Minnesota Labor & Employment Law Blog : Minnesota Employment Lawyers & Attorneys : Abrams & Schmidt Law Firm : Unfair Labor Practices, Workplace Investigations : Minneapolis, St. Paul, Twin Cities

My law partner and I have blogged, trained, and also counseled clients about the importance of having updated Employee Handbooks at their workplaces. A court case out of Pennsylvania confirms the point we have been trying to make at an expensive price for the employer!

According to Pennsylvania attorney Jodi Frankel, Wal-Mart was just ordered to pay $187.6 million in back pay, damages, and fees to 187,000 current and former employees. It seems Walmart included paid break language in their Employee Handbook, and then failed to provide the benefit.

Frankel noted the Handbook policies in question “…[n]ot only guaranteed, but also mandated, a single fifteen-minute rest break to an employee who worked more than three hours in a shift, and two such breaks if an employee worked more than six hours. Pursuant to the policy, the breaks were to be ‘full, timely, uninterrupted’ and employees were to receive compensation for break time at the applicable rate of pay. The rest break policy set forth in Wal-Mart’s employee handbook, which was provided to all employees at the start of employment.”

While the Handbook stated it was not to be considered a contract by the employee, the Pennsylvania court found Wal-Mart had in fact made a promise regarding rest breaks, and that the promise amounted to a contract. The facts the Court found compelling included Wal-Mart had repeatedly held out rest breaks to employees as a benefit of being employed at Wal-Mart during employee orientation, they mentioned breaks in numerous postings at the workplace, and had taken disciplinary action against managers and employees for failure to follow the rest break policy.

While a Pennsylvania court case interpreting Pennsylvania law is not determinative in Minnesota workplaces, this case does offer some insight for Minnesota employers. Careful attention was paid by the Court to Wal-Mart’s Employee Handbook, and comparison to its actual business practices.

Since this is a start of a new year, it is the perfect time for employers to review and update their employee handbooks to insure they are consistent with current business practices. Also remember to update your policies when you update technology. If the start of a new year doesn’t inspire you to review your business practices, consider the cost and expense of litigation over an employee handbook issue.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There is no one-size fits all dress code for a workplace. What is appropriate attire for employees in a workplace varies drastically according to the work being performed, the physical requirements of the job, and exposure to the elements. It is important however for employees to always dress appropriately for the position they are in. Earlier this year, I blogged about the importance of reminding employees about a business’s dress code policy, especially when the seasons start to change.

MSN Careers website had a great article today on the 10 Commandments of Workplace Dress. I completely agree with the ten tips author, Beth Braccio Hering identified in the article. Most of these tips probably seem like common sense, but believe it or not, employees often need to be reminded of these rules. An Employee Handbook is the perfect place for employers to outline a dress code/appearance policy and place employees on notice of the employer’s expectations. By having a dress code/appearance policy in an employee handbook, employers can avoid some of the awkward conversations with employees when they show up for work in sweats and football jerseys.

If you are an employer and you don’t have a dress code/appearance policy or you haven’t reviewed the one you have in awhile, take a moment and do so now. First impressions are important and you want to make sure your employees are leaving the right impression about your business.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Well, some of the fall T.V. shows had their season premieres this week. If you watched the series premiere of Free Agents on NBC last night starring Hank Azaria, I hope you would agree talking at a staff meeting about a co-worker’s evening escapade is not appropriate for the workplace. In fact, even more shocking was when the head of the company walks into the meeting and is told what the discussion is about, and encourages Hank Azaria’s character to just share “the good parts.” Hank’s character tries to shut down the conversation by stating, he met a woman last night and they had “wild animal sex” all night long. But, the discussion doesn’t end there. No, instead several colleagues begin to prod Hank’s character for more details, what was her body type, did her undergarments match, when the head of the company interjects, “Just the size and shape of breasts, straight to positions.” Of course, for T.V. the idea is to entertain, so you don’t want to just have the characters sitting around talking about work. But, if this type of discussion was occurring in your workplace, the doors are wide-open for a sexual harassment lawsuit.

It is important to remember in cases of sexual harassment, it is the welcomeness of the conduct by the recipient that is relevant to whether the conduct is harassment, regardless of whether the intent of the person engaging in the conduct is harmless or even friendly. Because it is almost impossible to judge whether conduct is welcome or unwelcome, most businesses have adopted a zero-tolerance policy with respect to sexual harassment in the workplace.

