right place. But it doesn't say anything about registered agent. Am I looking in the wrong place? Thank you for your help too... it is appreciated.

 

[justalayman]

let's go with the presumption it is the same business entity at least for the sake of discussion for a moment.

During 2012 talks ensued to sell our company. We had been allotted our 80 hours earned by working through 2011 on Jan 1, 2012. At the end of the year, as the merger was taking place, the original owner paid out all remaining unused PTO people still had not taken. Also, we were completing an application process and drug screen as the new owner technically had us "re-apply". Even though we had been accruing PTO towards Jan 1, 2013, the new ownership took over on Jan 1, 2013 and started us over at zero hours, which we had to start earning under their policy.

your statement there that I emboldened; is that is reference to time accrued as of Jan 1 2012 only or did it involved PTO accrued during 2012 as well?

so, was there a policy change for 2012 that would have done away with PTO time?





I am wondering if you are not misunderstanding when time actually accrued in relation to when it was paid or allowed to be used. Many employers deal with the accrual of time and the use of or payment of all in the same year. Example; you can accrue up to 8o hours in any year. If you use time during that year, it will be subtracted from your "bank". Then, at the end of the year, you are paid for unused time. If it was that method, the payments made in 2012 were for time accruing during 2012 which would explain why there was nothing due on Jan 1 2013. It would make sense when you consider this statement as well:

the new ownership took over on Jan 1, 2013 and started us over at zero hours, which we had to start earning under their policy.

and, sometimes the simplest method to solve a problem is overlooked:

have you asked your employer what happened to that PTO that would have accrued during 2012?

 

[JohnErick]

let's go with the presumption it is the same business entity at least for the sake of discussion for a moment.





your statement there that I emboldened; is that is reference to time accrued as of Jan 1 2012 only or did it involved PTO accrued during 2012 as well?

so, was there a policy change for 2012 that would have done away with PTO time?





I am wondering if you are not misunderstanding when time actually accrued in relation to when it was paid or allowed to be used. Many employers deal with the accrual of time and the use of or payment of all in the same year. Example; you can accrue up to 8o hours in any year. If you use time during that year, it will be subtracted from your "bank". Then, at the end of the year, you are paid for unused time. If it was that method, the payments made in 2012 were for time accruing during 2012 which would explain why there was nothing due on Jan 1 2013. It would make sense when you consider this statement as well:




and, sometimes the simplest method to solve a problem is overlooked:

have you asked your employer what happened to that PTO that would have accrued during 2012?

Hi!

I asked HR and they said that we did accrue 80 hours for working through the year 2012. Had we still been employed as our previous company on Jan 1, 2013 then everyone would have had 80 more hours in their bank for working through 2012 and earning 80 hours. Since we went under the new company on Jan 1st, everyone started over under their new policy with 0 hours and would accrue (i.e.) 1.4 hours per month.

PTO was accrued by working the previous year, and then gaining 80 hrs on the following January 1st. I will hit my 3 year mark with my employer on November 15th. I am accruing time and using it this year with our new company when needed. That accounts for 2013 under the new policy. Previously I have only earned a total of 88 hours for the last 2 years (Full years worked 2011 and 2012) which is only PTO for one year. I am short a year, as is everyone else. Our previous owner did not allow us to use PTO as it accrued throughout the year. We had to wait and work the whole year and it would be made available on Jan 1st of the following year only. No advances. When Jan 1st 2013 hit we had 0. So when we end 2013, I will have earned PTO for working 2 of the 3 years - there is a year missing. This is the concern.

Also, almost forgot!, the bolded statement about paying out unused vacation when the old owner left, he paid out the remaining PTO that was earned by working through 2011 and put in the bank on Jan 1, 2012. Remember, the new owner did not take possession until Jan 1, 2013. So we were working to earn that next 2 weeks of PTO through 2012, and when 2013 hit, we started under a new policy and we lost it and started at 0.