Various news items published last Friday afternoon intimated that a part of the 2012 federal omnibus appropriations law now exempts automobile-dealership service writers and similar employees* from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime requirements.  Those reports appear to have been mistaken so far as we can tell, but the spending provision does contain at least some good news in this respect.

As we noted previously, in April the U.S. Labor Department decided against acknowledging the FLSA Section 13(b)(10)(A) overtime-exempt status of dealership employees doing the typical work of service writers, service advisors, etc.  DOL thus revived its previously-disavowed interpretation that "[e]mployees variously described as service manager, service writer, service advisor, or service salesman who are not themselves primarily engaged in the work of a salesman, partsman, or mechanic as described above are not exempt under section 13(b)(10)."  29 C.F.R. § 779.372(c)(4)(emphasis added).

Section 113 of Friday's "Department of Labor Appropriations Act, 2012" says, "None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Secretary [of Labor] to administer or enforce 29 CFR 779.372(c)(4)."  This directive does not change the Section 13(b)(10)(A) exemption itself, but the provision does preclude DOL from devoting any of its 2012 funding to efforts to "administer or enforce" this service-writer interpretation.

However, Section 113 does not prevent current or former service writers or similar employees from pushing DOL's service-writer interpretation in support of their own FLSA overtime lawsuits.  Whether and to what extent DOL officials might explore the limits of Section 113's "administer or enforce" language by offering background assistance to any such individuals remains to be seen.  Employers facing lawsuits of this kind should certainly be alert for signs that DOL is doing so.

^*  At least one such report erroneously referred to "service technicians".

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

Many employers find nowadays that at least some workers are unable to read, write, or do simple arithmetic beyond the lowest levels (if at all).  Management wants to give the employees mandatory training in these areas, but not if that means incurring overtime costs when the instructional time causes the employees' hours worked to exceed 40 in a workweek.  But, under the right circumstances, there is a little-known way to increase employees' basic academic abilities without having to pay FLSA overtime premium for the time they spend learning.

The General FLSA Training Rules

The U.S. Labor Department (DOL) says that time spent in employer training generally must be considered compensable work, unless four criteria are met.  That is, the training time has to be added together with the employee's other hours worked (including for overtime-pay purposes), except where:

♦   The employee's attendance is truly voluntary;

♦   The employee's attendance is outside his or her regular working hours;

♦   The training is not directly related to the employee 's current job; and

♦   The employee performs no productive work during attendance.

29 C.F.R. § 785.27.  Where remedial education is concerned, an employer offering the instruction typically wants to require employees to undergo it.  Also, it is often necessary to schedule the classes at some point during the employee's normal workday.

The Section 7(q) Overtime Exception

The FLSA's Section 7(q) (link to reproduction below) allows the employer to pay for up to ten overtime hours of qualifying instruction at the employee's straight-time regular rate of pay.  In creating this exception, Congress wanted to encourage employers to help provide the fundamental educational background some employees need to succeed in the job market, both now and in the future.  The exception is therefore available for certain basic education offered to employees who lack a high-school diploma or educational attainment at the eighth-grade level.  The training provided cannot be job-specific.

DOL says that the remedial training must be designed to provide reading and other basic skills at an eighth-grade level or below, or to fulfill the requirements for a high-school diploma or a General Educational Development ("G.E.D.") certificate.  29 C.F.R. § 778.603.  Also, DOL rules state that the training has to occur during discrete periods of time set aside for it and must be conducted away from the employee's work station "to the maximum extent practicable".  Id.  DOL regulations require employers to keep accurate records of both an employee's time spent in the remedial education each workday and each workweek and the compensation the employee is paid for this time.  29 C.F.R. § 516.34.

Don't Forget Other Overtime Laws

Of course, the Section 7(q) exception does not override overtime obligations imposed by any different federal law or by any other jurisdiction's requirements.  An employer considering a remedial-training program designed around Section 7(q) should carefully evaluate whether the program will meet the requirements of all other applicable overtime provisions.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

 FLSA Section 7q.pdf (14.69 kb)

Affected employers will no doubt have a variety of wage-hour questions in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene.  The number and scope of the issues raised might well be practically endless.  In this post, we address in very general ways the federal Fair Labor Standards Act topics that experience suggests will be among the most-pressing.

◊   What do we do about lost time records for work already performed but not yet paid?

