Last week I was laid off due to there being no business. I received my last pay stub and saw that I still had 13.19 (I am guessing hours) of "Paid Time Off" available. I called the owner of the company today and she told me that it had "No Monetary Value" Is that true....how does that work? Under the heading "Paid Time Off" and on the line saying "Vacation" surely means that they should pay me out for it?

I take it that you would like to take your accrued paid time off, but the employer won't let you do that.

That would not be legal in my state.

I have no idea what Alaska's laws are on that.

I have never ever heard in any State where that would be legal. I do not understand how "Paid Time Off" could have no monetary value??

I have never ever heard in any State where that would be legal.

Bunches of them.

Few states require pay out of accrued vacation upon termination with no exceptions. Even mine might allow some exceptions to the payout. I am just not willing to test the limits of the law and will pay out accrued vacation upon request or termination.

Some states require it be paid according to company policy, so if a company policy states that a laid off employee cannot have vacation, that would be legal. I don't agree that it would be fair, but it would be legal.

Does anyone know what the law for this in Alaska is?

Alaska does not require the unconditional payout of unused vacation; however, if company policy is to make such payments, they are obligated to follow their policy.

http://labor.state.ak.us/lss/forms/employee_faq.pdf

If you have an employee hand book or contract I would start there. Alaska law does not require vacation time, however if you have a hand book or contract it would be enforceable.

If you have an employee hand book or contract I would start there. Alaska law does not require vacation time, however if you have a hand book or contract it would be enforceable.

Handbook, very unlikely. Very few employee handbooks rise to the level of an enforceable contract. Now, an employment contract or CBA, yes.

In Alaska if the employee handbook spells out benefits such as vacation leave and how it may be used and paid that's an enforceable contract.
Alaska courts have been very pro-employee and their view the last few years is that employee handbooks are treated the same as employee contracts.

About your only option is small claims court if the empolyer doesn't voluntarily pay.

Alaska courts have recognized employment claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing Knight v. American Guard & Alert, 714 P.2d 788 (Alaska 1986); Mitford v. De Lasala, 666 P.2d 1000 (Alaska 1983) Employee handbook provisions may create or imply such obligations as well Rutledge v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 727 P.2d 1050 (Alaska 1986) The Judge could also find for the plaintiff in the interest of Justice. Contact an attorney or file in small claims.
JoeC

In Alaska if the employee handbook spells out benefits such as vacation leave and how it may be used and paid that's an enforceable contract.
Alaska courts have been very pro-employee and their view the last few years is that employee handbooks are treated the same as employee contracts.

About your only option is small claims court if the empolyer doesn't voluntarily pay.

I didn't say impossible, I said unlikely. Stiffnecked, do you have any cases to back this up?

This post is a few week old now. If the OP is still checking it, I would never say don't contact at attorney if you want to spend the money to do so. However, it's likely this has been resolved by now.

I didn't say impossible, I said unlikely. Stiffnecked, do you have any cases to back this up?

This post is a few week old now. If the OP is still checking it, I would never say don't contact at attorney if you want to spend the money to do so. However, it's likely this has been resolved by now.
Here you go Patty check out (nit pick)the spelling on these:

Luedtke v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc., 768 P.2d 1123, 1137 (Alaska 1989) [Luedtke I].
State v. Haley, 687 P.2d 305, 318 (Alaska 1984).
Rutledge v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 727 P.2d 1050, 1056 (Alaska 1986).
Luedtke v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc., 834 P.2d 1220, 1224 (Alaska 1992) [Luedtke II].
ARCO Alaska, Inc. v. Akers, 753 P.2d 1150, 1156-57 (Alaska 1988).
See CHI of Alaska, Inc. v. Employers Reinsurance Corp., 844 P.2d 1113 (Alaska 1993).
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Nicholson, 777 P.2d 1152 (Alaska 1989).
Loyal Order of Moose, Lodge 1392 v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 797 P.2d 622 (Alaska 1990).
ARCO Alaska, Inc. v. Akers, 753 P.2d 1150 (Alaska 1988).
State v. Transamerica Premier Ins. Co., 856 P.2d 766 (Alaska 1993).
Alaska under the U.C.C Id. § 1-201(19). Alaska has adopted this provision at Alaska Stat. § 45.01.201(20) (Supp. 1993). Given the courts history I would not say it's unlikely,but then again Patty sure knows her spelling.
JoeC

How do any of these have anything to do with whether or not PTO is due at the time of termination or anything the OP asked about? We don't even know that there is a handbook or policy beyond what was shared verbally.

How do any of these have anything to do with whether or not PTO is due at the time of termination or anything the OP asked about? We don't even know that there is a handbook or policy beyond what was shared verbally.
It falls under good faith and fair dealing oral promises are enforceable in court.
Under Jones v. Central Peninsula Gen. Hosp., 779 P.2d 783, 789 n.6 (Alaska 1989). the Alaska courts broadened the scope of the implied covenant beyond the specific expectations of the contracting parties. Even more so than the California courts have,by "failing to treat similarly situated employees alike." under Jones interpretation of the implied covenant demands a greater factual inquiry into the expectations of the parties, not a standard definition that an employer must treat all similarly-situated employees alike.

You will notice in the list of cases in the previous post that some are not even employment cases,but insurance cases. The court has readily employed the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in ordinary commercial disputes,Alaska courts do not differentiate between employment, and other ordinary commercial disputes. The Alaska courts will routinely look at promises made by employers,as well as the expectation of the plaintiff in employment as they would other contract disputes,and have based their decision on Insurance ,and other commercial dispute cases. This is a very good approach in my opinion.

So even if the employer is arguing the P.T.O policy has no monetary value,as a matter of company policy. It may not make muster under good faith,and fair dealing. Given that the plaintiff would reasonably construe the P.T.O to in fact have monetary value,and a reasonable person would construe likewise. Otherwise why even have a P.T.O policy if it has no value? The employer has acknowledged the policy exists on the pay stub,he only argues it has no monetary value. So a contract is established the only thing in dispute is the terms.

Therefore the Judge will decide if the employer has acted in bad faith (Which he obviously has) ,and hopefully award the 13.19 hours as wages. If I was the judge I would slap a maximum small claim punitive award on employer to boot. McGruff unfortunately does not wear the robes.
JoeC

I do not disagree in the slightest that in Alaska, if there is a policy of paying out vacation it must be enforced. I believe I said so much further up the thread.

However, the poster has not given us any indication whatsoever of whether or not such a policy exists.

So I think we've taken this thread about as far as we can. The poster has all the relevant information; unless he returns with some additional info or questions any further discussion is pointless.

I do not disagree in the slightest that in Alaska, if there is a policy of paying out vacation it must be enforced. I believe I said so much further up the thread.
Well thats the point even if the employers policy is not to pay out P.T.O under a Jones reading,demands a greater factual inquiry into the expectations of the parties, not a standard definition that an employer must treat all similarly-situated employees alike.
The courts place an emphasis on parties expectation,in this way the O.P could still prevail even if the employer has a policy of not paying out the P.T.O. The pay stub alone is sufficient evidence to proceed to court.
The O.P was laid off,he did not quit now the employer is trying to beat him out of an earned benefit. That is not acting in good faith,and fair dealing,and does not meet the employees expectation.
JoeC

Okay, Joe, if that's your thought you're entitled to it, but I still think we've gone as far as we can until we hear more from the poster. Who has not been back for nearly a month.