How do you protect your business?

1) Have a sexual harassment policy in your employee handbook or policy and procedure manual.
2) Train employees on the sexual harassment policy.
3) If you receive a complaint about sexual harassment, do a fair and thorough investigation.
4) If you see employees acting in inappropriate ways, put a stop to it immediately!

T.V. can be both entertaining and educational. The episode of Free Agents last night is a perfect example of what you do not want occurring in your workplace.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Technology and social media use is morphing at light-speed. Figuring out clear lines and appropriate social behaviors remains very murky. The court system has been no help in providing guidance, due to the lengthy delays between the filing of a case and a final court ruling, generally issued years later. Last year, my law partner blogged about a sexting workplace discipline case. There was an eight year delay between the employee's misconduct, and the final decision issued by the United States Supreme Court. By the time the Court ruled, the pager technology used by the employee was already out of date. Judges are historically reserved and reluctant to provide much guidance because they simply can’t predict where social media and technology is headed, and can’t fathom how quickly the social media/technology landscape is changing.

I keep looking for cases to help clarify the boundaries and the new rules, but they are few and far between. What are the appropriate boundaries on social media use, and what are the new rules?
The Minnesota Court of Appeals gave us a glimmer of guidance this week, in a case having to do with a University of Minnesota mortuary science student. We can extrapolate from the tenor of the decision and start to see where social media may be headed, and what seems to matter to the Courts.

In the case, a mortuary science student commented on Facebook about a cadaver she named “Bernie,” she described embalming as cathartic, and stated she wanted to stab someone in the throat with an embalming tool. She also mentioned wanting to take out her aggression on the cadaver and about updating a “Death List.” The Facebook posts went out to fellow mortuary science students, her Facebook friends, and friends of her friends. Her Facebook comments were determined to be threatening and inappropriate, and in violation of University rules. Her sanctions included: receiving a failing grade in the class, attending a clinical ethics class, writing a letter to department faculty addressing the issue of respect in the department and the profession, and completing a psychiatric evaluation.

The student challenged the University’s discipline as arbitrary, and argued that her Constitutional right to free speech had been violated. The Court of Appeals was not convinced and ruled, “A public university’s disciplinary sanctions do not violate a student’s right to free speech where the student’s posts to a social networking website materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the university.”

Important points noted by the Court include the fact the University had held an in-depth orientation for students about the treatment of cadavers, and students were required to sign acknowledgment forms indicating they had read the department policies about the responsibilities of dissecting a human body. Additionally, because the University relied very heavily on a voluntary anatomy-bequest program for donated bodies, and because the program was jeopardized, the Facebook posts were deemed to be disruptive to the work and discipline of the program and the University.

Based on the Court’s rationale, we can extrapolate a few take-aways.  Clearly, the Court took note of the fact there was an adopted social media policy which established notice and expected accountability. Training on the policy, and requiring a signed acknowledgment form indicating receipt of the policy, were also mentioned by the Court as important to their ruling. Finally, if social media use can be proven to disrupt work and discipline, it is less likely to be determined to be protected speech.  Common sense won out in the end.  If it's not a good idea to shout out thoughts and comments standing on a street-corner, it is probably not a great idea to post them on Facebook.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I previously blogged about Minnesota workplace leave laws covering family and children issues, and wanted to follow-up with a grab bag of some unique leave laws covering specific medical conditions, the military, and voting.

As a reminder, it is important to first determine which leave laws apply to your workplace. In order to do that, you should first review the definition of employer in each situation. Some of the statutory leaves define an employer as a business employing one person, while other statutes require a workplace to employ at least 20 employees for the leave law to apply. Some of the unique employee leaves only apply to public sector workplaces such as cities and counties, while other leave laws apply to every workplace including private businesses. The important point is to determine which state leave laws apply to your workplace.

