Author: Scott Horton

Scott has been practicing Labor & Employment law in New York for almost 20 years. He has represented over 400 employers and authored 100s of articles and presentations and wrote the book New York Management Law: The Practical Guide to Employment Law for Business Owners and Managers. Nothing on this blog can be considered legal advice. If you want legal advice, you need to retain an attorney.

NY Wage Deductions

New York Wage Deductions (Webinar Recap)

On February 25, 2021, I presented a complimentary webinar called “New York Wage Deductions”. For those who couldn’t attend the live webinar, I’m happy to make it available for you to watch at your convenience.

In the webinar, I discuss:

  • Prohibited Payroll Practices
  • Permissible Deductions
  • Recovery Overpayments
  • Wage Advances

New York laws begin with the premise that employees will be paid their agreed compensation in full for all time worked. Of course, the state and federal governments want their taxes and are happy to allow for such monies to be withheld from paychecks. Some other deductions are also permissible, such as insurance contributions and charitable donations.

But New York is among the most restrictive states when it comes to what employers can take out of their employees’ pay. Not all of the limitations are intuitive. Some prohibited deductions are perfectly acceptable in other jurisdictions, creating additional complications for companies with multi-state operations.

Don’t have time to watch the whole webinar right now? Click here to download the slides from the webinar.

Why You Should Watch “New York Wage Deductions”

If you have any role in compensation decisions or payroll in your company with employees in New York, then you should be familiar with these limits on taking money out of employees’ wages.

Did you know that New York employers can’t deduct money due to cash register shortages or as fines for violating workplace rules? (Or, conversely, did you know that these methods are acceptable in some states?)

Yes, New York employers can recover inadvertent overpayments to employees. But only in certain circumstances. And you must follow specific procedures.

Plus, many businesses make loans or wage advancement to employees. Make sure you recognize the restrictions on this practice. They’re discussed in this webinar.

Don’t Miss Our Future Webinars!

Click here to sign up for the Horton Law email newsletter to be among the first to know when registration is open for upcoming programs!

And follow us on LinkedIn for even more frequent updates on important employment law issues.

PRO Act

PRO Act Reintroduced To Expand Federal Labor Rights

The Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act) was reintroduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on February 4, 2021. The House passed this bill in 2020, but it was dead on arrival in the then-Republican-controlled Senate. As proposed, the PRO Act remains unlikely to win Senate approval this year. However, Democrats will continue to advocate vigorously for its sweeping pro-labor measures.

PRO Act Targets – What Laws Would Change?

The full PRO Act aims to amend several federal labor laws, including the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA).

These laws currently govern the relationship between employers and labor unions in private (non-government) workplaces. They address how employees organize to engage in collective bargaining and things like what public disclosures unions must make about their finances. The NLRA also provides direct protections to employees who are not represented by unions.

Expanding Worker Coverage

The PRO Act includes several measures to expand the NLRA’s rights to more workers. It does this by classifying more workers as “employees.”

Independent Contractors

The NLRA covers “employees,” which is defined to exclude some workers in a workplace. One excluded category includes individuals who are off the employer’s payroll, but still provide services for the company. Often identified by receiving a Form 1099 vs. a W-2 for tax purposes, these workers are considered “independent contractors.”

The PRO Act would expand the universe of employees by further limiting those who qualify as independent contractors.

An individual would only qualify as an independent contractor if all of the following apply:

  1. The individual is free from the employer’s control in connection with the performance of the service.
  2. The service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer.
  3. The individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.

Supervisors

Recognizing that a business must have a management team to represent it in dealing with unions, the NLRA excludes “supervisors” from the group covered as employees.

Currently, a supervisor is “any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.”

The PRO Act would fundamentally change the definition in two ways. First, it would remove “assign” and “responsibly to direct” from the list of supervisory duties. Second, it would require that one or more of the remaining functions occupy “a majority of the individual’s worktime.” The result would be fewer “supervisors” and more “employees.”

Joint Employers

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which administers the NLRA, has vacillated on its joint employer standard in recent years. The question is whether two separate business entities both qualify as an employee’s employer. Typical scenarios involve staffing agencies and franchised businesses.

With a current Republican majority, the NLRB has returned to a less expansive interpretation of joint employer status. This approach is generally considered good for business and not as beneficial for employees, or at least unions. The PRO Act would codify a broad joint employer standard. A company would qualify as an individual’s employer even with only indirect control or reserved authority to control the work relationship.

Expanding Workers’ Rights

Some aspects of the PRO Act would diminish employers’ control over their businesses by shifting it to the employees.

Strike Replacements

Unless they have contractually waived the right, employees and their unions may strike to gain bargaining leverage with their employers. Under longstanding law, employers have the right to hire permanent replacements for striking workers in many situations. The PRO Act would strip employers of that right to make it harder for companies to operate without striking workers. It would also enable unions to engage in “secondary” picketing, strikes, or boycotts in support of a third-party company’s workers.

Lockouts

The flip side of going on strike, employers may “lock out” their employees (i.e., keep them from working) during contract negotiations. The PRO Act would prohibit lockouts before the union has initiated a strike.