If the only records of hours worked are lost or unusable, then there is no perfect solution.  Re-create the most accurate accounting you can under the circumstances.  Perhaps the preferred approach is to ask each employee to make the best-possible estimate of his or her hours worked. You should obtain the employee's written acknowledgement of his or her best recollection and should include the employee's authorization allowing later corrections in worktime and pay should more accurate hours-worked information become available.

◊   How do we track employees' worktime without our electronic/computerized time clocks?

Employees may record all hours worked by using handwritten timesheets.  To ensure accuracy, each employee should enter his or her own time and should record the actual times when the employee's work starts and stops each workday.

◊   As we recover, must we keep paying overtime on top of our other burdens?

At this time, there is no FLSA "emergency" exception that relieves the obligation to pay FLSA-required wages.  Employees subject to the FLSA's overtime provision must receive overtime premium at a rate of at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in the designated seven-day workweek.

If employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, it might contain additional overtime provisions requiring more than the FLSA does.  Perhaps the terms of the agreement relax those requirements in emergencies.  However, a collective bargaining agreement cannot override the FLSA's requirements.

◊   Can an employee volunteer to perform recovery services for us without pay?

The FLSA does not permit employees to "volunteer" unpaid time to the employer under any but the narrowest of circumstances.  For example, if a manufacturing facility sets up a hotline or makes other arrangements to provide a clearinghouse for information about the status of the workplace and employee reporting times, non-exempt employees volunteering to perform such services are engaged in compensable hours worked for FLSA purposes.  Employers considering any kind of unpaid "volunteer" services by their employees should evaluate the legality of doing this carefully and in advance.

◊   Must we keep paying employees who are not working?

Under the FLSA, for the most part the answer is "no".  FLSA minimum-wage and overtime requirements attach to hours worked, so employees who are not working are typically not entitled to the wages the FLSA requires.

One possible FLSA-related exception is for employees treated as FLSA-exempt whose exempt status requires that they be paid on a "salary basis".  Generally speaking, if such an employee performs at least some work in the designated seven-day workweek, the "salary basis" rules require that he or she be paid the entire salary for that particular workweek.  There can be exceptions here, too, such as might sometimes be the case where the employer is open for business but the employee decides to stay home for the day.

Also, non-exempt employees paid on a "fluctuating-workweek" basis under the FLSA normally must be paid their full fluctuating-workweek salaries for every workweek in which they perform any work.  There are a few exceptions, but these are even more-limited than the ones for exempt "salary basis" employees.

Of course, an employer might have a legal obligation to keep paying employees because of, for instance, an employment contract, a collective bargaining contract, or some policy or practice that is enforceable as a contract or under a state wage law.

◊   What can we do about charging missed time to vacation and leave balances?

The FLSA generally does not regulate the accumulation and use of vacation and leave.  The "salary basis" requirements for certain FLSA-exempt employees can implicate time-off allotments under various circumstances, some guidance on which the U.S. Labor Department has provided in opinion letters accessible here and here.

Again, however, what an employer may, must, or cannot do where paid leave is concerned might be affected by an employment contract, a collective bargaining contract, or some policy or practice that is enforceable as a contract or under a state wage law.

◊   When is travel time "hours worked" for purposes of computing FLSA wages due?

FLSA travel-time "rules" are not seamless, up-to-date, or necessarily logical or consistent with common sense.  The best-known ones are that:

•   Normal commuting between home and work typically is not considered to be hours worked, and

•   Travel between one assignment and another during a workday typically is hours worked.

However, even these principles are subject to exceptions and elaboration.  The best starting point is to consider each scenario an employer faces under the U.S. Labor Department's basic interpretations on travel time.  They are compiled at 29 C.F.R. §§ 785.33-785.41 and may be accessed here.

________________

Remember that other requirements, such as those applying to government contractors or subcontractors and those of states or other jurisdictions, can also be relevant to these questions.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

The U.S. Labor Department's unfounded April fluctuating-workweek commentary (earlier post here) continues to complicate many pre-existing pay plans and to cause employers to narrow their views of the available compensation alternatives.  This is the foreseeable (and apparently intended) result of what DOL said.  Unfortunately, some observers are compounding the impact of DOL's commentary by suggesting that its ramifications are more dire than ought to be the case.

