My husband was a foreman for large a construction company in California. He was recently laid-off. I believe that his final check was short several weeks but wanted clarification before proceeding.

For the first two years, his PTO time was paid-off at the end of his year. He got three weeks of PTO per year, which he rarely used so that we could have the extra money for the holidays. After nearly three years, the parent company merged two divisions. His office was closed and he was transferred to another office.

At the new division office, everything changed because they had their own way of doing things. He was forced to fill out new payroll information and insurance information. At the end of the year, a couple months later, he was not cashed out for his PTO. He was told that it wasn't their policy and, even if it was, he had earned the time at the other office and it was "their" responsibility to pay it. As I said, these were two divisions within the same company. His office was dissolved and everyone was transferred. His payroll listed the division office as his employer. His insurance cards list the parent company as his employer.

When he was hired, he was told that he would be entitled to one week of severence for every year that he worked for the company. He was also told that he would get three of vacation per year.

When he was laid off last week, he was paid for one week of wages, one week of severence and 2 weeks of PTO, plus a small amount that was calculated for the months that he worked this year.

We're not too upset about the lay-off because, even though the industry is slow, the job is definitely not what it was when he was hired. My husband went from being paid bonuses regularly to not getting any at all. (Another change at the division level.) The performance pay, quarterly and safety bonuses were just...gone. Even the annual Christmas bonus was taken away.

He would be told that he had to attend a meeting at "the office" with one day notice, if that. Commuting over an hour to work, putting in an 8-10 hour day and then commuting another hour to the office for a meeting was stressful, especially considering the drive home would take 3 hours on a good day. At the end, he was having to go to the office several times a week. Considering they took his gas card and forced him to pay for the gas in that big old company truck added salt to the wound. It cost us $250-$300 per week in gas and but they only reimbursed him up to $500 for the month. It was like a huge cut in pay that we could ill-afford without the extra driving.

Anyways, back to the legal questions.

Even if we forget the three weeks of severence because it is not legally required, who is responsible for the 2 weeks of PTO that was "lost" in the division merger?

Can they just arbitrarily cut back his PTO time from three weeks to two weeks? We have it in writing that he was due three weeks but he was only paid two.

How long do they have to pay him his gas reimbursement? He gave them all of the receipts for the month when he was laid-off but wasn't told when he would be cut that check.

By my calculations, they owe him at 3 weeks of PTO plus the gas reimbursements. He told them the amounts weren't right when he got his checks but they said the decision was "final."

Does that sound right? Right now, 3 weeks + gas is a lot of money! If it isn't right, where do we go from here?

Even if we forget the three weeks of severence because it is not legally required, who is responsible for the 2 weeks of PTO that was "lost" in the division merger?


It's the same company, right? Vacation, once earned in California cannot be forfeited, different "divisions" not withstanding.

Can they just arbitrarily cut back his PTO time from three weeks to two weeks? We have it in writing that he was due three weeks but he was only paid two.

Depends on whether or not the time was granted at the beginning of the year, or earned throughout the year. "Earned" is the key word.

How long do they have to pay him his gas reimbursement? He gave them all of the receipts for the month when he was laid-off but wasn't told when he would be cut that check.

Generally speaking, the Labor Code section that deals with reimbursements of expenses does not follow the "immediate payment" regulations with an involuntary termination. Practically speaking, they can pay it at the normal time they would have had he still been employed. I would say, however, that if you husband has receipts showing that he paid more for gas than he was reimbursed, he files a claim with the DLSE for that. The CA Labor Code requires such reimbursement in full.

By my calculations, they owe him at 3 weeks of PTO Is that the 3 weeks to which he would be entitled if he had worked the entire year of 2008? See my response above regarding when PTO/Vacation is "earned". An upfront "grant", meaning the time off is vested at the beginning of the year, is very uncommon.

