Employee Handbook Question

[jbachom]

What is the name of your state? Ky

I recently gave my two week notice and I would like to know if the company I work for is bound by their employee handbook. In the handbook it states under the resignation section that they request a two week notice however the company may opt to pay the employee for the last two weeks instead of requiring them to work the days. Also, it states that an employee must submit their two weeks and work the two weeks to be paid for accrued vacation.

This employer has a habit of telling employees that give their two week notice to either leave then or during the two week period once they have replaced the employee. For example a coworker gave notice and two days prior to completing the two week notice period she was told her services were no longer needed. I think it would be unfair to "fire" someone to avoid complying with paying them for their last two days and vacation time.


Since their handbook states that they may pay the employee instead of requiring them to work the time are they bound by this.

Also, I only worked there for 4 months but it does not stipulate a time period in the handbook for these benefits. Is that an issue?

 

[cbg]

I would like to know if the company I work for is bound by their employee handbook.

No, they are not. Not unless it reaches the level of a binding contract; very few employee handbooks meet that standard.

In the handbook it states under the resignation section that they rquest a two week notice however the company may opt to pay the employee for the last two weeks instead of requiring them to work the days.

That means they may pay them; they may not. The law does not require that you be paid for a notice period you do not work, even if it is the employer who tells you not to work.

Also, it states that an employee must submit their two weeks and work the two weeks to be paid for accrued vacation

That's a legal policy in your state.

I think it would be unfair to "fire" someone to avoid complying with paying them for their last two days and vacation time.

It may be unfair, but being unfair does not make it illegal.

Since their handbook states that they may pay the employee instead of requiring them to work the time are they bound by this.

No. It says they MAY pay the employee, not that they WILL pay the employee.

Also, I only worked there for 4 months but it does not stipulate a time period in the handbook for these benefits. Is that an issue

After only four months it's quite unlikely that you've accrued any vacation benefits in the first place. Regardless of whether there is a "time limit" in the handbook, they are NOT required by law to pay you for unworked notice time.

 

[Beth3]

Since their handbook states that they may pay the employee instead of requiring them to work the time are they bound by this. Probably not. Employee handbooks aren't usually written in such a way as to constitute a contract. But even if it did, the language is quite clear. It says the employer MAY pay the employee. It doesn't say they will. Clearly it's entirely the employer's option.

 

[jbachom]

Follow up question on employee handbook

The verbage is that they may opt to pay the employee for the two weeks instead of requiring them to work the time.

Second, I do have 30 hours of accrued vacation in my four months and it does not state that an employee must be employee for a certain period of time for this benefit.

Finally, what is the purpose of an employee handbook if employers are not bound by what is in them. I understand there is a difference between an employment contract and an employee handbook but I have been told that with employment laws today that an employee handbook does provide a little more weight behind an argument today versus the past.

Ultimately if your response is still the same, my employer only sends one message to its employees...do not do them a favor by giving notice since they will only scr?w you in the end. If they scr?w me I hope everyone who leaves after me and my coworker see what they do and leave without notice putting them in a bind.

 

[cbg]

As an attorney of my acquaintance frequently puts it, employee handbooks are binding on the employee, not on the employer.

If the employee wishes to remain employed, it is incumbent on the employee to follow the rules. The employer is the one who makes the rules and they may change them as they see fit. I don't know who told you that handbooks now carry more weight than they used to, but any well-written handbook will have a clause somewhere in it that specifically states that it is not a contract and that policies may be changed as the employer sees the need.

Whether you like it or not, at the present time and in the present job market the balance of power is with the employer. This is not always the case; it's less than five years since I sat in managment meetings where employers were bending over backwards trying to find cost-effective incentives to prevent employees from quitting; hiring employees with only minimal qualifications because they couldn't hold onto the qualified ones if another employer made a better offer; offering huge hire bonuses or stay bonuses that they probably couldn't afford; allowing the most outrageous behavior from the employees because if the employee heard anything they remotely didn't like, they could find a new job (probably with better pay) in a matter or days or at the most, weeks, whereas it might take the employer months to find a replacement. Those days are over. They may come back, but they aren't here right now.

You are free to leave the employer without notice. The employer is free to tell any prospective employers who call for a reference that you did so. (Yes, a prospective employer may call this one without your permission, and leaving this employer off your resume is considered falsification of your application which is a firing offense.)

 

[jbachom]

Employers are bound by employee handbooks

Well, I would like to know are you an attorney cbg that practices in Labor Law or do you represent employers? The reason I ask is I almost took you at your word but instead I contacted the Kentucky Department of Labor and asked if my employer is bound by their handbook. Per the Department of Labor employers ARE bound by their handbooks and I am due to be paid for time not worked if they do not let me finish my two weeks notice as well as pay me for my accrued vacation.

Before giving advice in these forums make sure you know what you are talking about. I think based on your response you are a pro employer representative that tries to attempt to squash any anti-employer action.

 

[cbg]

You are free to think whatever you like. Doesn't make it true.

If you are dissatisfied with the answer you got here, contact FreeAdvice and I'm sure they will be happy to refund what you paid for it.

If Kentucky has a law that all employers are strictly bound to follow the handbook regardless of circumstances and regardless of any disclaimers (which I do not believe is true) they are the only state in the US to have such a law. YOUR specific handbook may have been written in such a way as to be binding - that doesn't mean it's a hard and fast rule across the board. I still maintain that an employee handbook is not, in most cases, a legal document.

 

[jbachom]

Response to cbg

My response is that since the advice is free there is not a refund due. Now my problem with you is that you seem to have spent a lot of time on this website since your stats show you have over 11,000 posts. I hope you act in good faith and your intentions are honest but when you give advice that is inaccurate I wonder how many of the 11,000 people have walked away taking your advice when they should have followed through.

I never said a handbook is a legal document. You do not need a legal document to be binding. For example, oral contracts are binding and yes I know not as easily enforcable as written ones but in a court of law oral commitments are binding. The simple fact is that employment law is changing and employers are being held more responsible for what they put in writing.

When I told the Department of Labor what you said... that employees are bound by a company's handbook and that employers are not, the person from the Department of Labor adimattly stated you were incorrect.

The Department of Labor is responsible for ensuring that employers follow what they put in writing as well as ensuring the Fair Labor Standards Act. I do not know if there is an acual law that can be sited but if I find out that there is one I will definetly let you know.

 

[cbg]

This site is for general legal advice, not for specifics. If you want specific advice that's what local attorneys and the DOL are for.

I made it quite clear that the definition I was providing you was not my own, but one I had been given by an attorney.

I'd also like to know why I'm coming in for all the venom? I wasn't the only one who responded to your post.

 

[Beth3]

ibachom, you were either incorrectly informed by the person you spoke to at the DOL or you misunderstood. Unless the Handbook is written in such a way as to constitute an employment contract (which is highly unlikely), employers are NOT bound by their Handbooks. It's just that simple. The contents of a Handbook are company policy and a company may change, deviate from, or disregard company policy any time they please as long as they're not doing so for an illegal reason (i.e. refusing to comply with a policy because of an employee's race or gender, for example.)

I don't know where all this venom towards cbg is coming from either. (a) She's right, and (b) the DOL is NOT charged with ensuring employers follow their own policies. They DO enforce employment laws, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act but the FLSA has nothing to do with your situation.

I do not know if there is an acual law that can be sited but if I find out that there is one I will definetly let you know. There is none.

 

[jbachom]

Apology

You are correct others did respond and I do not mean to come off as angry at you personally.

My only concern is I have read other responses and you come off as if you are an attorney providing free advice. Even though I do agree you did state your friend was the attorney you seem to be stating facts based on thier knowledge which you only assume is accurate and not your personal opinion. If you are not personally an attorney then please offer your responses as opinions and not as facts because that is what they come off as.

I do apologize to you if you feel I am angry with you when I am more concerned about others who have taken your advice without doing more research. I almost did not do more research and if I do get let go without being paid for the time they will not allow me to work as well as my vacation I could have lost hundreds of dollars.

One final thought, you seem to be someone who likes to help others and interested in the law. You also seem to have a lot of time on your hands since you have posted so many responses to this site. If this is the case and you are not an attorney, why not work on becoming one. I am not being mean or sarcastic here I do think you have good intentions.

Once again please do not take this as anger but instead constructive critisism.

 

[cbg]

My profile clearly states that I am an HR professional. I have never claimed to be an attorney or posed as one. The actual attorneys who post here are well aware of my credentials. Anyone who cares to know is welcome to click on my profile.

As an HR professional I am required to know a great deal about employment law. I am not making this claim myself - I am repeating what I have been told by one general practice attorney and one employment attorney; I personally know more employment law than most attorneys in fields other than employment law. I would never make such a claim on my own; I am ONLY repeating what these attorneys have told me. Think about it; would YOU hire someone to run your HR department who didn't know employment law? What are they there for otherwise?

I had already given you my opinion. In quoting the attorney's opinion I was giving you back-up information.

With all due respect, it is your own (and anyone else's) fault if they take the word on this site as final. We can only answer the questions in a general way, and only based on the information we are provided. Any of these responses can be incorrect if details are omitted. A year or so ago, on another site, a poster asked if they had a discrimination claim but completely failed to mention some key details that made all the difference to the answer. She had been given information by several attorneys and HR professionals which was correct on the basis of what she told us; it wasn't until the end of a very long thread that she provided additional information which completely changed the picture. She would have gotten an entirely different answer had she provided that info in her initial post.

The same applies when it comes to the enforceabilty of any document, be it non-compete agreement, employee contract or employee handbook. All we can give you is very general information; the EXACT wording of any given document can change the answer.

I'm sorry you were dissatisfied with the information you received, but based on what we had to go on it was the correct answer. EVEN IF Kentucky has a law that specifies that handbooks are binding, that answer is not applicable to the other 49 states. The GENERAL information, which is all we can provide, is still correct.