We have previously noted that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act grants no regulatory authority to DOL to make such pronouncements.  Probably for this reason, the commentary purported to draw substance from sprinkled-in references to the seminal U.S. Supreme Court case of Overnight Transportation Co. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572 (1942), which embraced the concept underlying the fluctuating-workweek calculation.  But DOL's effort is an illusion.

For example, Missel does not support DOL's assertion that paying bonuses, incentive payments, or other additional amounts is "incompatible" with figuring overtime on a fluctuating-workweek basis.  The Court did not address this proposition at all; it simply proceeded from the facts as they were presented (which involved a weekly wage for whatever hours the employee worked) and explained how FLSA overtime was to be computed on those facts.  The Court did not say, or so much as even imply, that the fluctuating-workweek calculation was inappropriate where other forms of pay are in the picture.

DOL also opined that fluctuating-workweek overtime might create an incentive to work employees long hours because it "results in a regular rate that diminishes as the workweek increases . . .."  On this premise, DOL found it inappropriate "to expand the use of this method of computing overtime pay beyond the scope of the current regulation."  Of course, the FLSA does not prescribe and in fact does not even address any maximum number of hours that adult employees can be required to work.  Moreover, DOL is not authorized to decide whether to "expand" or contract the use of the fluctuating-workweek method for computing overtime.  The Supreme Court's reading of the FLSA trumps DOL's musings in this area, and DOL must have overlooked this statement in Missel:

It is true that the longer the hours, the less the rate and the pay per hour.  This is not an argument, however, against this method of determining the regular rate of employment for the workweek in question.

316 U.S. at 580.

Having thrown sand in the gears, DOL has offered no specific elaboration upon what the actual effects of its commentary might be.  Others have filled this gap with suppositions that are not anchored in first principles.

As an illustration, assume that an employee receives a salary of $500 each workweek as straight-time pay for all hours worked and is also paid commissions on her sales made during all her hours worked each workweek.  Assume also that, in one workweek, she works 50 hours and is due $100 in commissions, for total gross pay of ($500 + $100) = $600.  Even if her commission pay is supposedly "incompatible" with fluctuating-workweek overtime, how much FLSA overtime pay is she due for that workweek?

Some have suggested that her overtime must be computed this way:

($600 ÷ 40 hrs.) = $15 Per Hr. "Regular Rate"
($15 × 1.5 × 10 OT hrs.) = $225,

for total FLSA pay of ($600 + $225) = $825.  In our view, dividing by 40 hours and paying an extra 1.5 times the resulting rate for overtime hours is not required under the FLSA, notwithstanding what DOL said.

Under Missel, the FLSA "regular rate" is determined by dividing the employee's total compensation for a workweek by the total number of hours for which that compensation was paid.  This is so whether the straight-time wages are paid for a fixed number of hours or for a varying number of hours, and it remains the bedrock principle underlying FLSA overtime pay.  See, e.g., 29 C.F.R. § 778.109.  Where the straight-time wages were paid for all of the employee's hours worked, the proper FLSA overtime premium is one-half of a regular hourly rate that declines as the hours worked increase.  See, e.g., 29 C.F.R. § 778.118.

And, more to the immediate point, this is all still true even when a fluctuating-workweek approach is "invalid or otherwise inapplicable."  See, e.g., Opinion Letter of Wage-Hour Administrator No. 1016, 69-73 CCH-WH ¶30,563 (June 24, 1969)(discussed in our earlier post).  In other words, 40 is not automatically the default divisor, and 1.5 is not the inevitable multiplier, even if a fluctuating-workweek approach has been undercut for some reason.  Whatever the basis for the employee's pay is, and even if that basis is somehow legally flawed in whole or in part, the FLSA regular rate and the overtime due still depend upon the number of hours for which the compensation was paid.  Cf. Section 32g07(b), Field Operations Handbook (U.S. Labor Department, February 28, 1986)(40 hours not used as the default divisor even for an invalid "Belo" plan).

Because our hypothetical facts show that the employee's straight-time wages were paid for all of her hours worked, the correct FLSA calculation is:

($600 ÷ 50 hrs.) = $12 Per Hr. "Regular Rate"
[($12 ÷ 2) × 10 OT hrs.) = $60 OT Premium Pay
($600 + $60) = $660,

or $165 less than the first computation.  The principles leading to this approach are independent of whatever DOL's policy preference is, and DOL has no power to curtail them.