“Captive Audience Meetings”

The NLRA allows employers to hold meetings where they share their views on a union organizing campaign with employees. Attendance may be mandatory, as the employees are being paid, but employers must stay within legal parameters on what they say.

The PRO Act would make such meetings illegal despite continuing to permit unions to meet with employees they seek to organize.

Additional Issues

The PRO Act is an omnibus pro-labor bill. It contains virtually every legal change unions would universally like to have made to the NLRA. Beyond those described above, provisions include:

  • Requiring employers to maintain existing terms of employment indefinitely until a first contract is negotiated with a newly recognized union.
  • Introducing interest arbitration to establish a first contract, with awards based largely on employee prosperity.
  • Making misclassification of an employee as an independent contractor a direct violation of the NLRA.
  • Prohibiting class-action litigation waivers.
  • Establishing expedited union election rules.
  • Enabling the NLRB to overrule election results and direct union representation upon a finding of employer interference in a fair election.
  • Permitting employees to use company email for “concerted activity,” including unionizing activity.
  • Eliminating “right to work” states by entitling unions to receive “fair share” fees from non-member employees notwithstanding contrary state laws.
  • Compelling employers to notify all employees, including new hires, of their rights under the NLRA.

Expanding Penalties

The NLRA has never relied on extensive monetary damages to compel compliance. Instead, it emphasizes legally enforceable “make whole” orders that require employers to take action consistent with the law (or refrain from inconsistent action). The law does, however, require employers to compensate employees for lost earnings and benefits connected to unlawful conduct.

The PRO Act introduces a broader array of financial consequences for unfair labor practices. Borrowing from other employment laws, it would make front pay and consequential damages, as well as liquidated and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees, recoverable. But it goes further than other federal employment laws by authorizing double liquidated damages (additional damages equal to twice the lost wages award) and eliminating the common mitigation requirement (allowing employees to recover wages even that they have already earned through alternative employment).

In addition to damages payable to workers, the PRO Act introduces various civil penalties payable to the government. Penalties could reach $50,000, or $100,000 for a repeat offense or one that involves employee discharge or serious economic harm.

The PRO Act would also enable employees to bypass the NLRB and take their claims of NLRA violation to the courts in many situations.

Persuader Activity Disclosure

By amending the LMRDA, the PRO Act would require employers to engage in broader public disclosure of arrangements with consultants related to labor-relations activities. This expansion aims to include representation by attorneys, potentially curtailing the attorney-client privilege.

Study of Foreign Labor Laws

The PRO Act requires the Comptroller General to complete a study of “the laws, policies, and procedures in countries outside the United States governing collective bargaining at the level of an industry sector, including the laws, policies, and procedures involved in” issues related to collective bargaining. Congress would receive this report in support of considering additional changes to U.S. labor laws. Recognizing that many countries have a structural history of more extensive union involvement in business operations, this reporting requirement aims to yield even more pro-labor amendments.

Employers Beware

Simply put, the PRO Act would radically alter the landscape of American workplaces, as is the intent. The balance of power would undeniably shift toward employees and unions in particular.

The current 50-50 split in the U.S. Senate may keep the PRO Act from becoming law in its entirety. Republicans would almost certainly filibuster the legislation to prevent it from coming up for a vote. However, Democrats will not stop trying to legislate for as many of the PRO Act’s components as possible. They may be able to achieve some through the filibuster-proof reconciliation process and perhaps some even through old-fashion political dealmaking with Republican Senators.

So, while the PRO Act’s enactment is not an imminent certainty, the prospect should keep the business community on alert. If the filibuster falls by the wayside and/or Democrats gain a larger majority in Congress, these dramatic labor changes could become a stark reality.

 

For more labor and employment law updates, sign up for the Horton Law email newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn.

COVID-19 Sick Leave

NYS DOL Proclaims New COVID-19 Sick Leave Mandates

On January 20, 2021, the New York State Department of Labor issued new “guidance” regarding COVID-19 sick leave. The two-page document signed by Commissioner of Labor Roberta Reardon purports to relate to the State’s March 2020 law regarding leave for employees subject to a quarantine or isolation order due to COVID-19. However, the DOL pronouncements seem to create new obligations not found in the law.

NYS COVID-19 Quarantine Leave Law

At the beginning of the coronavirus crisis in March 2020, both New York State and the federal government enacted employee leave laws specific to COVID-19. The federal law expired December 31, 2020 (though employers who continue to allow paid leave as the law provided remain eligible for tax credits). The New York law had no expiration date.

The New York COVID-19 leave law was comparatively limited, essentially only creating an employer-paid leave entitlement when employees were placed under a precautionary or mandatory order of quarantine or isolation due to COVID-19. The law is clear that the order must be from a government health authority, not a private medical provider.

The amount of leave required under the New York COVID-19 sick leave law depends on the employer’s size. The smallest private employers (less than 10 employees and net income under $1 million) do not have to provide paid leave. Mid-sized companies (up to 99 employees) must pay for 5 days of leave due to COVID-19 quarantine or isolation. Large private employers (100+ employees) and all public (governmental) employers must provide up to 14 days of paid leave in this situation.

