Evaluation of Compensation and Benefit laws applicable
The compensation and benefits laws that apply Case study 5.1 are the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Working Time regulations (1998). In the case study, the employees needed to rest when they went for the 10 minutes breaks as the two laws consider it part of the working time. FSLA does not require employers to provide mandatory breaks for their employees, meals, or extended rest breaks (Cabrita & Cerf, 2019). However, the law requires that employees who work over 5 hours are allowed a minimum of 30 minutes uninterrupted break for lunch or rest. According to FSLA, when employers provide employees with intervals of between 5 to 20 minutes, the federal law takes into account the breaks as part of the work hours which needs pay. Moreover, suppose employees work during their lunchtime. In that case, they have entitlement to compensation and the time worked is summed up as part of their workweek hours for consideration as overtime for any extra hours worked. Employees forced to work during their lunch hours with no compensation have a right to submit such claims against their employer to the state labor department. Furthermore, the Working Time regulations (1998) prohibits employers from requiring their employees to work more than 48 hours without extra compensation. The same law also grants employees the right to have a minimum daily rest period betwixt their shift and weekly rest periods.
The compensation and benefits laws applicable to case study 5.3 are the Employment Standards Act of 2000 (ESA) and the FSLA. The ESA governs the contractors, and FSLA covers both employees' compensation and classification and independent contractors. The FSLA requires employers to refrain from intentional, unintentional misclassification of employees (Gerhart & Newman, 2020). The compensation and benefits laws that apply to case study 5.4 are the FSLA and the ESA that enlist the benefits provided for employees and various working schedules with their particular compensation plans.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Rationale for the Decisions
The choice of FSLA and the Working Time regulations (1998) as the appropriate compensation and benefits laws applicable to case study 5.1 is based on the laws’ stance on breaks. These two laws have an explicit provision on employee breaks and the necessary compensation that perfectly suit the case study. In the case, employees rightfully deserve to be compensated for the 50 minutes a week; they took 10 minutes breaks since they fall within the 5-20 minute periods provided for in these laws. The choice of FSLA and ESA as the laws that best apply to case study 5.3 is because the laws have several provisions of classifications of employees and independent contractors similar to the stalemate in the case study. The FSLA and the ESA both provide guidelines on what employers should follow to classify and decide compensation or benefits packages for their employees and independent contractors. The ESA provides the current definition of an employee, which is related to the case of Uncle Jake in the case study. In choosing the two laws for case study 5.4, consideration is given for the laws that are directly related to the situation of Fred Ball, primarily due to the varied compensation plans and flexible working hours. The FSLA and ESA are best suited to analyze the case study.
Explanation of the Situation Under Law
In case study 5.1, since the employees’ law returned to work after the 10-minute breaks, they deserve to be paid for the times they worked as provided by the FSLA laws. The breaks were interrupted as the employer often interrupted them hence making it qualify as part of the working hours. The case would be otherwise if the employees exceeded the 20 minutes maximum provided for by law. The employees are still within the 10-minute rest provision by law.
The case study 5.3 is a case of unintentional misclassification. Jake is classified as an independent contractor while in the real sense, provides services as an employer. By law, Jake is an employee and not an independent contractor. Lisa provides Jake with benefits such as medical cover, insurance plan (as a supervisor). She often assigns him supervisory work in the company for the certification, both of which meet FSLA and ESA's employee definition rather than independent contractor status. Fred Ball, in case study 5.4, is rightfully compensated as per the ESA and the FSLA. As an accountant, he is paid for all the hours he works and gets the flexibility for his career development by pursuing his studies.
Possible Arguments and Counterarguments
The employees deserve to be paid since they did not exceed 20 minutes on their breaks. They further need to be paid since the 10 minutes breaks were interrupted, and the employees always returned to work immediately when they were called back to work during the breaks. Cabrita & Cerf (2019) affirm that in such a case, the employees required the breaks for rest, and enhanced productivity that is within the law should be paid for the times they were on break. However, the employer could argue that the employees did not engage in any productive activities that were directly adding value to the firm. Since their breaks are provided for in law, the employees are right and should be paid.
In case study 5.3, as per the ESA, Jake performs work for the company for wages, supplies services to the employer for wages, works on shifts, and sometimes allows to take breaks and, therefore, is an employee. A counterargument would be that Jake is an independent contractor since that is on paper agreement with the company. However, since he is involved in controlling what is done and how it’s done and not just mere control or directing, he is not an independent contractor as per the IRS definition (McKeown, 2016).
Fred Ball should have no complaint against the company since he gets his full pay for the hours he works as per the employer's agreement. Additionally, the flexible working hours and the freedom to choose his schedule will help him get enough time to study as provided by the FSLA and the ESA (Gerhart & Newman, 2020). While there could be arguments that require Fred to receive the same treatment or intervals of payment as the senior accountant, it would not be feasible or him to work such a schedule and still study.
References
Cabrita, J., & Cerf, C. (2019). Rest breaks from work: an overview of regulations, research, and practice. Publications Office of the European Union.
Gerhart, B., & Newman, J. M. (2020). Compensation. McGraw-Hill Education.
McKeown, T. (2016). A consilience framework: Revealing hidden features of the independent contractor. Journal of Management and Organization, 22(6) , 779.doi:10.1017/jmo.2016.44.
