FMLA - Paid or unpaid
sawyert
9 Posts
Our company does not have a PTO policy or a set number of days that employees can use for sick and personal reasons. Paid absences for sick and personal time is up to the discretion of the manager for nonexempt employees and guidelines for looking at absences for excessiveness is also up to the department when it comes to disciplining for absenteeism.
My question as it relates to FMLA is the following:
If an employee requests FMLA for his/her own serious health condition (for example they need intermittent time off to go for chemo-therapy) are we required to give them that time off as paid time off. Our policy has been if the request is for intermittent FMLA it is unpaid. My concern is if an employee is absent for an illness that is not FMLA (is just a common cold or something like that) we would pay the person unless the absences became excessive. If they become excessive, the manager can opt not to pay a nonexempt employee and employees would be subject to disciplinary action.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Thanks.
My question as it relates to FMLA is the following:
If an employee requests FMLA for his/her own serious health condition (for example they need intermittent time off to go for chemo-therapy) are we required to give them that time off as paid time off. Our policy has been if the request is for intermittent FMLA it is unpaid. My concern is if an employee is absent for an illness that is not FMLA (is just a common cold or something like that) we would pay the person unless the absences became excessive. If they become excessive, the manager can opt not to pay a nonexempt employee and employees would be subject to disciplinary action.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Thanks.
Comments
But to answer your question: no, you are not required to give employees who qualify under FMLA paid time off. It's only prudent to handle it consistently.
I, honestly, can not understand how your company could not have a company minimum guidance published for the implimentation of these "core benefits" and how compensation will be fairly administered. This must drive your payroll person up the walls!
I hope this helps.
PORK
>in the loop, so I would not insert myself into
>this nightmare."
I would suggest that you DO insert yourself into the process. If part of your responsibilities is to know employment law, I would not neglect bringing to light the fact that your current discriminatory practice could land you under the heat lamp. If your role in HR is clerical only, then someone there is responsible to know FMLA. Now that you've surveyed the forum, you know it. You wouldn't have asked if you weren't going to do something with the information.
Good luck to you.
If, however, you are inclined to 'let the managers decide how they want to handle this issue of intermittent FMLA' and if you think that you can continue to only dock or not pay those who exercise their rights under FMLA, you need to know that you are violating the law if you do so.
FMLA discrimination is against the law. Treating the person on FMLA differently, especially punitively (as in not paying them), is discrimination and is against the law. One telephone call to the DOL office will have you in immediate contact with an investigator. On the investigators visit to your establishment, it will jump off the page like a flaming red flag that you are discriminating against those taking FMLA.
I suggest that it is the responsibility of the HR department to monitor and manage this process to keep the employer's A** out of hot water. It is not the responsibility of a multitude of managers all singing out of their own songbook.
But your question relates to FML. I agree with Don's analysis. Not paying for EEs out on FML looks like a punishment and would be illegal.