My wife is working from home with a question about a questionable labor practice.

She and another lady worked out of an office here in Dallas (plus two presidents who travel 95% of the time). They are both administrators for a little import company. My wife had her baby in October. Shortly before October her office was broken into and all the equipment was stolen. Since it was easier (and safer) to set up the two ladies in their own homes the company decided to have them each work from home until they could find a new office. And since they wanted to purchace a fascility sometime next year, the understanding was that it would be quite some time before they would working together in an office.

Here's where it gets sticky. My wife took her 12 weeks. 1 month paid maternity. 1 month of vacation. 1 month unpaid. During this time the other girl had the phones forwarded to her house. Now that my wife is back the other girl wants them going to our home. My wife asked that since we have a little baby and the phone wakes her up it would be nice if they stay where they are for a few months. Since the phone duties were shared before, it seemed a harmless request (plus - the phones are NEVER busy).

So the other girl (who has been with the company for 7 years - my wife only 5) throws a fit and talks to the president. Their solution is to dock my wife $50 a week in pay and give it to the other girl.

Legal??

Under the circumstances you describe, yes. This is not so much docking as reducing your wife's wage and increasing the other girl's by the same amount. That is legal. Regardless of how busy the phones are, the fact remains that the other girl is taking on duties that your wife is not doing. If they wish to compensate her for the extra duties and reduce your wife's wage because she asked to be relieved of those duties, I don't see that as a questionable legal practice. They are not making this change in retaliation for your wife taking leave; they are doing it because your wife asked to be relieved of some of her duties and someone else is taking them on.

What concerns me isn't so much that one girl gets a raise because she takes on a duty that my wife doesn't want to do. It's that it's a shared duty that neither wants. When the other girl had a hysterectomy last year and was out for 7 weeks my wife answered the phone full time. There was no compensation or talk of hardship. It's a shared duty - one does it when the other cannot. That is what seems to be the case here. My wife would prefer not for a couple of months and the other girl seems to think that means she should make more money at my wife's expense...when such has never been the case in the reverse.

We're not asking because we want to sue. My wife wants to keep her job. And her latest email (tongue-in-cheek) suggested they find a way to make it ring in both places and if my wife ends up answering the phone more they should dock the other girl's pay. It's more a situation where it seems ludicrous to subract pay from someon for something that was never specifically her responsibility. Maybe this is just a case of poor management and not legal fault. Granted...my wife has already talked to their (outside) accountant who said she will refuse to do this since she thinks it's illegal to do it as it has been discussed. So we'll see.

I understand that it's a shared duty no one wants. But from my perspective as one on the outside looking in, that only makes it MORE reasonable that they provide extra compensation to the one who is actually doing it.

The difference between what's happening now and what happened when the other girl was off, is that in this case your wife ASKED to be removed from that duty. She's working - she's not on leave any longer. She didn't answer the phones while she was on leave, did she? Neither did the other girl. But now, they're both at work, and your wife asked (whether reasonably or not I will not attempt to judge since I'm not the one with the newborn being woken up) to be excused from the duty no one wants. As someone with no dog in this hunt who is looking at this objectively (I am not affected by it no matter how it turns out) I honestly don't see anything unreasonable in this solution.

Now, when your wife takes the duty back on I would expect the compensation to return to the original state. If that does not happen THEN I would agree it was unreasonable. But for the period of time that your wife is working and not handling the duty no one wants to handle, I don't see anything out of line with making compensation changes to acknowledge that.

No laws are being violated.

Apparently it IS illegal here in Texas to do what they want to do. You can't "dock" someone's salary to give to another employee. If they had, as you suggested, merely lowered one salary and raised another they could have kept it legal. But because we have emails where they specifically state that part of my wife's salary is being given to another employee they are on shaky ground. Their accountant has been consulting with her legal department (big firm) and they have suggested that she instruct the owners to merely raise the salary of the girl taking on the responsibility and leave my wife's alone. If they want to take all this into consideration later on at a job review they are better suited addressing it then and there.

