Wage and Hour Law Update : Wage & Hour Lawyer & Attorney : Jackson Lewis Law Firm : Minimum Wage, Overtime & Service Contracts

New York employers have struggled with the New York State Department of Labor’s view that all gratuities must be distributed on a daily basis, regardless of whether they are collected in cash or via credit card and regardless of employee preference.  Late last week, without notice, the NYSDOL modified this position.  Effective immediately, New York employers may include credit card tips on an employee’s next paycheck, with or without consent of the employee, as long as the tips are provided by the next regular payday. In so stating, the Department also reaffirmed that an employer may subtract a pro-rated share of any fees imposed by the credit card company.  Further, upon request of an employee, a New York employer may even include cash tips in the paycheck as long as the gratuities are specifically noted on the paystub, and the employer maintains the mandated records of gratuities received by employees.   The full text of the NYSDOL’s posting is below.   

Employers with any questions regarding interpretation of, or compliance with, this provision should consult with counsel, due to the significant potential damages arising out of wage and hour violations.

Payment of Tips Received By Credit Card & Cash

When tips are given by customers via credit card, the employer must pay the employee the amount due no later than the next regularly scheduled pay day. The employer may subtract from the employee's tips the pro-rated share of the charge levied by the credit card company. An employer remitting tips to an employee must include a breakdown between the tips and the wages on the employee's wage statement, which must meet all other requirements for wage statements. This position reflects a change in DOL policy as set forth in DOL opinion RO-08-0032 related to this issue. That opinion is hereby rescinded.

When customers pay tips in cash, employers may, as a service to their employees, allow employees to leave cash tips earned over the course of a pay period with the employer. The employer must issue a tip payment for the total amount of those cash tips along with any wage payment for the same pay period. A request by an employee for the employer to provide this service must be voluntary, and the agreement cannot be a pre-condition of employment or a condition of continued employment. The employer must still keep a daily record of the tips earned by each employee provided this service, and have those records available for inspection by the employee and/or the Department. The wage statement provided with the tip payment must contain a breakdown of tips and wages, and meet all other requirements for wage statements.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported here and here, the New York Department of Labor will have a full plate in 2011 enforcing both the new Hospitality Industry Wage Order (applicable to industry employers) and the Wage Theft Prevention Act (applicable to all employers in New York). The Hospitality Wage Order modifies many of the rules governing industry employers, and the dangers of non-compliance are magnified by the Wage Theft Act, which increases the penalties for all violations of Labor Law Article 6. Under the Act, liquidated damages for such violations increase from 25% to 100%. The Act also expands the wage notification requirements of New York Labor Law § 195.

In addition to liability for unpaid wages, penalties and attorneys’ fees, New York employers also could be faced with inclusion on the NYSDOL’s “Non-Compliant Labor Standards Employer Search” Internet database. See http://lsempviolations.labor.ny.gov/LSEmpViolations/index.faces. Violators are listed on this web site for six years.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As previously discussed here, the New York legislature recently enacted the Construction Industry Fair Play Act. The law is effective tomorrow. In sum, the law provides that an individual providing services in the construction industry only qualifies as an “independent contractor” under the Act, if s/he meets the following test:

(1) [the worker] is free from control and direction in performing the job, both under his or her contract and in fact; (2) the service performed is outside the usual course of business; and (3) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business that is similar to the service at issue

This is an example of what is commonly referred to as the “ABC” test for independent contractor status. It is utilized by various state agencies to define who is excluded from employee status for purposes of, for example, workers compensation or unemployment benefits. See generally 22 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 295. The use of the phrase “and” requires that all three prongs of the test be met for contractor classification. The result is a very broad definition of “employee.”

The New York State Department of Labor has issued the mandatory posting required to be displayed by covered employers. The poster is available here.

New York construction industry employers must analyze whether they are covered by the Act (necessitating among other things immediate posting of this new NYSDOL poster), and how the Act’s narrow definition of “independent contractor” impacts their classification of workers. This legislation is similar to numerous pieces of legislation in other states. In certain instances, such legislation, and related state initiatives, is not limited to the construction industry.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Employers with New York State operations must ensure they understand the New York State Department of Labor's current position as to new hire notices and wage deductions.

