Thank you very much for your reply. I am very glad that you've found our discussion helpful. Please allow me to address your concerns as follows:Assuming no non-exempt employee works more than 40 hours per week, can we implement a flexible schedule that would allow our hourly people to work the equivalent of their hours per week over the course of a month. For instance one week they may work 5 hours, the next 25 hours, the following 10...,etc, so long as in the month they do not exceed the hours they are supposed to work and they do not exceed 40 hours per week. Can we do this?
Yes, it is entirely permissible to implement a flexible work schedule where work is performed on an "as needed" basis and the work from one week is intended to equalize the next week's, shooting for a monthly target number.
There are, however, two limitations which you must consider. The first is that overtime must be paid not only for all hours in excess of 40 per week, but also for all hours worked in excess of 8 in a single day. So, even if you have a part time employee who only works 20 hours in a week, if they did that in two ten-hour days, they'd be entitled to four hours of overtime. So, when scheduling your employees, you will certainly want to keep this in mind.
Second is that, while there is nothing illegal about shooting for a target monthly total of hours worked, Labor Code 204 generally requires that employers be paid twice a month. So, you probably wouldn't be able to wait until the end of the month to make payment. See here for the text of Labor Code 204: http://law.onecle.com/california/labor/204.htmlIt seems to me that if we switched to a monthly pay schedule, and a flexible work schedule non-exempt employees could count up the hours they worked during the month. If it is exactly equivalent to the number of hours per week they are suppose to work in that month we would not have to pay them for any additional hours. If they did work more hours (and we would require that their supervisor gives them permission, their monthly pay could be adjusted to reflect the increase). The same could be true in reverse if they did not work all of their weekly equivalent hours during the month their pay could be adjusted down . Does this make sense?
You don't want to pay the employees in advance of them performing their work. If you do, that creates conceivable legal problems when you need to adjust their pay downward and essentially take money back from them. This problem is easily avoided simply by paying them only for the hours the actually submit after the hours are submited. Other than this, your plan seems fine.It is true that legally all non-exempt employees must record their hours in all circumstances and that those records must be kept by the personnel department. Right?
Employers must retain records of all hours their employees work, which in turn requires the employees to log their hours. Furthermore, when you pay your employees, their paystubs must break down the number of hours they worked and the hourly rate at which they were paid. See here for more information about what information needs to be included on paystubs: http://law.onecle.com/california/labor/226.htmlWill you please respond to my scenario here and let me know if it would work, legally? If not can you suggest something? And, will you verify for me that all non-exempt employees must record their time worked in every circumstance no matter the type of organization?
Straight hourly pay is your best bet, not paying employees in advance of work performed, or in anticipation of them working a certain amount, but following their submission of a timesheet compensating for all hours actually worked. Records regarding hours worked must be maintained, but they need not be automatically forwarded to the Labor Board.
Again, I sincerely XXXXX XXXXX information helps and I wish you the best moving forward.