Hi, all first (of 3) posts! Thanks in advance!

My first question is regarding training rate.

I am a full-time employee and our employee manual states that there is a training rate (of $9) for part-time employees, but there is NO training rate for full-time employees, rather all full-time are to be paid their regular rate for ALL hours worked, training or normal.

So, over summer I went to some training and ended up being paid the part-time employee training rate of $9 for those hours. I went to my boss, she said I was wrong. I went to HR, they went to my boss (who of course told them I was wrong) and in turn, told me I was wrong. I then went to my OLD boss, and she said, "No, your new boss and HR are both wrong, you are supposed to be paid your normal wage." I kept fighting, but eventually gave up because it wasn't worth it $$ in the end.

So, my question is A) Who is right? B) How do I get what I am owed? and C) Is there any sort of penalty for not being paid what and when I was supposed to?

Thanks!

Again, your're a "director" and you're being paid an hourly rate? Not that this is illegal, but I'm thinking it's rare.

"Director" is a childcare-specific industry term that the CCLD (Community Childcare Licensing Division) uses, and to become a "director" is easy. There are age and (simple) college-credit requirements, and if I remember correctly, that's it. Basically, sounds a lot "higher up" than it really is...if you will.

OK, since you mentioned in your other thread that you are hourly, nonexempt, we'll go from there.

All the law requires is that you be paid at least minimum wage for all hour worked, which includes training hours mandated by the employer. Not all law in the workplace, however, is employment law. Some is contract law. It is unlikely that the employee manual would rise to the level of an enforceable contract, but you can certainly have a California attorney versed in employment and contract law review it for that purpose.

Many companies label employees, manager, supervisor, director when in fact, that rarely actually direct or supervise or manage anyone or do so very seldom. Oftentimes this is done in order to persuade the employee they are exempt from overtime. An analysis should be done to determine if they really are exempt from overtime.

And in this case, the OP is being treated as hourly, nonexempt as stated in another of his/her threads. So nothing there is no illegal misclassification here.

Here's another thing:

Obviously, on my date of hire, I signed off knowing my rate of pay is xx/hour. I NEVER signed their paper stating that I know my TRAINING rate of pay is $9/hour, which is what they have part-time employees do. Doesn't that mean, that they MUST always pay my normal rate of pay, since I have not signed off on being paid anything less?

No, "signing off" is not required by wage and hour law, unless the agreement you came to could be considered a bona fide contract. You are always free to contact an attorney versed in employment and contract law to discuss this possibility, but I wouldn't be optimistic. Not all work rules, or even multiple rates of pay under certain circumstances, have to be in writing.

Having said that, your rate of pay cannot be retroactively changed in California. If you were honestly not aware that the rate would be lower than your normal rate, you might prevail with a wage and hour claim for the difference. Might work, might not, but it's free to try.
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/HowToFileWageClaim.htm

I think it is a potential contract issue, but it begs the question, when did you first know the wage was $9? did you bring it to the employers attention when you first found out?

Good question. I knew that a training rate existed, but only for part-time employees. It was only when I had to sign my timecard that it became an issue. My timecard had $9 and I tried to contest it, but they didn't listen.