• Bone Marrow Donation Leave: Public and private sector employers employing 20 or more employees, must provide up to 40 hours of paid leave time to employees who elect to donate bone marrow. Employers may request medical verification for the leave. The paid leave is in addition to any other leave available to the employee.
• Organ Donation Leave: Only public (state, city, county, school district) employers with at least 20 employees, are required to provide up to 40 hours of paid leave to an employee, who elects to donate an organ. This leave does not apply to private businesses. Public employers may request medical verification for the leave. The paid leave is in addition to any other leave time available to the employee.
• Blood Donation Leave: Employers may provide paid leave for an employee to donate blood. This applies to all employers in Minnesota.
• Leave to Immediate Family Members of Military Personnel Injured or Killed in Active Service: All employers with at least one employee must grant up to ten working days of unpaid leave to an employee whose immediate family member has been injured or killed while engaged in active service in the United States armed forces. This also applies to independent contractors who perform work for a business or public employer. The ten days may be reduced, if an employee elects to use paid time off such as PTO or vacation time.
• Leave to Attend Military Ceremonies: All employers having at least 1 employee, must provide unpaid leave to employees of up to one day in any calendar year, to attend military ceremonies such as a send-off or homecoming for an immediate family member, unless the time off would unduly disrupt business.
• Leave to Vote: All employers must provide paid time-off for employees to go to the polls, cast a ballot, and return to work on the day of an election. This includes primary and general elections, as well as elections for state and federal legislators. Failure to provide time off to vote is a considered a misdemeanor.

A quick check of the leave laws that apply to your business will insure your workplace is in compliance with state law. Some of the unique leave laws are so limited in purpose that you may not have ever run across a situation where they apply. For example, in 27 years of labor and employment practice, I am only aware of one situation where an employee requested organ donation leave to donate a kidney to a family member. The large employer was unfamiliar with the statutory leave. I reviewed the legislative history and concluded paid organ donation leave was clearly in addition to any sick leave benefit the employee had available.

We recommend incorporating reference to applicable employee leaves into your Employee Handbook, so everyone knows who is entitled to what leave, and whether it is paid or unpaid time. Take the guess work out of employee leaves, and be prepared for a request for statutory time off from work.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A warehouse fork-lift operator failed a random drug test, and was terminated from employment.  He worked for a beer and soft drink distributor, who had adopted a random drug testing policy for all safety sensitive positions.  At the hearing, the employee testified he had inadvertently ingested marijuana laced brownies at a private barbecue ten days before he was selected for the random drug test.  He stated he was unaware the brownies contained marijuana and ate “five or six brownies and that he felt fine afterward.” 

The Union argued the employee had an unblemished work history and that there was no requirement to terminate an employee who failed a drug test, only to remove them from a safety sensitive position.  They argued the employee had inadvertently ingested marijuana at a private picnic, and was never under the influence at work.

The Employer conceded, while they had not terminated all first time offenders of the policy, they had previously terminated three other first time offenders of the drug policy in the past 5 years.  The Employer argued the inadvertent consumption of marijuana defense was not credible, and was concocted in an effort to obtain unemployment compensation benefits.  The arbitrator agreed and found the testimony “neither credible nor plausible,” upholding the Employer’s decision to terminate.   

Throughout the decision, the arbitrator lays out facts which indicate the employer’s drug testing policy followed the requirements set out in state statute.  These include:

·         The employee had notice of the policy, having signed an acknowledgment form;

·         The employee was working in a safety sensitive position and therefore was subject to random testing;

·         The employee was provided an opportunity for a retest of the sample at his own expense; 

·         The employee was aware of the penalties which could be imposed for a failed drug test.

I have blogged in the past about how to adopt a drug testing policy which complies with state statute.  Employers who have adopted a drug testing policy according to state statute, will have a stronger case to support discipline for violations of the drug policy.  The union's brownie defense is half-baked and a travesty to chocolate confection lovers.  Shame on the union for throwing a gooey chocolate mess at the wall, to see if anything sticks.   Really, brownies are a dessert, not a defense.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Minnesota workplaces are required to provide time off to employees for a variety of ten little known leaves of absence. While most employers are familiar with the federal Family Medical leave Act (FMLA), and military leave law, few realize Minnesota has a variety of state leave laws which cover some very unique and dare I say, unusual circumstances.  The potpourri of leave laws include four which cover family, health and children matters. The last six cover a variety of individual employee issues, including two newer military leaves for family members of service members. 

