• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Employer changed position instead of termination, less money and more work

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Freedom007

New member
What is the name of your state? Oregon

Hello,

I worked for a company doing office work for 5 years. I was going to be terminated due to some mistakes I had made. Nobody died, it didn't cost the company any money. Instead of terminating me they transferred me to shipping and receiving. This position is half of what I was making and it is physically demanding. I never said I would take the position, I walked out that day and never returned. I checked online and they have already changed my position and wage even though I never went back. It also showed they are going to pay out my earned, accrued vacation time and last pay check at this lower wage.

My question is can they do this? My wife thinks I should just let this go but I'm curious if this is legal?

Thanks for your time!
 


justalayman

Senior Member
It’s unclear

Did you perform the shipping receiving duties for any amount of time? If so, were you informed of the reduced pay prior to performing the work?
 

justalayman

Senior Member
I'm not seeing anything illegal about it.
If op never performed the reduced pay duties but instead quit, why shouldn’t the benefits be paid out at the higher rate?

If all it took was saying an employee’s pay is cut and even if they never work at the reduced rate, I would think a lot of employers would be doing that to reduce the amount they need to pay out upon severing of the relationship.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
I'm not (yet) seeing where the employee quit without performing the other duties. If that's the case, then yes, the hours already worked should be paid at the higher rate and he can make a complaint to the Oregon DOL. However, changing his job duties and rate of pay is absolutely legal; the employee's agreement is not required.
 

Freedom007

New member
It’s unclear

Did you perform the shipping receiving duties for any amount of time? If so, were you informed of the reduced pay prior to performing the work?
No, I never went back to work after they said they were changing my position and giving me a lower wage.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
Then IF your final paycheck is at the lower rate when you actually receive it, you can file a wage claim with the state. Otherwise, you're out of luck.
 

Freedom007

New member
I'm not (yet) seeing where the employee quit without performing the other duties. If that's the case, then yes, the hours already worked should be paid at the higher rate and he can make a complaint to the Oregon DOL. However, changing his job duties and rate of pay is absolutely legal; the employee's agreement is not required.
If op never performed the reduced pay duties but instead quit, why shouldn’t the benefits be paid out at the higher rate?

If all it took was saying an employee’s pay is cut and even if they never work at the reduced rate, I would think a lot of employers would be doing that to reduce the amount they need to pay out upon severing of the relationship.
That's what I was thinking, the money due to me was all under my original wage. My wife seems to think that because I never went back, never told them I quit they can just pay me at the reduced rate.

Thanks for everyone's input! Leaving that company was the best thing I have ever done!
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Then IF your final paycheck is at the lower rate when you actually receive it, you can file a wage claim with the state. Otherwise, you're out of luck.
For work performed - yes, but would the state consider a shortage on a vacation check as a matter to be addressed through a wage claim?
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
He may be out of luck on the vacation pay. Oregon is a "follow your policy" state - the law doesn't much care. As one of my colleagues says, he puts in the claim and it works or it doesn't. If it works, fine; if it doesn't, well, the law in Oregon doesn't absolutely require that his vacation be paid out to him in the first place.

However, I would like to remind him that the change MAY have been put into the system in anticipation of his continued employment. Until he actually receives a check at the lower wage, no law has been violated and he has no claim.

In anticipation of chyvan I will also remind him to file for unemployment. While it is not anything remotely close to a sure thing, depending on the amount of the pay cut he may - and I emphasize may; this is not a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination - have had good cause to quit and receive benefits. It's another "it works or it doesn't" thing - he may not get them if he applies and you can bet his employer will fight them like a banshee, but he definitely won't if he doesn't. There is no penalty for being wrong and the worst that can happen is that he's denied, in which case he's no worse off than if he never applied in the first place.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top