Category: Employment Law

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Injury Sustained After Quitting

By ,

SPG

A Workers’ Compensation Judge’s decision to grant a Claimant’s claim petition was reviewed and granted in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, despite the Claimant quitting before the incident occurred. Marazas v. W.C.A.B. (Vitas Healthcare Corp.). Claimant quit and his Manager informed him that he needed to remove his personal belongings from the truck he had been using. Id. at 857.  Manager escorted Claimant to do so pursuant to Employer’s policy and Claimant, while walking to the warehouse on Employer’s premises, fell and sustained injuries. Id.

Claimant made the case that he was both on Employer’s premises and furthering Employer’s interests when he sustained injuries. Although Claimant quit before he was injured, he was still within the scope of employment because he was acting at Employer’s direction, and thus furthering Employer’s interests.

For more information or to discuss an employment law-related matter, call Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers Discuss New Jersey Opportunity to Compete Act

By ,

SPG

New Jersey employers may find it necessary to update employment and hiring policies to ensure compliance with the New Jersey Opportunity to Compete Act (OTCA), which went into effect on December 8, 2015. Similar so-called “ban-the-box” laws have also been enacted in a handful of other states including Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Rhode Island.

The OTCA is intended to create opportunities for people with criminal records by limiting the use of background checks in hiring practices. The OTCA bars employers from inquiring about an applicant’s criminal history until after a first interview has been completed. Once a first interview has concluded, employers have the right to inquire about criminal history.

For specific information regarding compliance with and exemptions to New Jersey’s “ban-the-box” law, call Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our team of competent and well-regarded attorneys is well-qualified to handle any legal matters pertaining to employment law.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Jiffy Lube Cheats Employees out of Fair Pay

By ,

SPG

A former Jiffy Lube assistant manager (“Plaintiff”) filed a class action suit against a franchise of the auto repair shop in Pennsylvania federal court claiming that policies such as requiring workers to clock out while at work violate state and federal wage and hour laws. The Complaint alleges that Jiffy Lube violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and Pennsylvania wage laws by cheating customer service technicians and assistant managers of proper minimum wage and overtime pay. The Complaint says, “the defendants’ policy and practice of forcing its employees to work off the clock is firmly embedded within its culture and specifically referenced in its written operating procedures.”

Customer service technicians and assistant managers are responsible for working on vehicles, including providing oil changes, brake, tire and cooling system services. Those duties aren’t exempt from minimum wage or overtime pay under the FLSA and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Age.  Despite this, Jiffy Lube allegedly routinely denied those employees pay through by editing workers’ time entries to reduce or remove hours. The auto repair shop also ordered employees to clock out when they weren’t helping customers during scheduled shifts, even though they had to remain at the store. Plaintiff alleges that Jiffy Lube told him that it wasn’t company policy to pay employees for all hours actually worked. He pointed to the company’s regional manager conference in winter 2015, where the Vice President allegedly stated that there was no reason to pay employees for all hours worked if there were no cars at the shop.

Plaintiff is bringing the suit as a collective action under the FLSA and as a class action under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

For more information or to discuss a wage and hour issue under the FLSA, call Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Rest Breaks for Non-Exempt Employees Should be Paid

By ,

SPG

The US Department of Labor filed suit against an employer in Perez v American Future Systems, INC. d/b/a Progressive Business Publications, claiming the employer unlawfully required non-exempt sales employees working in their call center to log off and not be paid for any break time taken by the employees during the work day. These include rests and bathroom breaks that only last a few minutes at the most. The employer’s policy permits employees to take “personal breaks at any time for any reason, but these breaks were unpaid. Any time by the employee not spent working, regardless of the length of the break was to be unpaid.

The court supported its decision finding a Department of Labor regulation on the issue to be persuasive. This regulation essentially stated that rest periods of short length are common in the industry and promote efficiency. The regulation further stated these types of breaks are normally paid for and considered as hours worked. This decision is important because it puts employers on notice that these short breaks should be considered hours worked and warns employers they can be liable in the event they try to discourage employees from taking such breaks.

For more information or to discuss a wage and hour issue, call Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Police and Fire CBA

By ,

SPG

Interest Arbitration under Policeman and Fireman Collective Bargaining Act

“Policemen or firemen employed by a political subdivision of the Commonwealth or by the Commonwealth, through labor organizations or other representatives designated by fifty percent or more of such policemen or firemen, have the right to bargain collectively with their public employers concerning the terms and conditions of their employment, including compensation, hours, working conditions, retirement, pensions and other benefits, and have the right to an adjustment or settlement of their grievances or disputes in accordance to this Act.” 43 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 217.1 (West).

Collective bargaining may only begin at least six months before the start of the fiscal year of the political subdivision or of the Commonwealth, and any request for arbitration may only be made at least one hundred ten days before the start of said fiscal year. § 217.3. In public sector labor law, there are primarily two types of alternative dispute resolution processes: 1) interest arbitration and 2) grievance arbitration. Interest arbitration is the process by which the parties, through a neutral arbitrator or panel, create a collective bargaining agreement after the parties fail to reach an agreement. Contrarily, grievance arbitration occurs when the parties dispute the proper interpretation or application of provisions contained in an existing collective bargaining agreement. Id.

