My wife works for a Cafeteria In San Francisco. She has only been with this employer for 3 months. She and her co-workers were always paid weekly. First paycheck was after 14 days and subsequential checks issued every seven days after. This week (on the seventh day) my wife and her co-workers were informed that they would not receive their pay as scheduled and that effective immediately they would be paid on the first and the fifteenth of each month. On the 15th of this month is she entitled to one two or three weeks of pay.
Is this legal? Is the employer allowed to pay after 21 consecutive days of work? Is the employer required to give notice a certain amount of days prior to making this decision? What are our legal options?

MC

In California, wages, with some exceptions (see table below), must be paid at least twice during each calendar month on the days designated in advance as regular paydays. The employer must establish a regular payday and is required to post a notice that shows the day, time and location of payment.



http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_Paydays.htm


Please contact them for further information.

However, I was not able to find anything in the Labor Code that requires a certain amount of notice. Bad for employee morale, I agree, but not illegal that I could find.

As large as the laws (labor code) are, even in places like CA most things that happen in the workplace are not directly addressed in law.

Thanks for checking guys. You would think they would have to give a notice like they have to for a change of wages. I hope if they call, that they can give them some answers that are not on their site.

Thanks for checking guys. You would think they would have to give a notice like they have to for a change of wages. I hope if they call, that they can give them some answers that are not on their site.

The California site is pretty comprehensive. The Labor Code, IWC Orders, and even the DLSE Enforcement Manual is there, along with opinion letters. I'd be surprised if they came up with a law that isn't in one of those references.

The California site is pretty comprehensive. The Labor Code, IWC Orders, and even the DLSE Enforcement Manual is there, along with opinion letters. I'd be surprised if they came up with a law that isn't in one of those references.

Thanks Patty, I am going to have to read that site completely some time.

I am going to have to read that site completely some time.

Set aside about two years. ;) :p

I am going to have to read that site completely some time.

Set aside about two years. ;) :p

Yep, that would about do it. :rolleyes:

Regarding the CA website, if I can make some suggestions.
- Start with the FAQ pages. They are not perfect but they are easy to read, and many people have read them (including maybe your company's employees).
- Try the Wage Order for your industry next. If you are not sure, then try #4 which is fairly general.
- I am not saying do not look at the labor code or the opinion letters, but you need to have a pretty focused need for those to be very useful. However the Enforcement Manual is worth downloading. It is not all that unusual to have several different sources which seeming contradict each other. Rather then picking the one "you like" and hoping that the other sources will not come up, it is safer to just look up the subject in the Enforcement Manual and see how CA-DLSE views the subject. The Manual does not carry the force of law, but it does indicate CA-DLSE thinking, and it should act as a predictor of how CA-DLSE will view a wage claim. While courts do not always agree with CA-DLSE, the courts also do not always disagree with CA-DLSE. I suspect that CA-DLSE's track record in court is probably better then those who challenge them.

I'll save you a little time and point out that this is covered by Labor Code 204. In particular, it provides:
All wages, other than those mentioned in Section 201, 202,
204.1, or 204.2, earned by any person in any employment are due and
payable twice during each calendar month, on days designated in
advance by the employer as the regular paydays. Labor performed
between the 1st and 15th days, inclusive, of any calendar month shall
be paid for between the 16th and the 26th day of the month during
which the labor was performed, and labor performed between the 16th
and the last day, inclusive, of any calendar month, shall be paid for
between the 1st and 10th day of the following month.
and

The requirements of this section shall be deemed satisfied by
the payment of wages for weekly, biweekly, or semimonthly payroll if
the wages are paid not more than seven calendar days following the
close of the payroll period.

Thus, an employer can pay on a weekly basis. The employer can switch to a semi-monthly basis as long as it is designated "in advance." The employer can pay 7 days after the last day of the period. This would mean that it would be 14 days from your day of first work if on a weekly basis, 21 days if on a bi-weekly, and up to 25 if on a semi-monthly (which is what they are on now).

Now, you will have to go through all your pay periods and for each one, check to see if the law was complied with. However, even if you managed to find a violation, it would not result in any significant recovery. The only way to recover for this would be to recover the civil penalty. The penalty is $100, and the State of California gets $75 and you get $25.

All of what Michael states is true, but none if said that the employer must provide XX days of notice when changing the pay period and/or pay date.

What I was getting at was that we are never likely to know exactly how many days "in advance" means. The reason is that when the legislature passes laws, they do not think of every detail. Instead, they leave this open for the courts to interpret as cases come up. A case interpreting what this means is never likely to come up because very few people are likely to sue for $25. Even if they did, it is even less likely that one of the parties would appeal the trial court decision so that an appellate court could publish a decision that could them be used by the DLSE and others. The DLSE would not take a case like this as it does not cover of the areas that they currently enforce -- which leaves it up to private enforcement, if at all.

For this reason, most discussion about the Labor Code is academic. You can debate whether such-and-such was a violation of the law, but if there is no real penalty and no way of enforcing it, it really does not make any difference.

For the original poster, I don't see it making any difference. She would be entitled to $25 -- which would hardly be worth the time, effort, and money to recover.

I am going to have to read that site completely some time.

Set aside about two years. ;) :p

Tee Hee, thanks for the heads up, maybe I won't.

Very helpful information guys! You saved me 2 years of reading at least tee hee! I would think the courts would frown on someone finding out about a payday change, when the payday has arrived, other than that, you are right, they are not very specific on what advanced means. I though would sue, not for the 25.00, but for the inconvenience it could cause, if say, rent were due on that day, not later.