To determine which leave laws apply to any particular workplace, it is important to review the definition of employer in each situation. Some of the statutory leaves define an employer as a business employing one person, while other statutes require a workplace to employ at least 20 employees for the leave law to apply. Some of the unique employee leaves only apply to public sector workplaces such as cities and counties, while other leave laws apply to every workplace including private businesses. The important point is to determine which state leave laws apply to your workplace. The first four employee leave laws are:

• Parenting Leave: This law provides up to six (6) weeks of unpaid time off for the birth or adoption of a child. It applies to employers who have 21 or more employees, and is like a mini-FMLA. Employees must work for at least 12 consecutive months and at least half time prior to making the leave request. The employer must continue to make health coverage available during the leave, however there is no requirement the employer pay the costs of the health coverage during the parenting leave.
• Leave for Adoptive Parents: If an employer provides maternity/paternity time off to employees, they must also provide a minimum of four weeks paid or unpaid time off for the adoption of a child. This statute has a broader application than parenting leave above, and is not restricted to employers of 21 or more employees. It applies to all employers. There is also no restriction on the length of time an employee must work to qualify for the leave.
• School Conference and Activities Leave: Employers are required to grant up to 16 hours of unpaid leave time during any 12 month period, to attend school conferences or activities of the employee’s child, which cannot be scheduled during non-work time. It applies to all public and private sector employers in Minnesota who employ at least one employee. Employees are permitted to use vacation or PTO for any time taken under the statute.
• Sick or Injured Child Care Leave: If an Employer provides sick leave benefits for the absence of an employee, the employee is permitted to use sick leave to care for an ill or injured child. It applies to employers who have 21 or more employees, and requires employees to have worked at least 12 consecutive months and at least half time prior to making the sick leave request. Sick leave benefits do not  mean short or long term disability.

After checking the definition of employer, it is also a good idea to carefully check the definition of family member and child to determine who has what rights, and who is covered by each particular statutory leave. If you determine a particular leave applies to your workplace, it is a good idea to include mention of it in the Employee Handbook.  Don't forget to revisit the statutory leave laws as your workplace grows in size to remain in compliance. 

Stay tuned for Part 2 covering organ, bone marrow, and blood donation, as well as two newer  military leave laws covering military ceremonies and caring for an injuured service member.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Spring is in the air, which means love is in the air, and we are fast approaching the official wedding season. It is estimated that roughly 1/3 of romantic relationships begin at work. This isn't hard to understand when you consider “...the average American spends 46 hours per week at their job, and 38 % spend more than 50 hours per week on the job,” according to the National Sleep Foundation. The workplace is the new dating arena, making it more likely that romance between employees may blossom. What does that mean for employers?

Workplace romances can be a nightmare for most employers, fraught with potential sexual harassment claims, cries of favoritism, and reduced morale and productivity on the job. Romance between an employee and a customer/client presents another set of problems in the workplace. It is best to not just let cupid run amuck at work, but instead assume a workplace romance will happen, and plan for it.

Outright prohibition of all workplace romances is not generally favored. It can be hard to define the difference between dating and “just friends,” and could invite an invasion of privacy claim, or a discrimination claim based on marital status. The better choice is to proactively advise employees about work expectations concerning romances through your employee handbook. Cupid is not the only one with arrows in his quiver. 

Consider the following:

• Place limits on supervisor-subordinate romances as these relationships are the most likely to result in a harassment claim, if the relationship turns sour. A policy should spell out this type of relationship will require one member of the couple to transfer or resign.
• Spell out professional expectations of all employees at the workplace. If a romantic relationship creates a conflict of interest or dissension amongst employees, then a transfer or resignation may be necessary.
• Require employees to notify Human Resources of a dating relationship at work, and include a penalty for not reporting. This will afford an opportunity to have a discussion with the romantic couple about professional expectations, and to document the relationship.
• Outright prohibition of an employee/customer dating relationship is different than prohibiting employee-employee romances. It is easier to identify a legitimate business need to support the prohibition of a romantic relationship, when an employee wants to date a customer/client. The employee handbook should be clear on the issue, and state employees are prohibited from dating clients or customers.

