Overtime policy differs by department

[Guest Ssteve]

Our written corporate policy states, "use of paid vacation days...is not considered hours worked" when calculating overtime.

Because of a back-log of work in "Dept X", our HR Director has authorized payroll to include vacation hours as hours worked when calculating overtime - for that department only and for a limited time.

I say that an overtime policy - or a temporary change to the policy - must be company wide to include ALL non-exempt employees. Am I right or is it really acceptable to change the policy "temporarily" for a select group of employees because their manager failed to consider work-flow when letting them all schedule their vacations at the same time?

[Guest Ssteve]

UPDATE: I now have it in writing that overtime calculations are different for Dept X for the next couple of months. AND it's in writing that other hourly employees CANNOT receive overtime using the same calculation during the same time frame.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, you HR pros - help me out by telling me that it's illegal to do this?!?!?!

[mroberts]

It's a federal mandate that overtime be paid out to non-exempt employees who work over 40 hours per week. Companies can require employees to get authorization before working overtime so that employees aren't just hanging around being unproductive to get some extra dollars. That being said, however, even if an employee doesn't have authorization to work overtime and he does so, the company would be required to pay him the OT. The company could probably discipline him since he did not get the proper authorization, however, they cannot choose not to pay him.

Now, on to your question, it appears that it's the company's decision as to how they are calculating the overtime. Most companies do not allow vacation time to be included in this simply because the employee isn't truly working those hours. Nonetheless, companies can always do better than state or federal law, but never worse. For example, a company could pay employees triple time for working overtime if they really wanted to. What it sounds like here is that they are choosing a certain class of employees to be subject to a different calculation, which would be fine as long as the decision wasn't based on a protected charicteristic. For example, all white employees can calculate overtime this way and all other employees this way.

[Guest Ssteve]

Let me get this straight: A company can create overtime policies that treat people differently based on the department in which they work and it's okay, provided none of the policies fail to meet federal/state regulations?

It makes no sense to me that my company can refuse to pay me overtime because I had a vacation day during the week, but the employee 10 feet away who worked the EXACT same schedule gets OT. (Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that NEITHER of us should get the OT, based on our policy of vacation not being "hours worked".)

How about if I add this little tidbid: The MAN who requested this for his department received an approval and the WOMAN who tried to make it company-wide was denied. :-)

My problem isn't that the other department shouldn't get the OT, it's that a written policy is being defied for a select few - at the whim of our HR director.

[Sheila K]

Steve:

Although it may not be the moral high road, mroberts is correct that it isn't really illegal. If you suspect that there is some type of discrimination happening here, I would suggest that you contact a labor attorney to discuss your concerns.

[mroberts]

Does everyone in your company get $40,000 per year? Does everyone in your company receive 3 weeks vacation? Is everyone in your company subjected to the same bonus schedule? As you can see, there are different forms of discrimination in basically every facet of an organization. As long as your company can clearly distinguish which group or class is getting the overtime calculated that way, then no there isn't anything illegal about it. I understand your frustration, but who said life was fair?

[Guest Ssteve]

Thanks to both of you for the input. I certainly DO grasp that life isn't fair and that we don't all make the same amount of money.

Unfortunately, this is the third or fourth time this year I've learned of our HR director taking the moral low ground. Perhaps it's that I found her statement of, "I agree, but we're doing it this way because I approved it," to be so utterly comtemptuous that made me think there MUST be SOME regulation against it. (Never in all the times I've spoken to her has she ever provided me with an answer based on regulations. In fact, whenever I cite points of law, she asks me to give her a copy because it's "interesting".)

Like I said, thanks. This is the second time I've relied on this site to help me out and, once again, it's made a significant difference in how I'll address the issue.

What say you, oh wise ones, about an HR director who looks at an employee who has asked a question pertaining to an insurance premium increase and tells them nothing other than, "You need help. You have an attitude problem." (Thereby, much to my amusement, truly enraging an already frustrated employee. It was acceptable to be amused because I'd already been through it with her.)

[BFree]

I'd say the same thing I would if it was an accountant, a line operator or a marketing person: stay away from obnoxious people. I think you are right to want to take a stand, you just need to take it when the facts and situation is on your side.