That said, unless and until DOL withdraws or repudiates its April statements, or until a court consensus rejecting them emerges, employers should expect investigators and plaintiff's lawyers to press those statements to the hilt.  Even so, the underlying FLSA overtime principles remain unchanged, and employers who are willing to do so should be ready to assert them.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

Our earlier post about the U.S. Labor Department's position on unauthorized extensions of rest breaks has generated additional comments and questions.   We have responded to one comment at length beneath the post itself.

Another reader took the Labor Department's interpretation to mean that, if an employee impermissibly extends his or her rest break, then the whole rest break could be treated as non-compensable time under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.  In that reader's view, for example, if an employee stretches a ten-minute rest break to 20 minutes, then the full 20-minute period could be excluded from worktime, rather than only the additional ten minutes.

The Labor Department has said that this is not the case.  In Opinion Letter of Wage-Hour Acting Administrator FLSA2001-16 (May 19, 2001), an employer asked the U.S. Wage and Hour Division whether an employee's unauthorized extension of a rest break under the conditions in Section 31a01(c), Field Operations Handbook (U.S. Labor Department, December 15, 2000), allowed the exclusion of the entire rest break from compensable time.  According to the Acting Administrator, "[o]nly the length of the unauthorized extension of an authorized break will not be considered hours worked when the three conditions are met, not the entire break."  In our illustration, then, the Labor Department would say that only the additional ten minutes could be treated as non-compensable time.

It also appears that some readers were not distinguishing among different kinds of breaks.  For purposes of what is and is not FLSA worktime under Labor Department interpretations, it can be useful to view scheduled breaks as falling into essentially three categories:

◊   Bona fide meal breaks, which are typically noncompensable time (29 C.F.R. § 785.19);

◊   "Short" rest breaks of "about 20 minutes" or less, which the Labor Department says are typically compensable time (29 C.F.R. § 785.18); and

◊   Break periods which are neither meal breaks nor "short" rest breaks, which might or might not be compensable time  (Section 31a01(b), Field Operations Handbook (U.S. Labor Department, December 15, 2000), link to reproduction below).

Employers should evaluate these categories differently in deciding whether and to what extent to treat them as being compensable hours worked under the FLSA.

And once again, employers must also be aware of and comply with whatever are the applicable break obligations of a state or another jurisdiction.

FOH 31a01b 12 15 00.pdf (34.71 kb)

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

Acme Corporation's longstanding policy is to give non-exempt employees two 10-minute rest breaks each workday.  It treats these breaks as paid worktime.  Management recently realized that, over the years, most of the employees have gradually come to be spending 15 to 20 minutes or even a little longer on each break.  Acme sent out a memo reminding everyone that the breaks are limited to 10 minutes, but it had no effect.  Could Acme start considering the over-10-minute extensions to be unpaid time?

The U.S. Labor Department has said that this is permitted under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, if an employer makes its intentions clear in advance.

The FLSA does not require employers to give rest breaks (which should be distinguished from lactation breaks, which are required).  Many employers do give rest breaks, of course, and the Labor Department's position is that short periods like this (typically running from five to about 20 minutes) count as worktime for employees who are subject to the FLSA's minimum-wage and/or overtime requirements.  In the Labor Department's view, such breaks mainly have the effect of promoting employee efficiency, so they cannot be deducted from or offset against other compensable time.

Consequently, many employers assume that, when an employee stretches a ten-minute break to 20 minutes, the FLSA does not allow the additional ten minutes to be treated as non-compensable time.  On the contrary, the Labor Department's internal enforcement manual takes the position that unauthorized break extensions need not be considered worktime, so long as the employer has expressly and unambiguously told employees that:

◊   Authorized breaks may last only for a specific length of time;

◊   Any extension of those breaks is against the rules; and

◊   Any extension of those breaks will be punished.

Section 31a01(c), Field Operations Handbook (U.S. Labor Department, December 15, 2000)(link to reproduction below).

Any employer looking to rely upon this position in the future would be well-advised to adopt a written break policy that includes these points and makes clear that unauthorized extensions will not be counted as worktime.  It should also be able to show that employees are aware of the policy.

Remember that many states impose rest-break rules of their own.  Employers must also be aware of and comply with whatever the applicable obligations are.  A state need not follow FLSA interpretations with respect to breaks, including as to whether unauthorized extensions of breaks are or are not to be counted as worktime under the state's own break requirements or under its other laws relating to hours worked.