An interesting arbitration case in the public sector ruled an employer can restrict a supervisor-subordinate romantic relationship through policy, even if the policy was initiated after the relationship had begun. The case dealt with a City of Champlin police sergeant, who started a relationship with a female officer under his command. It seems looking for love in all the wrong places can even lead to a demotion.  Cupid can be managed with a little bit of planning.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Yeah! Spring is on its way with summer soon to follow. Most everyone gets excited about the warmer weather and longer days. In Minnesota, we are experiencing the unique weather pattern which normally accompanies early spring. In the morning, it may still be below freezing and winter attire is necessary, but by afternoon the temperature warms to the fifties and a lighter jacket could suffice. So, now is the time employees may start “changing” over their clothes to accommodate the warmer weather.

Most businesses nowadays allow for some type of “business casual,” whether it is only on Fridays or anytime there are no meetings in the office. Now, with the changing of the seasons and the warmer weather it is a good idea for employers to remind employees about the business’s dress code policy.

Twin Cities Business Magazine had a nice article on “How to Talk to the Employee Who’s Turning Heads at the Office (But not for good reasons)”. For example, flip-flops are generally not considered appropriate for work not only because they look unprofessional, but they can also be a safety hazard, due to the potential to trip and fall. So, what should you do if you do need to speak with an employee about their attire? Twin Cities Business Magazine interviewed Ms. Julie Haltom, who has 15 years of human resources experience. Her tips: ‘Be gentle. Try to have a sense of humor about it. Send occasional company-wide e-mails reminding everyone of the dress code. Lastly, don’t embarrass an employee by singling them out in front of others, but instead talk to them privately about the issue.’

By being proactive and reminding employees about the business dress code, employers can avoid having to have an awkward conversation with an employee about their attire. If your business doesn’t have a formal dress code in the employee handbook, outlining what types of clothing is or is not appropriate, now may be the right time to develop one and share it with the employees. If your business does have a dress code policy, now maybe a good time to review and update it, if necessary.

(Photo courtesy of Steve Johnson, Valparaiso, Indiana) 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mr. Stagg worked for Vintage Place Inc. for approximately 14 months, during which time he struggled with tardiness and absenteeism. Vintage Place Inc. employee handbook contained a progressive-discipline policy, which provided that Vintage's employee[s] may be disciplined according to a five-step schedule. The schedule permitted an oral warning for the first unexcused absence, a written warning for the second, a three-day suspension for the third, a ten-day suspension for the fourth, and termination for the fifth. As a result of his attendance problems, Mr. Stagg had received both an oral and written warnings, and a three-day suspension, but was fired before receiving a ten-day suspension.

This summer, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed an unemployment law judge’s determination an employee was precluded from receiving unemployment benefits because he was terminated for misconduct. In Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc. A09-949 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010) (pdf) the Court of Appeals ruled the employee, “could have reasonably expected Vintage to follow the disciplinary steps, and because Vintage skipped the fourth step of a ten-day suspension, relator's absenteeism does not amount to employment misconduct precluding eligibility for unemployment benefits.”

I have blogged about this in the past, you don’t want to include specific discipline procedures in an employee handbook, because, “Minnesota courts (pdf) have decided when an employee handbook includes specific disciplinary steps to be taken prior to termination, an employee’s “at-will” status is modified and some job security is presumed.”

What should you do?
1) If you have a specific discipline procedure in your employee handbook and you are currently dealing with a problem employee, then you better follow your procedure.
2) If you have a specific discipline procedure in your employee handbook and you do not have a current problem with an employee, then this would be a good time to update and revise your employee handbook.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many employers mistakenly assume all employees are entitled to two fifteen minute breaks and an hour lunch break, in a normal work day. I have even spoken to attorneys who have made the same incorrect assumption.

Minnesota law outlines minimum breaks and meal periods, but does not specify the length of time for these breaks. The law applies to many, but not all places of employment. It may not apply if the employer has negotiated a labor agreement, as the parties are free to negotiate break periods which may be different than those provided in the law.

Minnesota Statute §177. 253, requires that employees be permitted adequate time from work within each four consecutive hours of work, to utilize the nearest convenient restroom. There is no mention of time for coffee or a smoke break.

Meal breaks are similar. Minnesota employers must permit each employee who is working for eight or more consecutive hours, sufficient time to eat a meal, but the meal break need not be paid. Once again, nothing prohibits employers and employees from establishing meal periods different from those provided in the law through collective bargaining.

