I work for a non-profit organization with an Executive Director/Board of Directors structure but no HR position. (Our ED essentially serves as our HR person.) Our personnel policy states that for an employee to be considered full-time, and thus eligible for medical benefits, holiday pay, etc., the employee must work 30+ hours per week.
One of our employees just returned from 4 1/2 months of maternity leave.
Our ED stated that while this employee and her newborn are adjusting to their new schedules, the employee will work part time just as she did when she returned from having her second child. The difference, however, is that with her second child, the employee came back to work part time at 30 hours/week and only for two months, which kept her eligible for all of her full-time benefits.
With this third child, this employee is now working 3 days@ 7 hours/day (for a total of 21 hours/week) for the next six to eight months and is still allowed to keep all of her full-time benefits.
When other staff asked our ED how this employee was still eligible, the reply was that if the employee is "scheduled" to work 30+ hours per week, he/she can still retain their full-time benefits even if they are actually working under 30 hours.
Is this legal?
I have never heard of someone receiving full-time benefits just because they are "scheduled" as full-time but actually work only part-time.
Oh and this is an hourly employee if that helps with the response.
This has caused some morale issues among our part-time staff who are not receiving benefits yet are now working more hours than the employee who has just returned from maternity leave.
As the only other full-time employee in the office (besides our ED), the part-time employee posed this question to me.
Thanks in advance for any guidance you can provide.