PTO Denial of Leave

we have a very generous PTO policy (17 days per year for 1-5 yrs and we pay out all PTO upon termination and there is no cap ). We encouarge our associates to maintain a balance of 40 hrs in their banks in case of an emergency or to cover the elimination period before STD benefits would kick in.

We have stated to our managers that they may deny a request for PTO leave if their associates have abused their time in the past (used it as fast as it is accrued, never maintained a balance).

It has recently been brought up that there may be a law stating that we cannot deny PTO for this reason. That PTO once earned is their right to use and we cannot deny because we want them to better manage their time off.

I checked with the DOL and there weren't any laws on the books - Does anyone know of any issues I should be aware of - should I advise management that this is not good cause for denial of leave???

Of course if the employee took the day off anyhow, they would be paid out of their PTO bank, but they would be disciplined for taking leave without management approval.

Any suggestions?? I would like to get this cleaned up.

Thanks

Comments

  • 7 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • HRHAZEL: I would recommend you ride with your published policy, as well as, precedent setting events where your company has through actions made your policy to be different than what is written. We, too, award vacation and sick time and it is the employee's to use; however, the use must be coordinated and scheduled. The company retains the right to schedule the work force and who is off, when. The production goes on regardless of who is there or not there.

    Consistent but fair actions are your "watch words"!

    PORK
  • Welcome to the Forum HRHAZEL! First, what does your policy say regarding PTO. Specifically, what does it say regarding minimum balances to be kept and what constitutes abuse. Also, does said policy address request submission timeframes and does it allow for business neccesities to prevail over personal plans (as it should)?

    I am concerned about how loose your policy appears on its face. For instance, an employee using his/her PTO as fast as it is accrued is not neccessarily abusing the system. You may not like it, but it's really not any of your business at what rate the PTO is used as long as the policy regarding request submission, etc is followed.

    You are right that the FLSA does not address PTO for private employers (gov't contracts may be under Davis Beacon/Mcnamara-O'Hara). This does not mean your current practice cannot get you in hot water. The areas of concern range from union avoidance all the way to potential state laws being broken.

    My suggestion is to button-up your policy, manage by it, discipline those who break it. Get rid of the ambiguous rationale of what constitutes abuse and issue clear and concise guidance to your managers on their role in manageing this system.

    Good luck.

    Gene
  • We are also very generous in our PTO policy, and we also have those that use it as fast as they accrue it - even though they are encouraged to maintain a balance in case of an emergency.

    Generally, we will not approve leave without pay if an employee does not have sufficient PTO to cover it. There are exceptions such as in the case of an employee having to use all their leave for personal or family sickness, etc. But, just running out of leave because they have not managed their banks properly is not a defense.
    Employee's PTO has to be approved by the supervisor in advance to make sure we do not have too many employees off in any one department (we are a medical practice).

    If we have an employee who takes a day after it has been denied, this is grounds for termination.

    There is no law that I know of that mandates how a company administers their PTO. Some states require that you pay out an accrued PTO bank when employment ends. Our state (South Carolina) does not mandate this if you have a policy in place where you pay out in certain circumstances (proper notice, etc.).

    Hope this helps!




  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-08-05 AT 08:16AM (CST)[/font][br][br]I think the emphasis is on the wrong thing. It is not the company responsibility to worry about whether or not an ee is keeping a sufficient balance in their PTO account. The company's responsibility is to run properly. Therefore, the determination of whether or not an ee should be allowed a PTO should be based on what the company needs. Obviously, this would not include an emergency.
  • This is a sore subject for me . . . we don't have combined PTO, but I had a "situation" not too long ago.

    An employee had really pushed the line - out for several weeks on W/C (which didn't factor into our decision, but I'm mentioning anyway), then out for a hysterectomy, had frequent migranes, was on meds that made it difficult for her to drive the approx 30 mi to work let alone work once she got here . . . it went on and on.

    (You may recall that our attendance policy isn't as tight as one might like. We got a new production manager in January and now that he has his feet under him, we are revising the policy.)

    We gave her a final warning on her attendance and told her no absences in the next 90 days. Several days later, I got a call (that showed up on our caller ID as being from a number approx an hour and a half away) and she said she couldn't come in. We indicated she needed to come in or lose her job. She came in.

    A few weeks later, I got a call at home on a Sunday afternoon from her. She had a kitchen fire while she was gone, and wanted to take her next shift off. I told her I couldn't give her the permission, and indicated she could call information for the prod mgr's number. She did, and called him to TELL him she was taking the night off. We cut her loose the next day. She told the unemployment agency that she lost her job over a kitchen fire - not true, although the straw broke the camel's back. She was terminated for horrible attendance.

    I tell this long, winding story because the people who burn their time as they get it are the same ones who have an emergency later and need unpaid time off. It isn't fair to the ones who bank their time and use it wisely.

    Same thing happened with a fellow (the subject of Too Sick to Work but not too sick to race) who took all his vacation time this year to go to the Daytona 500 immediately after getting it. Then his dad allegedly came down with cancer, and I really suspect the story we're getting is much exaggerated. Trust me - I've been researching attendance policies on here like crazy. We'll be tightening up.
  • Was this person granted any FML?
  • She wasn't eligible, he was not caring for his father. Good point, though - sorry I omitted.
Sign In or Register to comment.