Even if we forget the three weeks of severence because it is not legally required, who is responsible for the 2 weeks of PTO that was "lost" in the division merger?
It's the same company, right? Vacation, once earned in California cannot be forfeited, different "divisions" not withstanding.
He worked for company A which was owned by parent company X.
After he was hired, Parent company X changed his company's name from A to S.

Parent company X then purchased company B.
Parent company X changed that company's name to company S, as well.

Parent company X merged both divisions of company S into a single company, based in the company B offices.

He was told by the managers at Company B/S that his PTO was earned at company A/S and that is who has to pay him...but that company no longer exists. It was dissolved in the merger. Company B/S was happy to absorb all of company A/S assets but does not feel responsible for the debts. Even so, as far as they were concerned, it was earned in 2006 so he should have pursued it at that time. He didn't pursue it because he still worked for the company and didn't want to make waves because of the ongoing lay-offs. He was sure that they would have to settle everything once he left the company.

Whom do we make a claim to for the unpaid PTO? Parent Company X or the company that he was transferred to? All of his payroll was paid through company B/S, including his final checks. The managers at B/S like to pretend that they are completely separate entities and are probably hoping that this will get lost in a paperwork shuffle.

Can they just arbitrarily cut back his PTO time from three weeks to two weeks? We have it in writing that he was due three weeks but he was only paid two.
Depends on whether or not the time was granted at the beginning of the year, or earned throughout the year. "Earned" is the key word.
It would have been 2007.

We have a notice in writing from company B/S that confirms the 3 weeks, but they word it differently. The time isn't "earned." As a salaried employee, he is "allowed" three weeks off. He didn't take any days off in 2007 because it was always a "bad time" but he was only paid for 2 weeks when he was laid off, plus the amount pro-rated for 2008. As far as they are concerned, time off is not "earned" but "allowed" and therefore they did not even have to pay the two weeks that they did. The notice words it as "time off/vacation." His final checks list it is PTO. I think they are trying to work around the law with word games.

How long do they have to pay him his gas reimbursement? He gave them all of the receipts for the month when he was laid-off but wasn't told when he would be cut that check.
Generally speaking, the Labor Code section that deals with reimbursements of expenses does not follow the "immediate payment" regulations with an involuntary termination. Practically speaking, they can pay it at the normal time they would have had he still been employed. I would say, however, that if you husband has receipts showing that he paid more for gas than he was reimbursed, he files a claim with the DLSE for that. The CA Labor Code requires such reimbursement in full.
Interesting. According to company policy, receipts were submitted monthly and then he would get the $500 flat reimbursement the following week. That would be this pay period so we'll wait when they send it, if they send it. Up until this time, he meticulously copied all of his receipts before submitting them. When he was laid off, his last month's worth of receipts were taken at the job site so he didn't have the ability to make copies. That means we don't have proof of what he paid, though we do have proof of what he normally paid for the months prior.
By my calculations, they owe him at 3 weeks of PTO
Is that the 3 weeks to which he would be entitled if he had worked the entire year of 2008? See my response above regarding when PTO/Vacation is "earned". An upfront "grant", meaning the time off is vested at the beginning of the year, is very uncommon.
The three weeks would be 2 weeks earned but not paid in 2006 and 1 week earned but not paid in 2007, as explained above.

Sorry if this is confusing. As I said, it was a convoluted situation. Some of the problems are probably the result of trying to blend three company policies into a single, cohesive policy. The rest are deliberate and malicious. Company B/S has sytematically released nearly every employee who worked for company A/S. Those who remained for any length of time were treated like unwanted step-children. It makes sense when you understand that companies A and B used to be rivals. How people in some corporate office thousands of miles away thought that there could be a "clean merger" is beyond me. A hostile take over would have had less bloodshed...metephorically speaking. ;)

Confusing is an understatement. :)

At this point, I would recommend he file a claim with the DLSE for what he feels was the underpaid vacation at termination. Let them sort it out with the employer.