An interest arbitration award under the Policemen and Firemen Collective Bargaining Act may embrace only those issues which the submitting party has specifically raised in the notice of arbitration, or which are reasonably considered as included within those issues and not serve as a means to reopen the underlying agreement. Id. (citing 43 P.S. § 217.4) (emphasis added).

Invocation of the interest arbitration process under the Policemen and Firemen Collective Bargaining Act requires an impasse. The issues must be submitted to interest arbitration for contract formulation by the interest arbitration panel and the issues not so preserved, unless reasonably included within properly preserved issues, are beyond the scope of the interest arbitration process and will not be enforceable. Michael G. Lutz Lodge No. 5, of Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Philadelphia, No. 42 EAP 2014, 2015 WL 9284242 (Pa. Dec. 21, 2015) (citing 43 P.S. § 217.4).

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Liability for Temp Employees

By ,

SPG

A recent Third Circuit decision overhauled previous notions of non-liability for temporary employees.  Typically, a temporary employee is thought to be the liability problem of the staffing agency that places the employee. The Third Circuit’s decision in Faush v Tuesday Morning, Inc. suggests otherwise. In this case, Plaintiff Matthew Faush and two other employees were ordered to clean up trash in the back of the store. When Faust complained about the assignment he was told by the store manager that minorities were not allowed to work in the front due to risk of theft. Faust was then fired shortly after. The district court decided that Faust was not an employer and could not be liable under the discrimination statutes.

The Third Circuit Court examined the factors and ruled that the company was liable for its temporary workers because it: indirectly paid Faush’s wages, had the power to demand replacement workers, gave assignments, and directly supervised the temporary workers.  Individuals employed by third party staffing firms may have a relationship not only with the staffing agency, but with employers as well, and that relationship should be closely examined when dealing with incidents involving liability. Individuals employed by staffing agencies should carefully review their contracts to ensure that such agreements provide adequate protection against potential adverse actions taken by the employer.

For more information, call Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Philadelphia Uber Drivers Sue Uber for Wage Violations

By ,

SPG

Ride-Sharing company Uber and its Philadelphia subsidiary Gegen LLC are named defendants in a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Pennsylvania wage laws.  Plaintiffs include three Philadelphia UberBlack drivers filing on behalf of current and former Uber drivers. The drivers claim that Uber misclassified them as independent contractors instead of employees, thereby avoiding the need to pay Uber drivers hourly and overtime wages, as well as avoiding various state/city taxes.

UberBlack drivers are required to pay Uber 25% of their earnings as well as regulatory fees, vehicle payments and insurance premium payments. These payments that drivers need to make to Uber, Plaintiffs claim, endangers their ability to earn a living.  Plaintiffs also allege that since they are not classified as Uber employees, Uber is able to avoid providing any type of benefit to drivers as well as charging them for business expenses obtained by the company.

Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief requiring Uber to come into compliance with state, city and federal laws.

For more information, call Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: OHSA- Tightening Policies and Increasing Penalties

By ,

SPG

For the first time in 25 years, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) can significantly raise penalties. A small provision in the recently passed Bipartisan Budget Act will allow an increase in penalties of up to 82%. Today, the maximum penalty any employer can receive is $70,000. As these fine limits have been in place since 1990, many larger businesses could see these penalties as the cost of doing business, rather than as fines.

Recently, two local construction companies are facing tens of thousands of dollars in fines after OSHA issued citations when it was discovered that these companies where breaking strict safety polices. One violation included failure to report the hospitalization of a worker who fell 40 feet according to the US Department of Labor. The second company to violate the OSHA’s polices must pay $70,000 in penalties after a makeshift platform fell apart at the site of a residential development in West Chester according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The worker who was injured suffered permanent damages included paralysis from the waist down.

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: Pittsburgh Paid Sick Leave Act Ruled Invalid

By ,

SPG

Less than six months after being signed into law, the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County has ruled that the Paid Sick Leave Act is invalid and unenforceable. The law required employers to provide employees a minimum of one hour of paid sick time per thirty-five hours worked, with the minimum accrual dependent upon the number of employees.

Plaintiffs claimed that the city does not have the authority to enact the ordinance under what is known as the “Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law”. This law states that a “home rule municipality, such as Pittsburgh, ‘shall not determine duties, responsibilities or requirements placed upon businesses, occupations and employers’ unless expressly provided by statutes”.  The Court determined that the Act did just that, in violation of the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law. As a result of this case, companies with operations in Pittsburgh need not update their sick and paid leave policies.

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: “Cadillac Tax” Delayed until 2020

By ,

SPG

On December 18, 2015, President Obama approved a spending and tax package that includes a two-year delay of the so-called “Cadillac Tax”. This tax will impose a forty percent excise tax group health plans to the extent their total annual premium costs exceed $10,200 for single coverage and $27,500 for family coverage. This tax is intended to motivate employers and carriers to find a way to reduce the costs of employee health coverage.

For more information, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.