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?
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?