 FOH 31a01 12 15 00.pdf (27.36 kb)

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

In late June, we noted legislation introduced in the Senate and in the House of Representatives that would essentially repeal the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's Section 13(a)(15) "companionship" exemption in any practical sense.  U.S. Labor Department regulations and interpretations elaborate upon how and to whom the exemption may be applied.

Recent correspondence (link below) from the 28-member Eldercare Workforce Alliance to U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis suggests that proponents of such a change are re-directing their focus from legislation to regulatory limitations.  This letter urges DOL to take "timely action" by imposing a "revised interpretation of the exemption that will extend greater federal minimum wage and overtime protection under FLSA to the more than 1,500,000 paid home‐ and community‐based care workers who provide essential services to our nation's older adults and people with disabilities."  It is highly likely that the "revised interpretation" this advocates will amount to gutting the exemption by regulation.  Perhaps this reflects a political calculation that the legislative prospects are unfavorable.

For some time now, DOL's regulatory agenda has included a very general item expressing an intention to revisit the exemption.  A number of questions were raised about this in the U.S. Wage and Hour Division's July 13 short-on-transparency "webchat", but these were met repeatedly with DOL's reply that it is "premature" to discuss whatever the looming "proposal" is.  The sole detail to emerge is that DOL expects to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in October.

While of course it remains to be seen what actually transpires, one may reasonably suspect that at least some of the forthcoming proposal will consist of concepts that also appear in the pending legislation.  For example, the proposal might well say that the exemption cannot apply to a worker who is employed by the agency supplying his or her services to an elderly person or to the person's family.

It is also probable that the time period for commenting on and registering objections to this proposal will be relatively brief.  Those who oppose cutting-back on the "companionship" exemption must be vigilant and should be prepared to act on short notice.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

Eldercare Workforce Alliance Letter.pdf (184.20 kb)

Another effort is afoot to limit the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's Section 13(a)(15) "companionship" exemption to the point of non-existence in any practical sense.  Last week, apparently-identical bills (S. 1273 and H.R. 2341 -- see currently available version below) were introduced in the Senate and the House which would have precisely this effect.  Similar measures were proposed last year, but the newer ones would impose even-narrower restrictions.

The FLSA's minimum-wage and overtime requirements do not apply to "any employee employed in domestic service employment to provide companionship services for individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves .  .  .."  "Domestic service employment" refers to services of a household nature the worker performs in or about the private home of the person by whom he or she is employed.  The term "companionship services" means providing care, fellowship, and protection to people who cannot care for themselves due either to advanced age or to physical or mental difficulties.  Additional U.S. Labor Department regulations and interpretations explain how and to whom the exemption may be applied.

If the proposed amendment becomes law, only an employee employed "on a casual basis" to provide companionship services could be eligible for exemption under Section 13(a)(15).  In turn, the phrase "on a casual basis" would be defined so as to make the exemption available only if:

♦   The companionship employment is irregular or intermittent;

♦   The work is not performed by someone whose vocation is to provide companionship services;

♦   The worker is employed only by the family or household using his or her services, rather than by another employer or agency (this is almost certainly designed to exclude even joint-employment arrangements involving, for instance, the worker, a home-healthcare agency, and the service recipients);

♦    The worker's employment by the employer is limited to no more than five hours "per week" (whether a calendar week, a workweek, or some other kind of "week" the bills do not say, nor do they clarify whether the five-hour limit is to be viewed as an average or as an each-"week" proposition); and

♦    The worker's employment by the employer may not extend beyond a "time period" of twelve "weeks" in a calendar year.

These last two restrictions are more stringent than was their counterpart in last year's proposed changes.

It is likely that most employees providing companionship services (and apparently all such workers employed by home-healthcare agencies and similar organizations) would no longer fall within the amended exemption.  It is entirely foreseeable that, instead of improving the circumstances of "direct care workers" and "older adults" whom the amendment purports to help, the changes would expose the interests of both groups to the principle of unintended consequences at the worst-possible time.

The bills have been referred to legislative committees at this point, so it does not appear that there will necessarily be immediate action.  Nevertheless, the Service Employees International Union supports the bills, so opponents of these measures should take them seriously and should waste no time in making their views known to their Senators and Representatives.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

S.1273 H.R. 2341.pdf (49.95 kb)

Our last post raised questions about how to calculate a non-exempt employee's pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act for the timeframe during which the employer adopts a different workweek.