The law also modified the NYS disability and paid family leave programs to supplement the portion of such leaves that employers did not have to pay for directly.

Click here for more on the New York State COVID-19 sick leave law.

Earlier DOL Guidance

In late March 2020, the NYS DOL issued guidance on the new leave law through a State website. This guidance addressed questions such as how to calculate the rate of pay. It also provided new forms for employees to request paid family leave or liability benefits due to a COVID-19 quarantine.

Click here for more on the original New York State COVID-19 sick leave guidance.

New COVID-19 Sick Leave Guidance

The January 20, 2021 guidance from the NYS Commissioner of Labor is initially notable for its format. Rather than a proposed regulatory document or even website guidance as used back in March, these new COVID-19 sick leave parameters appear in a plain .pdf file bearing a DOL logo heading and ending with Commissioner Reardon’s signature and a New York, New York dateline. Overall, this more closely resembles the approach used by the New York Department of Health to put out temporary standards for COVID-19 safety under Governor Cuomo’s numerous executive orders during the pandemic. However, no executive order has granted the DOL this authority.

The document begins by expressly referencing the March 18, 2020 “legislation authorizing sick leave for employees subject to a mandatory or precautionary order of quarantine or isolation due to COVID-19.” That legislation grants the Commissioner of Labor “authority to adopt regulations, including emergency regulations, and issue guidance to effectuate any of the” law’s provisions. But, again, this guidance is not in the form of regulations. Even emergency regulations would require more formalities. The law continues that “Employers shall comply with regulations promulgated by the commissioner of labor for this purpose which may include, but is not limited to, standards for the use, payment, and employee eligibility of sick leave pursuant to this act.”

Does the same force apply to a generic “guidance” document? That’s a fair question that could reasonably be answered, “no,” especially since the guidance seems to deviate meaningfully from the terms of the law itself.

Valid or not, the new guidance notes that “All prior guidance remains in effect”. It then includes four numbered paragraphs that seem to address issues that likely have been asked of the DOL about the law.

Return to Work

The DOL confirms that following quarantine or isolation, employees don’t have to be tested for COVID-19 before returning to work. (There is an exception for nursing home staff.) This conclusion seems consistent with the law.

But the guidance goes further to indicate that if an employee does subsequently receive a positive test result, they may not return to work. In that scenario, the employee must continue to isolate. Moreover, the DOL suggests that such an employee will automatically be deemed to be subject to a mandatory order of isolation from the NYS Department of Health and entitled to leave under the NYS COVID-19 sick leave law. This idea of an automatic isolation order appears contrary to the law, which plainly requires the employee to obtain an order from a health department to qualify for leave. The guidance says that, in this situation, the employee only needs to submit documentation from a medical provider or testing facility confirming the positive test result–again, inconsistent with the law.

New Paid Leave Scenario

The DOL also appears to have created an entirely new COVID-19 paid leave requirement not codified in the March 18, 2020 legislation. The guidance document indicates that if an employer requires an employee who is not subject to a quarantine or isolation order to stay home due to exposure or potential exposure to COVID-19, then the employer must pay the employee for all time missed until allowing the employee to return to work or until the employee becomes subject to a quarantine or isolation order. Notably, the DOL doesn’t establish any further exceptions to this new obligation. For example, it doesn’t relieve the employer of the obligation to pay even where an employee recklessly exposed himself to COVID-19.

There is no reasonable way to read this paid leave obligation into the March COVID-19 sick leave law. Nonetheless, employers must either adhere to the DOL’s position or risk having to contest it legally.

Three Strikes and You’re Out

When the New York COVID-19 sick leave law took effect in March 2020, no one anticipated the disease to remain prevalent for as long as it has. There was a general belief that anyone could only become infected once and that a 14-day quarantine or isolation period would eliminate any transmission risk. The way things have worked out, it has unexpectedly become clear that some people may run into multiple quarantines or isolations due to COVID-19. So, how much paid leave do they get?

According to the DOL, employees can qualify for COVID-19 sick leave up to 3 times. And the second and third times only count if based on a positive COVID-19 test.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, the law itself doesn’t say anything about three leave periods or limit any scenario to a positive test. Does the Commissioner of Labor have this much authority to re-write the law? Probably not, but again, who wants to take that risk?

Between a Rock and Hard Place

New York employers are already facing tremendous difficulty applying the array of leave requirements that potentially apply to employees dealing with COVID-19 issues. On the one hand, further guidance from the DOL arguably provides answers to questions companies are facing. On the other hand, it’s highly questionable whether the DOL has the authority to make these pronouncements. Both following and ignoring this latest guidance could create legal problems for employers. Not all of these “interpretations” are in the employees’ favor. So, even doing the right thing according to the DOL could upset an employee who might have a reasonable claim that they were denied rights under the NYS COVID-19 sick leave law.

Perhaps the DOL will clarify its authority, or the State will otherwise confirm the validity of this guidance. For now, however, employers should consult experienced New York employment counsel if confronted by any of the issues addressed by this DOL document.

 

For more legal updates of interest to New York employers, sign up for the Horton Law email newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn.