Board awards in unfair labor practice cases are usually premised in a make-whole remedy which, in the case of back-pay awards for example, include interest. Interest has been part of the remedy for decades. More recently, daily compound interest became the rule. The Board can reset the rate quarterly using the short-term federal rate plus three percent, which is the rate the IRS uses for underpayment of taxes. For several years, the rate was three or four percent, given the state of the economy. Interest awards can really add up, especially when a make-whole remedy impacts a large workforce and interest accrues over the many years it can take for final decision in a ULP case. As such, interest is normally a factor in litigation and settlement of these cases.
Illinois is now the second state to require that employers provide unpaid bereavement leave to eligible employees under its Child Bereavement Leave Act. This Act provides that employers with at least 50 employees must provide two weeks (10 working days) of unpaid leave due to the loss of a child. In the event of death of more than one child in a 12-month period, an employee is eligible for up to six weeks of bereavement leave.
The Act defines “employers” and “employees” in the same manner as they are defined under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Thus, an employee will be eligible for child bereavement leave under Illinois law if the employee has been employed by the employer for at least 12 months and has worked at least 1250 hours during the previous 12-month period. However, an employee who has exhausted his or her FMLA leave is not eligible for child bereavement leave under this Act.
While an employee’s eligibility for child bereavement leave is tied to the employee’s FMLA entitlement, the employee’s bereavement leave cannot be deducted from the employee’s available FMLA leave. In other words, an employee can take two weeks of bereavement leave and still be eligible for 12 weeks of FMLA leave for another qualifying event.
The Act defines “child” as “an employee’s son or daughter who is a biological, adopted, or foster child, a stepchild, a legal ward, or a child of a person standing in loco parentis.”
An employee may use bereavement leave to:
- Attend the funeral or alternative to a funeral of a child;
- Make arrangements necessitated by the death of the child; or
- Grieve the death of the child.
Employees must take such leave within 60 days after the date on which they receive notice of the death of the child. Employees who wish to take bereavement leave must provide 48 hours’ advance to their employer, unless providing such notice is not reasonable and practicable.
Employers may require that an employee provide reasonable documentation, such as a death certificate, a published obituary, or written verification of death, burial, or memorial services from a mortuary, funeral home, burial society, crematorium, religious institution, or government agency.
Substitution of Paid Leave
Under the Act, employees may elect to substitute paid leave, including family, medical, sick, annual, or personal leave, that is available pursuant to federal, state, or local law, a collective bargaining agreement, or employment policy. Unlike FMLA provisions, the right to substitute paid leave rests with the employee and the Act does not provide any right to the employer to require an employee to use available paid leave.
Retaliation and Enforcement
An employer may not retaliate or take any other adverse action against any employee who:
- Exercises rights or attempts to exercise rights under this Act;
- Opposes practices which such employee believes to be in violation of the Act; or
- Supports the exercise of rights of another under this Act.
If an employee feels that his or her rights have been violated under this Act, he or she may file a complaint with the Illinois Department of Labor or file a civil action in court within 60 days after the date of the violation.
An employer who violates this Act is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $500 for the first offense and not to exceed $1,000 for the second offense.
On June 27, 2016, a Texas federal court granted a preliminary injunction preventing the Department of Labor (DOL) from moving forward on a nationwide basis with the July 1st enforcement of its Final Rule Interpretation of the “Advice” Exemption to Section 203(c) of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) (also known as the DOL’s “Persuader Rule”). The court order was based on findings that plaintiffs in the case of National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Perez, 5:16-cv-00066-C, were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims in establishing that the DOL’s Persuader Rule is inconsistent with federal law and exceeds the DOL’s statutory authority.
Making good on a 2014 directive from President Obama “to modernize and streamline” existing overtime regulations, the Department of Labor (DOL) today published its highly anticipated Final Rule Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees. As expected, the Final Rule (which becomes effective December 1, 2016 ) more than doubles the current $455 weekly minimum salary required for employees to qualify for “white collar” exemptions to the minimum wage and overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The DOL expects its new Final Rule to extend minimum wage and overtime protections to more than 4.2 million Americans and increase employee wages by $12 billion over the next 10 years.
Key Changes under the DOL’s Final Rule
The FLSA requires that covered employees be paid minimum wage for all worked hours and overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. To qualify for exemption from the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime requirements, an employee must be paid a predetermined minimum weekly salary (not subject to reduction based on variations in quality or quantity of work) and primarily perform certain job duties qualifying for one or more of the standard executive, professional or administrative “white collar” exemptions to the FLSA.
In June 2015 the DOL issued a Proposed Rule which gave employers a preview of the likely revisions to the exemption regulations. Today’s Final Rule differs from the DOL’s 2015 Proposed Rule in certain key areas.
