Fringe Benefit vs. Accrued Vacation

[drharlydlr]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? Washington

An Employment "Understanding" (not Agreement) was signed by new employer and employee of 7 yrs outling job discription, compensation, and vacation ("15 paid time off day(s) 5th - 9th year") upon sale of an apartment complex. Employee's yrs of service were grandfathered for vacation purposes. (Previously vacation pay was a fringe benefit in addition to salary not accrued - I know this has nothing to do with current employer). Employee was terminated after 6 months (job outsourced) and was informed that she owed the company for 15 hours of vacation time taken but not accrued. The Employment Understanding does not specify that vacation time is to be accrued (nor was she told), only that she is entitled to 15 days determined by length of employment. I contend that since accrual was not specified in writing or in discussion, that employee does not owe any monies to employer, and that in fact, they owe her the balance of unused "paid time off day(s)". Right or wrong???

 

[pattytx]

Probably wrong. Vacation being "accrued" is normally understood and does not necessarily have to be in writing for it to be the case. However, in Washington, state law does not require payment for accrued vacation. If the employer "promised" such payment, the employee will have to file a civil suit for it.
http://www.lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRights/Wages/PayReq/FinalPay/default.asp

 

[drharlydlr]

Fringe Benefits vs. Accrued Vacation

Thanks for your reply. I've researched lni as well as federal dol for info to answer my query (I'm thinking it's a contract law issue not employment issue per se). But (isn't there always a "but"?), the contract leaves the employee to guess at what is and is not company policy on this issue. When employee asked the VP upon signing "this means I have 3 weeks coming to me no matter what?" he replied "yes". I think that if there is an employer/employee contract, then the details of each area addressed in said contract should be included and not left to the interpretation of the employee. Since the employee had previously received her vacation time as a fringe benefit of the job, it's natural for her to assume, especially after the VP's reply, that it is a continued fringe benefit and not "accrued" since she was not provided with any information to the contrary; in fact her "assumption" was reinforced. [I was in this same position as a paralegal with a law firm in NH and the employment atty told HR they had to pay me. I learned a valuable lesson, so did they ] Thanks for letting me bounce this around, a 17 yr old son is not much help.

 

[cbg]

In NH unused vacation is required by law to be paid out at termination. That is not the case in Washington.

Just a point.