 |
My position is being eliminated as the company I work for is combining departments and eliminating separate managers. Am I entitled to a pay off for accrued vacation time? We get our new batch of vacation and personal time on July 1. It is based on hours worked the previous fiscal year. Am I entitled to get the pay off for this time? They told me if I resigned they would pay me but if I'm eliminated, they don't think I'm entitled to the pay off.
It's different in every state. Where are you from? Do you have anything in writing (policies, contract... )?
You need to read your employee handbook as this should detail your entitlement. If the handbook says that you accrue x number of days effective July 1 and you are terminated after July 1, then you are entitled to the accrued days. If you are termed prior to July 1 you won't be entitled to anything.
Under California employment laws, once employees have accrued vacation time, they must either be allowed to use it to take time off or have it paid out at termination. This is commonly referred to as California's “no use-it-or-lose-it” rule.
Your revenge reddies are becoming quite pathetic. I strongly once again advise you to learn the site rules for the rating system:Quote:
Originally Posted by felonouschick
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum-...nes-24951.html
My last entry was fact, not opinion. California Labor Code-Payment of Wages- Article 1-200-243. I'm just trying to be accurate.
I'm really having a hard time believing you're a paralegal of any kind. What you were trying to refer to is California Labor Code, Section 201(a). If you can't understand and properly reference that, I think it's time to find new "employment."Quote:
Originally Posted by felonouschick
EDIT: It's "accrued" vacation and the OP never said she was from CA.
Are you saying that I'm wrong about paying out wages being different in every state, or are you just saying that I don't know how to properly site statutes in Cal.
I admit to the latter.;)
Both. And it's "cite."Quote:
Originally Posted by felonouschick
Well, I guess the original poster of the question can always just look up the local law for that state and see who's right, because I doubt that anyone is going to get anything out of all of this back and forth.
Good luck on that issue Zimmer
First, we are not talking about paying wages, but vacation time. Different things. Second, the actual statute is that applies here is 201(b). Third, the keyword here is "accrue". An employee is not entitled to vacation pay unless it has been accrued according to company policy. No state, that I know of, requires companies to give vacation pay. Vacation pay is negotiated as part of an employment contract or given as part of company policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by felonouschick
So my rating of your response and my explanation was accurate. Your rating of my answer was not appropriate, nor was your citation.
I too am finding it very heard to accept that you are a paralegal given your problems in citing and interpreting a statute.
To the OP,
As I said it depends on what your company policy states. If the policy states that x amount of days accrue on x date and you are still employed as of that date, then you get the money.
You're right Scott - it was (B) :)
I was reviewing some of the answers on this question. I am confused on if there is a law in CA that says you must pay out if vacation time is accrued? Any soild answers?
Yes Article 201(b) does specify that. But it really is unnecessary. An employee handbook is, in effect a contract with their employees. If the handbook or an employee contract says that vacation accrues at a certain date, then the employee is entitled to those days. Either in the form of a cash payment or an extension of their termination date. So any law that codifies that is unnecessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1badmama
I'll also point out that the CA law does not define how or when vacation time accrues. That's because they don't require it. The definition of accrual is left up to the company.
So.. it looks like felonous was right? Does everyone also argue this must on this site?
Actually no 1 badmama, it only means that you and felonous are the same person, and for some reason felt you had to break the rules, make a new user name to try and brag and say you are right.
That is so sad,
But of course you won't have a change to respond, since both user names are now banned.
I knew I should have checked. I suspected this was a new ID for you, but the question was reasonable enough to answer. I agree with Chuck, its sad that someone feels they need to create a new ID to support their own errors.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1badmama
To answer your second question, no it doesn't mean you were corect. As I pointed out, the law is superfluous, its meaningless. Contract law covers it sufficiently so its unnecessary. Whether an employee gets paid for leave is governed by corporate policy,
Quote:
Originally Posted by felonouschick
Well, people COULD look over all of your answers and realize you don't have a clue - again, jailhouse lawyer?
Now I'm going to go and create another identity to agree with myself.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:47 PM. |