Significant changes under the DOL’s Final Rule include the following:
Increase in the Salary Basis Requirement.
The Final Rule increases from $455 to $913 (or $47,476 annually) the minimum weekly salary level necessary for employees to qualify for a white collar exemption under the FLSA. This minimum weekly salary automatically will adjust every three years to a rate equaling the 40th percentile of full-time salaried workers in the nation’s lowest-wage Census region (currently the South). Minimum salary adjustments under the Final Rule will be published at least 150 days before their effective dates, with the first adjustment being effective January 2020. The minimum salary increase in the Final Rule is slightly lower than that contemplated in the Proposed Rule, with the DOL citing to public comments expressing concerns that the regulations should account for salaries paid in lower cost-of-living regions.
Increase in the Salary Requirement for the Highly Compensated Employee (HCE) Exemption.
The Final Rule increases from $100,000 to $134,004 the minimum total annual compensation necessary for a “highly compensated employee” to qualify for exemption under the FLSA. This minimum annual compensation also automatically will adjust every three years to an amount equal to the 90th percentile of full-time salaried employees nationally. Although the compensation increase in today’s Final Rule is larger than contemplated in the Proposed Rule, the change simply is due to an increase in the 90th percentile threshold from 2013 to the fourth quarter of 2014.
Automatic Triennial Updating.
The Proposed Rule contemplated updating the salary thresholds annually using either a wage index (i.e., a fixed-percentile approach using Current Population Survey data) or a price index (i.e., the CPI). As noted above, the Final Rule has adopted the fixed-percentile approach, with updates to occur every three years rather than annually. Employers that submitted comments said they “strongly opposed” using a fixed-percentile method, arguing that it would result in the “ratcheting” of salaries – that is, with each successive salary update, employers would be expected to convert lower-earning exempt employees to hourly status; those employees would be removed from the CPS data; and the salary threshold would thus rapidly accelerate with each increase. The DOL largely discounted these concerns, finding a lack of historical evidence of “ratcheting” in analyzing data from the last salary increase in 2004. Nonetheless, the DOL did respond to employer comments that an annual update would be unduly volatile and would not provide sufficient notice, and instead adopted triennial updating.
Inclusion of Nondiscretionary Bonuses, Incentive Payments, and Commissions in the Salary Level Requirement.
Employers now will be allowed to use nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive pay to satisfy up to 10 percent of the DOL’s new salary standard, provided such bonuses/incentives are paid on at least a quarterly basis. Employers also will be able to “catch-up” by quarterly bonus and incentive payments the salary of any exempt employee that falls short of the minimum salary requirement by an amount of up to 10 percent.
Surprisingly, the DOL’s Final Rule makes no substantive changes to the standard duties tests required for the executive, administrative and professional exemptions. Although the DOL sought public comments on this issue, the DOL ultimately declined to adopt any changes to the standard duties tests.
Over the next six months, covered employers will need to review exempt positions to ensure compliance with DOL’s new standards. A few suggestions include:
Review Salary Minimums.
Employers may choose to increase the salaries of employees who fall below the DOL’s new $917 weekly minimum, or reclassify employees as nonexempt and take steps to ensure employees are paid a minimum wage and overtime premium in accordance with FLSA standards.
Review Employer Criteria for Establishing Exemption Status.
Employers can expect DOL enforcement initiatives in 2017 (and beyond) to focus on exemption status. Employers are well advised to use the DOL’s Final Rule as an opportunity to review the exemption classifications of all exempt positions to ensure compliance with FLSA standards.
Provide Education and Training to Key Employees.
Employers should consider investing in education and training of front-line managers and human resources representatives tasked with implementing new exemption standards. Employers also should consider development of a communication strategy and action plan for reclassification of affected employees.
In preparation for the NLRB’s new “quickie election” rules going into effect next week, the NLRB General Counsel yesterday published a 36-page Guidance Memorandum intended to explain how representation cases will be processed under the NLRB’s final rule. While the lengthy memorandum describes specific changes to Board procedures in great detail, it leaves unanswered significant questions such as how Regional Directors will process petitions on a “real world” basis, what opportunities employers are left with to challenge bargaining unit compositions, and ultimately, whether the NLRB’s “quickie elections” result in significantly shorter election time periods. Indeed, the GC acknowledges that the Board “will not be able to fully assess what impact the rule will have” until after it begins processing representation petitions. The GC instead directs the NLRB’s Regional Directors to “continue to process representation petitions and conduct elections expeditiously” consistent with the Board’s revised rules.
What seems certain is that employers should prepare themselves for implementation of the Board’s new regulations on April 14th. Last week President Obama vetoed a congressional resolution to disapprove the final rules, and while two pending federal cases challenge the Board’s statutory authority to publish the revised rules, it remains unlikely any such legal challenge will delay the Board’s implementation of its final rule next week.