I searched for this issue and found a couple of things that came close but not quite.

My company currently has a policy that we can accrue up to 1 1/2 times our annual vacation hours. I currently receive 120 hrs/year so I can accrue up to 180 hours. Beginning in January 2010, there will be a change in policy - they are combining our vacation and sick time into PTO; under the new policy I would be eligible for 168 PTO hours/year however the new policy only allows an accrual of 120 hours annually.

My question is two-fold:

1) Is it legal to not allow me to accrue my annual allotment?
2) I have accrued the maximum time allowed under the current policy of 180 hours - am I correct in thinking that I must either be paid out for the 60 hour difference between the new limit and the old or allowed to keep this on the books until I can use it?

Thanks!

If I were you, I'd definitely ask for cash of the difference ASAP.

1. It is legal for them to do whatever they want with vacation time (per your employers policy manual). The US Government (the only country in the world, mind you) does not +mandate+ vacation time. However, once an employer allows you to "accrue it"; it is considered "earned wages". My understanding is if it's "awarded" they don't have to pay you out upon separation (sometimes sick time is "awarded"). So look at the language very carefully.

2. I don't want to scare you but, I smell a rat! If they convert to PTO (awarded time off) then lay-off I believe they will try to get out of paying you your vacation/PTO. (Correct me if I am wrong HR lawyers). Can they get away with that?



There is NOT a USE it or LOSE it policy in CA. You are entitled to that money.:o

My state is, if anything, more employee friendly than CA when it comes to vacation payout, and here PTO is EXPLICITLY required to be paid out at termination. You can't get out of paying vacation by converting to PTO - in fact, by converting to PTO you get to pay out any sick or personal time that you wouldn't otherwise have had to pay. Nonetheless I have successfully converted two companies from vacation/sick/personal policies to PTO policies as we believed that the benefits of such a policy outweighed the extra days we had to pay out at term. So no, I would not assume that the conversion is designed to get around a vacation payout.

I think in CA it's all in the language "awarded" vs. "accrued". But, don't quote me on that.

I agree with you. PTO is much more flexible for employee and employer alike. In CA you run into people using sick time for "Kin Care" which is perfectly ok up to a certain percentage. LAME!! Using sick time to take days off here and there. Having sick time and vacation vs PTO is another way cheap bosses get out of paying people what I think they are owed.... Sorry I started to vent a little :D

If you accrued the time off, i.e., earned it by working a certain number of days or weeks, then the time cannot be taken away from you and they would have to either pay you out that time when they change the policy or allow you to use those hours.

If64 is correct that the difference is earned vs. awarded. If the time off is "earned" or "accrued" then it constitutes earned wages.

nice answer JEB