New Hire Notices

As previously reported here, since October 26, 2009, New York state employers have been obligated to notify all new hires in writing of their hourly rate, overtime rate (if applicable) and payday, and receive a written acknowledgment of such notification.  The Department has issued model forms for various types of pay structures, all of which can be found on the Department's website, but continues to advise employers that use of the model forms is not mandatory.   One of the Department's model forms is directed to new hires the employer intends to treat as exempt employees, and both the form and its accompanying instructions require employers to list the exemption applicable to such employees.  However, this form and its accompanying instructions were not fully consistent with the general guidelines for compliance, also posted by the Department on its website.  Such guidelines simply stated that the exemption “should” be listed; it did not make doing so mandatory.  

Recently, the Department modified its general guidelines and now consistently advises that the exemption must be listed for exempt employees on the new hire notice.  In order to comply with the Department’s position, employers must ensure they carefully analyze the appropriate exemption(s) prior to listing them on any notice to ensure such statement is accurate.   It is important to note however that this new directive goes beyond the statutory requirement contained in Section 195 of the Labor Law, although the statute does provide the Department with the right to issue "requirements as to content and form."  

Wage Deductions

In addition to permitting deductions "in accordance with the provisions of any law or any rule or regulation issued by any governmental agency", Section 193 of the Labor Law permits deductions "for the benefit of employee" as long as such deductions are authorized in writing.   Over the years, the Department, through opinion letters, has advised that this language permits deductions for various issues (such as wage overpayments and repayment of loans) as long as the employer obtained written consent and limited such deduction to 10% of gross wages for the payroll period. 

However, since 2006, based on New York State Court of Appeals’ decision in Angello v. Labor Ready, the Department has consistently narrowed its interpretation of the phrase “for the benefit of the employee.”   For example, in a 2007 opinion letter, the Department stated that in order for a deduction “for the benefit of the employee” to be permissible it must be  a deduction which benefits the employee which is also similar to those enumerated in the statute (i.e., insurance premiums, pension or health and welfare benefits, contributions to charitable organizations, payments for United States bonds, payments for dues or assessments to a labor organization). Thereafter, through opinion letters, the Department modified its prior position as to the legality of certain wage deductions, such as a deduction from a final paycheck to cover used but unaccrued paid time off, and deductions for loan repayments and wage overpayments. The Department now states that such deductions are impermissible regardless of the employee's written consent.  Based on the Department's consistently evolving, highly-protectionist pro-employee position, employers should carefully review their wage deduction practices in New York State.

Every business with New York operations should review these wage and hour compliance issues with counsel to ensure compliance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Samiento v World Yacht, 10 NY3d 70 (2008), the New York Court of Appeals held that whether a labeled service charge is a “gratuity” for purposes of N.Y. Labor Law § 196-d that must be distributed to service staff depends on the “reasonable customer’s” understanding. One of the many questions unanswered by the decision is whether this standard applies only prospectively to § 196-d compliance following the Court’s February 2008 ruling. In a blow to industry employers, the Appellate Division’s First Department, the intermediate appeals court encompassing Manhattan, has ruled that employers can be subject to liability for undistributed service charges prior to the World Yacht decision. Ramirez v Mansions Catering, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 4857, 2 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't June 8, 2010). A New York federal court is currently considering the same issue. 

Generally, the question of retroactivity turns on whether a new judicial decision constitutes “the creation of a new legal principle.” Id. at * 1. If it does not, then it is simply an interpretation of the law, and has retroactive application. In Ramirez, the Court observes that the question answered by World Yacht had been acknowledged but, importantly, not answered by the Court of Appeals’ earlier opinion on the same subject. Id. at * 2 citing Bynog v Cipriani Group, (298 AD2d 164 (2002), affd as mod 1 NY3d 193 (2003). Because the legal issue addressed in World Yacht – namely “whether mandatory service charges could constitute "gratuities" under Section 196-d” – had not been resolved previously, World Yacht “was not a departure from existing law” and did not constitute a “new rule.” Id.  This conclusion ignores the fact that the entire industry generally believed that, consistent with federal law, the combination of using the term “service charge” and taxing the collected monies provided an employer with the right to retain the collected monies in whole or in part.

Food service and hospitality industry employers have been focused on this issue for over 2 years. While all such employers should ensure their current practices fully comply with this decision, at least based on this decision, liability can be imposed for periods prior to February 2008 within the 6 year statute of limitations. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link