No announcement yet.


This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • California

    Hi all,
    We just discovered that our employer has changed our written sick time policy without telling anyone! Previously:

    1. Written policy allowed conversion of sick time bank to vacation time(PTO)
    at 30% rate.

    2. After 20 years of employment, unused sick time was paid out at 50%.

    3. Written policy stated sick time was "accrued " not awarded.

    New written policy simply says " ESL cannot be cashed out". Now I know sick time can be taken away at the sole discretion of the employer, but can we argue that since sick time under the old policy was allowed to be used as vacation that it was not a strict sick time bank and thus covered by California's accrued vacation hours rules? A lot of us old timers had accumulated the maximum allowed 1040 hours and were counting on it for retirement funds until they sneakily sprung this on us : (
    Last edited by PleasantValleySunday; 10-19-2010, 08:05 AM. Reason: add detail to heading

  • #2
    Hard to say. Sick pay is not a function of labor law, so you are asking for the labor law rules of something that is not actually covered by labor law. Both the feds and CA are really clear that they have no interest in paying out sick pay to terminated employees.

    What you have is maybe, possibly a contract law argument. You are basically making the argument that the aggregate of the employer's actions is an enforceable contract. Maybe yes. Maybe no. This is not a sure thing, but more like a "have a contract lawyer read all related documents" sort of thing.

    Better yet, CA-DLSE unlike most states will at least listen to contract law arguments. Meaning that there is a least a chance that if you file a wage claim that you MIGHT win.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
    Philip K. **** (1928-1982)