When the office was closed and the two girls started working at home the phones were set up at our home. Why? Because my wife is a good employee and volunteered to take them on. So for a little over 2 months my wife answered the phones without extra income - no big deal. That's why it seemed so harmless to ask the other girl to keep them for a few months more. In 3 months or so they would come back to us and would likely stay here for as long as my wife works from home - with no request for extra income. Honestly, it's just poor management and their emails have been extremely rude and combative. My wife doesn't really need this job (or this headache) and when she walks they are in trouble. Probably this week if they don't step-to.

Where did "docking" come into this? They are reducing her salary. They are not docking her wages. "Docking" means not getting paid at all. Adjusting salaries for a change in work duties is not illegal. If you have a link to the statute that prohibits what is occuring here, please post it.

Like I said - we have emails where they specifically state that they are giving part of my wife's salary to another employee. Their bad for stating it in that fashion.

As for the statute - again, this comes from their accountant's legal team at their firm (so, no, I can't point you to the statute). Had it been worded differently there would be no problem. But, according to them, you cannot give part of 1 employee's salary to another - at least not in those words.

Lesson to employers? If you're going to be a jerk be smarter than this.

As for the definition of "dock" - it does not mean "not getting paid at all". The actual definition is: To deprive of a benefit or a part of one's wages, especially as a punishment:

That's what they are doing. Not just in act...but in actual terminology used within company emails.

OK, one last time. They are not "giving" her pay to someone else. Her pay is being reduced because her duties are reduced. The other employee's pay is being increased because she has taken on additional duties. This is legal. Period. Accountants, as a rule, are not normally knowledgeable about wage and hour issues. When someone makes a statement to me about "you must" do X, and "Y" is illegal, I ask them to point me to the law. They have NEVER been able to do it, and I'll bet you this accountant couldn't either.

Docking means not getting paid for a certain period of work time. It could be as much as 10 minutes. It could be as much as a week or a year. I'm not playing semantics here any more. Nothing you posted is illegal. If you want to continue thinking so, your wife can go file a claim with the Texas Workforce Commission or seek the advice of an attorney and see what they say. I give up. :rolleyes:

What you don't seem to understand is that yes, they ARE giving her money to someone else. They said exactly that - which is why their accounting firm is suggesting the alternative that they are. What part of that is hard for you to grasp?

61.018. DEDUCTION FROM WAGES. An employer may not
withhold or divert any part of an employee's wages unless the
employer:
(1) is ordered to do so by a court of competent
jurisdiction;
(2) is authorized to do so by state or federal law; or
(3) has written authorization from the employee to
deduct part of the wages for a lawful purpose.

If they had, as you suggest, instructed my wife that they are reducing her salary because of her inability, or unwillingness, to perform a duty you would be right. But because they specifically stated that they are taking part of her salary from her and giving it to another employee they have crossed the legal line. It's all about the symantics. Their own words are what have put them into this bind.

No claim will be filed. Like I said - she can't continue to work for these people and we're addressing that this week (no - not with a lawsuit. We're just making sure she leaves in a civil manner). Even if it were completely legal (and at this point we don't care) it is poor management to allow a shared duty to be performed solely by one employee for several months and then reduce that same employees wages when the other employee decides she doesn't want to contribute in the same manner. In the end, they will be left with the employee who contributes nothing without whining for more money and will loose the one that use to go above and beyond; considering such to be part of one's job.

OK, this is really the last time.

The statute you refer to has to do with deductions from NET PAY. I have been in payroll for over 27 years. I know the difference between gross pay and net pay. I know the difference between reducing wages and making a deduction.

If you think this is so illegal, why doesn't she file the claim? Because there is no violation.

Can we close this thread now. :rolleyes:

Yes, I think this horse has been beaten long enough.