When the FLSA workweek is changed, the period in which the conversion occurs typically involves hours worked falling within, or overlapping, both the new and the old workweeks.  As an enforcement policy, the U.S. Labor Department will deem FLSA wages to have been paid properly if the employer uses a particular computation method.  This approach calls for an employer to:

♦   Assume that the overlapping hours were worked in only the "old" workweek, compute FLSA straight-time and overtime pay due for each of the workweeks, and then total the sums;

♦   Perform the same calculation assuming instead that the overlapping hours were worked in the "new" workweek; and

♦   Pay the employee the greater of the two totals.

See 29 C.F.R. § 778.301, 778.302.

For example, assume that an employer is changing its workweek from one beginning on Monday and running through Sunday to one spanning from Friday through Thursday.  Assume also that an employee paid on an hourly basis at the rate of $10.00 works the following hours during the period of the workweek change:

-------------------- Old WW -------------------

M       T         W        Th        F        Sat      Sun      M      T          W        Th
8      8.25     10        9        7.5      8.5       9         1      8.25     8         8

                                           ------------------- New WW -----------------

This employee's wages would be computed as follows:

Pay for 60.25 "old" workweek's hours:

[(40 hrs. × $10.00) + (20.25 OT hrs. × 1.5 × $10.00)] = $703.75

Pay for 25.25 "new" workweek's hours:

($10.00) × (25.25 hrs.) = $252.50

TOTAL DUE FOR ELEVEN-DAY PERIOD:   $956.25

Pay for 50.25 "new" week's hours:

[(40 hrs. × $10.00) + (10.25 OT hrs. × 1.5 × $10.00)] = $553.75

Pay for 35.25 "old" week's hours:

($10.00) × (35.25 hrs.) = $352.50

TOTAL DUE FOR ELEVEN-DAY PERIOD:  $906.25

Because the first computation produces the greater figure, that is, $956.25, the employer would pay this amount.

Once again, this is something employers should also check into under any applicable laws of a state or other jurisdiction.  For instance, some states might require a different approach or might prescribe a minimum period of advance notice before the new workweek may take effect.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

Many compensation policies and similar documents refer to wages for non-exempt employees in the context of a "week", a "pay week", a "pay period", "the schedule", an "overtime week", or some other ambiguous word or phrase.  But the timeframe that matters under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act is a term-of-art:  A "workweek".  For instance, with few exceptions, FLSA overtime pay is due for a non-exempt employee's hours worked over 40 in a single workweek, which is not necessarily the same thing as the calendar week or an employee's scheduled week or pay period.

An FLSA workweek is a fixed, regularly-recurring period of 168 hours – that is, seven, consecutive, 24-hour periods – that the employer expressly adopts in order to maintain FLSA compliance.  FLSA recordkeeping regulations require covered employers to select and document at least one such workweek.  The workweek can be set to begin on any calendar day and at any time of day, but thereafter the employer must apply that workweek in complying with the FLSA.

If an employer has not designated and documented a workweek, or if it computes pay based upon some timeframe other than the applicable workweek, this can lead to non-compliance.  As an illustration, for the overwhelming majority of employees whose overtime must be determined on a workweek basis, the FLSA's requirements are not satisfied by paying overtime based just upon the number of hours worked over 80 in a two-week period or upon worktime exceeding 86.67 hours in a semi-monthly period.

What the workweek is can also affect what pay is due to an employee who must be paid on a "salary basis" in order to qualify for a particular FLSA exemption.  For example, the FLSA "salary basis" exemption principles say that the salary need not be paid for any workweek in which the employee performs no work.  However, to decide whether these are the circumstances, one has to know what workweek applies to that employee in the first place.

An employer is permitted to have more than one workweek under the FLSA, and the workweek does not have to be the same for every group of employees or for every location.  It is possible to establish different FLSA workweeks for different groups, for different locations, or even for different people.  Variations in work patterns or tendencies in different workforce segments can sometimes mean that it is advantageous to adopt a different workweek for a particular group or location, or even for a few particular employees.

It is possible to change a workweek, of course.  But an employer may neither do this frequently nor otherwise manipulate the workweek so as to produce a purported series of non-overtime workweeks.  Once the workweek has been established, it remains fixed regardless of the employees' schedules or numbers of hours worked.

Employers should also check into any applicable laws of a state or other jurisdiction to see whether there are any workweek-related requirements or restrictions that are different from or tougher than the FLSA's.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.