Working Off the Clock

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) was effectively a law beginning in 1938. It was the first big success for workers of the industrious country of America and effectively implemented many of the same working standards that are still in place today. Aside from prohibiting the almost incomprehensible child labor that was common at the time, the FLSA also implemented the first mandatory minimum wage and time and a half pay requirements for any employee who goes over a 40-hour workweek. Another key point of the FLSA is that employers must pay their employees for every hour of time worked – in other words, it prohibits employees from working off the clock.

Can I Work Off the Clock?

It can be easy to forget to clock in before starting menial tasks when you get to work but you should try to avoid it at all costs – your time and work are valuable and you need to be fairly compensated for everything you do at work. The same thing goes for the end of the day tasks, once you clock out it is important that you do not do any more work. If your employer asks you to do extra work before or after your shift simply explain that you need to clock in before doing any work. If they give you a hard time or try to pursue disciplinary actions make sure you keep a paper trail and contact us immediately. We here at Barkan Meizlish, LLP have been practicing worker’s compensation and labor law since 1957 and are here to fight for the compensation that you deserve.

For obvious reasons, working off the clock may be praised by your employer and supervisors but you really aren’t doing them any favors. By staying late or working early without being clocked in you put your company at risk of violating FLSA standards. Even if you admit to willingly working off of the clock the company you work for can still be required to pay fines and compensate you for the time worked. To avoid getting your supervisor or employer in trouble for an FLSA violation you should avoid working off the clock at all costs.

Can My Employees Work Off of the Clock?

If you are a business owner and employer then you need to take extra steps in ensuring that none of your employees are working off of the clock. This can lead to legal action being taken against you in the future. To prevent this all together you need to let your employees and supervisors understand that no hourly employee is to ever work off of the clock. You might have employees that tell you they don’t mind performing a simple task without being paid, but you should never trust their word no matter how trustworthy of an employee they are. By allowing employees to work off of the clock you open yourself to receiving lawsuits from current and past employees. If you are a business owner and want to avoid paying your employees overtime then you should explore salary-based pay which protects you from any off-clock work complaints from employees.

In order to best protect you and your company from being required to pay large amounts of back pay, you need to implement a strict work process where your managers closely monitor employees’ work times, lunch, and break times. By closely monitoring the work process you can ensure your employers get the most amount of work done without having to pay overtime wages. If overtime is required then you have to pay it to prevent any unpaid wage complaints in the future.

Labor Law Attorney Columbus

Here at Barkan Meizlish we have been protecting worker’s rights since 1957 and have become one of the most trusted firms when it comes to worker’s compensation and wage issues. If your employer has been requiring you to work off the clock then you are entitled to compensation for every single hour worked. If you don’t take action to recover your missed wages promptly then you might not be able to recover them at all. In order to get the compensation that you deserve you need to contact Barkan Meizlish, LLP today so you don’t miss out on your opportunity to recover your missed wages.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), employees must be compensated for actual work performed, whether on or off the job site.  But with the many technology advancements in the workplace, employers can now effectively run their businesses around the clock by keeping employees “on-call” after regular business hours, requiring them to work only if needed.  Hospital employees, for instance, have to remain in the hospital premises when on-call.  Other employees may be able to leave work when on-call, but are still subject to restrictions.  For example, on-call firefighters are often not required to remain at the station, but they may have only a 30 minute time frame to respond to a call.  Under the FLSA, on-call employees may be eligible for compensation—but only under certain circumstances.  Thus, employers have struggled with determining when to pay employees for working on-call.  Here are the relevant principles to keep in mind:

Under the general test set forth in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), an employee that is “engaged to wait” is entitled to compensation, but an employee “waiting to be engaged” is not.  The regulations interpreting the FLSA provide some insight, requiring compensation for on-call time when (1) employees are required to stay on the premises, or (2) when employees must remain so close that they cannot use their time away from the premises for their own purposes.

It’s easy to see how this is a confusing area of wage and hour law.  Realistically, it is difficult to apply a simple 2-part test to the countless job positions in today’s workforce.  These cases are very fact-specific and are typically decided on a case-by-case basis.  Courts have relied on various factors in determining whether on-call time is considered work time.  These factors include: whether the employee had actually engaged in personal activities during the on-call time; the flexibility of trading on-call responsibilities with another employee; agreements between the parties that provide some amount of compensation for waiting time; the frequency of calls; and whether the fixed time limit for response was unduly restrictive.