Before an employer tries to reduce employee break times, it is a good idea to first determine if the Minnesota statute applies to the particular employer and employees. (For example exempt employees, agriculture employees, fire and police, elected officials, are all exempted from coverage.) Other questions to consider: Is there a collective bargaining agreement in place which covers breaks? What are the needs of the workplace? What does the employee handbook say about breaks? How do breaks fit into the work schedule and staffing levels? Where did the current break schedule come from, or was it just based on assumptions about what employees may be entitled to for breaks? Above all else, talk with your attorney before you make any changes. 
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I’ve blogged before about the importance of making sure your employees are being paid properly under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Last week, the U.S. Department of Labor issued two new press releases announcing investigations resulting in more than $500,000 in back wages being paid to employees. The first, involved the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts in Orlando, Florida where 69 employees will receive $433,819 in back wages due to violations of the FLSA. During its investigation the Wage & Hour Division found employees were not being paid correctly for work activities occurring before and after their normal shifts, when they worked through their meal breaks or when they worked from home. The investigation revealed, “while Walt Disney has specific rules regarding off-clock work, . . .managers within the company were not adhering to those important policies.”

The second press release, involved a Minnesota home health care company, Prairie River Home Care Inc. which was found to have violated the FLSA by failing to pay 144 current and former employees time and one-half their regular rates of pay, for all hours worked in excess of a 40 hour week. Under the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act (Minn. Stat. 177.25), employers are required to pay overtime for all hours worked over 48 hours in a week. Prairie River Home Care Inc. was following Minnesota law for overtime compensation. The problem arose because wages and hours of work are covered by both state and federal law. When that is the case, the law with the higher standards must be observed. So, although Prairie River Home Care Inc. was not running afoul of state law, it did run afoul of federal law, resulting in the investigation and penalties.

I’ve said it before and it is worth repeating; it isn’t just important to have a policy addressing overtime issues, it is also important to train employees on the policy, and make sure supervisors are following it. It cost Walt Disney a lot of money, just because supervisors were not following the policies which were in place. Lastly, when both state and federal law are applicable to your business, make sure you are following whichever law, has the standard which is more advantageous to the employee, so you don’t get penalized like Prairie River Home Care.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

All workplaces should have a social media policy in place which outlines behavioral expectations for employees. This includes non-profits, governmental agencies, as well as private sector businesses. It is pretty difficult to discipline an employee for spending too much time on Ebay or Facebook, or for sharing corporate news through Twitter, without specific guidelines in place.

I previously blogged about the need for social media polices in your workplace. Employers should consider the scope of their social media policy and make sure the policy fits their business model. Do you want employees to be sharing business information on social media? How does social media use by employees fit into your business public relations plan? Is it necessary to limit an employee’s use of social media? What are potential business advantages and disadvantages as a result of employees using social media? Should you exercise some type of control over social media and funnel it through one source?

If you are still not convinced you need a social media policy, the Federal Trade Commission recently posted its "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising."   It indicates employers could be liable for false statements about their  buisness/products made by employees through social media, and that employees are required to disclose their employment relationship to your buisness when making any endorsements.

Social media policies should address your unique business needs. Many model policies are available on-line, however one size does not fit all.  You don’t need to recreate the wheel while drafting your own social media policy, you just need to tailor it to fit the needs of your business.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Why is it important for a business to have an employee handbook or personnel policy manual? There are many reasons.

Handbooks or policy manuals can set the tone for a business. They put all the employees on the same page with respect to workplace rules. They outline benefits for uniform and consistent treatment of employees, and they set forth the legal obligations of the employer.

Having an employee handbook or policy manual can show a good faith effort by an employer to comply with applicable laws, like EEOC, FMLA, and FLSA.

Types of polices to consider including in handbooks or policy manuals are internet usage at work, personal cell phone usage at work, attendance/punctuality, confidentiality and use of social media. If a business has decided employees will serve “at-will,” they should not include policies outlining probationary, introductory or trial periods, grievance procedures, or a lock-step discipline process. These types of policies in Minnesota could be interpreted as a guarantee of work or a contract between the employer and the employee (pdf) effectively eliminating an employee’s at-will status.

Employee handbooks or policy manuals should be tailored for each specific business; one size does not fit all when it comes to these documents. Employee handbooks or policy manuals make for better workplaces, because employees know what to expect and what is expected of them.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link