Earning Your Time Off

Are paid time off accrual methods regulated by any laws?

Does an employee have to work 365 days before they "earn" any of their vacation time? I don't mean having the ability to take it, just the entitlement to it.

nckrystalblue wrote:Are paid time off accrual methods regulated by any laws?

Does an employee have to work 365 days before they "earn" any of their vacation time? I don't mean having the ability to take it, just the entitlement to it.

No vacation rules are set by the company as part of the hire package. The terms can be changed going forward, but not for vacation already earned.
JoeC (McGruff)

I'm not being clear enough I guess.

The employment handbook states ee gets 2 weeks vacation after three years. It doesn't mention accrual, just that it can't be used until earned. Does this mean they have to work all 365 in order to get any vacation time or do they earn a percentage of that time as they work that year?

EE worked 51 of 52 weeks and they denied the 9.8 days earned in that time upon termination.

nckrystalblue wrote:I'm not being clear enough I guess.

The employment handbook states ee gets 2 weeks vacation after three years. It doesn't mention accrual, just that it can't be used until earned. Does this mean they have to work all 365 in order to get any vacation time or do they earn a percentage of that time as they work that year?

EE worked 51 of 52 weeks and they denied the 9.8 days earned in that time upon termination.

By reading what you wrote, he isn't entitled to any vacation time. You HAVE to work three years to receive it. The person in question didn't. You said it didn't mention accruals, so it doesn't apply.

Oh thank you Onyx I was beginning to think every poster on this board was on vacation. This poster has a ton of questions and no one is answering.
JoeC (McGruff)

I'm sorry... he started working for the company in 2005 - this 51 of 52 happened this year, his 4th year therefore he met the 3 year limit. This case is so complex I forget who knows what...

I really shouldn't post after 8pm


Joe C = Don't worry about me not being answered. I figured it was the weekend and people have lives (unlike myself)

Well I am glad you understand unlike LLT posters here have jobs, they get over and answer when they can. That is not as often as I like but it is what it is. All though I just reviewed LLT posts in your case and all fairness you got some very good responses. Bob Bollinger does not post that often on that site and he answered your questions well. I doubt you will get better answers than Bobs here. Bob is one of the best W.C lawyers in North Carolina. Unfortunately he does not post on this board. I don't see anyone on this board "at its present stage" that will answer your W.C question in North Carolina better than Bob Bollinger.
JoeC (McGruff)

Thanks. It's not so much that I'm disputing what I was told there, but after seeing how they tend to be very unprofessional and often redirected their answers to avoid my question when I got a referral to this site in a PM I thought I'd see what could be uncovered here.

As I said, we tried Bob but because there was prior counsel he declined the case - no other reason. Is that common practice for a lawyer to do? I don't understand how they all advertise that they're out to protect the injured etc. etc. etc. and when you tell them what's going on the ask what do you want me to do, and no we don't want your case, etc. It's all about the money no matter what they say on their website about fighting for rights not big settlements.

I guess I'm just cut from a cloth of a different color. It's my nature to trust no one and question everything so don't take it personally.

Oh it is all about money litigation is an expensive undertaking, unfortunately the system is not geared for small damage award cases. It would be futile to spend $80,000 to recover $20,000.

You start passing some of these tort reform initiatives or capping damage awards it will only get worse. You running in to the same obstacles a lot of people do. All though LLT is a shame site because of regular posters that screw it up and the piss poor moderator cbg, there are some exceptions and Bob Bollinger is one of them. I have read his posts and his website he knows his craft. There is no way I am going to second guess him.

The purpose of this board is to provide some general information and get posters plugged into the right places. We don't encourage posters to take our advice and go Pro-Se with it to court. LLT functions under dictatorship run by cbg were she has the final word on what she alone believes the law says. Occasionally a guy like Bob gets through that crap. Now I have provided you the N.C bar assoc. link the applicable codes for review,and the link to good lawyer, that about all you can expect from a website. If your not getting assistance from the legal community I cant make them take your case.
JoeC (McGruff)

JoeC (McGruff) wrote:...there are some exceptions and Bob Bollinger is one of them. I have read his posts and his website he knows his craft. There is no way I am going to second guess him.

I agree he seems very knowledgeable but offered no help for us since he declined the case. I suspect he did not know I had spoken to him based on his replies but that's ok. I wanted an unbiased opinion - just the laws.

The purpose of this board is to provide some general information and get posters plugged into the right places. We don't encourage posters to take our advice and go Pro-Se with it to court... Now I have provided you the N.C bar assoc. link the applicable codes for review,and the link to good lawyer, that about all you can expect from a website. If your not getting assistance from the legal community I cant make them take your case. JoeC (McGruff)

I didn't ask for anyone to MAKE anyone take the case. I'm here looking for exactly what you provided and I'm using those resources. I only wish I had more time to devote to delving because it's really very interesting once you get below the legal mumbo jumbo. I've learned a lot and not just about WC stuff. I understand that you don't encourage pro-se litigation and we're hoping it won't come to that but at least we'll be better prepared than most. I have not given up on finding a lawyer, we just need to keep looking. Someone somewhere might have an interest in it at some point. We just need to weed through all the nonsense and figure out what's really viable to pursue.

"Vacations are calculated according to your anniversary date, and may not be taken until earned. Requests for vacation should be submitted at least two weeks in advance to your supervisor. When possible, vacation periods will be assigned in accordance with employee requests, taking operating requirements into account. Generally speaking, length of service determines priority in scheduling vacation times...Regular employees will be paid for any earned but unused vacation upon termination."

The red area is the part I'm having trouble clarifying. What do you think is the implied accrual method in place here or is it indiscernible?

My read on it is your vacation is added up during the year and you can use it after one year example:
Employee begins to work on January 1st 2009 he gets one weeks vacation. He can not use the vacation until AFTER January 1st 2010. In simple terms vacation is earned for year prior.
JoeC (McGruff)

How can it be indiscernible? It is clearly spelled out. I think you are making all of this harder than it looks. If it acts like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. I'm not trying to be rude, but I can kind of see why an attorney won't touch your case. I think the vacation accrual is the least of your problem. This is the nonsense that is not viable to pursue.

It is not clearly spelled out when the "earning" actually occurs, only the "taking of earned" time. And as far as what's viable to pursue I think that remains to be determined by those involved in the undertaking. Maybe to you $1,100 is not worth pursuing, but if you were collecting only $100 a week on unemployment and have no savings left because you've had to live off it for the past 2 years while the insurance company and job jerked you around and didn't pay you, then it might be more important to you. So, don't speculate as to why we're asking questions. Offer an answer according to your mission or don't. This isn't personal it's educational - so let's keep it that way.

The vacation is not an issue of the worker's compensation and it's not the focus of the problems with lawyers. As I've said before this all came about AFTER and we have not talked to a lawyer about this matter because I'm trying to understand the law first to know if we should or not. It's a matter of employee rights as stated in their handbook and the law. Rules are in place for a reason and they need to be held accountable to those rules just as the employees are.

Let's say that I'm studying law and want to be a lawyer someday. If my client comes to me with this situation...what do I do? It may not apply directly in this matter but I'm using current situations to learn how to help future employees, including myself.

Let's forget about everything and say he was let go because of the economy. Same situation applies, he was one week short of being allowed to "spend" his vacation. The way I read their policy is that you "earn it" as you work regardless of when you're allowed to spend/use it.