California classification and OT
Get Legal Help Today
Compare Quotes From Top Companies and Save
Secured with SHA-256 Encryption
California classification and OT
I have a confusing question. I work for a company that has 1 parent but 2 subsideries. An employee works FT for 1 company and we want him to work 10 hours for the next company from home. Would this mean overtime or not because it is 2 companies? Should he be classified as a contractor even though we have him on normal payroll?
Asked on March 9, 2017 under Employment Labor Law, California
Answers:
SJZ, Member, New York Bar / FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney
Answered 7 years ago | Contributor
If there is a single common parent company, then the hours the employee works both companies would be added together to see if he earns overtime: if he works 40 hours for A and 10 hours for B, he would get overtime. This is done so that employers may not avoid the overtime rules by creating subsidiaries and attributing some of an employee's hours to one, some to another.
If he truly is an employee, you can't make him a contractor, not legally: the law doesn't care about what you call an employee, it cares about the facts of his employment. If the nature of his employment, his responsibilities, and how he is managed or supervised make it clear that he is an employee (regardless of what you call him), you must pay him as an employee. If you fail to do so and he sue or complains to the labor department (or it otherwise comes to the labor department's attention), not only could you be liable for all the back wages, overtime, benefits, and employer portion of social security and medicare tax that you should have paid, but you could also be fined or be liable for his attorney fees.
You can find the rules for when someone is an employee on the department of labor website. In brief, if you determine his hours, set where he works, and manage how he does his job, he is an employee, not a contractor, and must be paid as an employee. An *independent* contractor has a large degree of independence which employees lack.
SJZ, Member, New York Bar / FreeAdvice Contributing Attorney
Answered 7 years ago | Contributor
If there is a single common parent company, then the hours the employee works both companies would be added together to see if he earns overtime: if he works 40 hours for A and 10 hours for B, he would get overtime. This is done so that employers may not avoid the overtime rules by creating subsidiaries and attributing some of an employee's hours to one, some to another.
If he truly is an employee, you can't make him a contractor, not legally: the law doesn't care about what you call an employee, it cares about the facts of his employment. If the nature of his employment, his responsibilities, and how he is managed or supervised make it clear that he is an employee (regardless of what you call him), you must pay him as an employee. If you fail to do so and he sue or complains to the labor department (or it otherwise comes to the labor department's attention), not only could you be liable for all the back wages, overtime, benefits, and employer portion of social security and medicare tax that you should have paid, but you could also be fined or be liable for his attorney fees.
You can find the rules for when someone is an employee on the department of labor website. In brief, if you determine his hours, set where he works, and manage how he does his job, he is an employee, not a contractor, and must be paid as an employee. An *independent* contractor has a large degree of independence which employees lack.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The Answer(s) provided above are for general information only. The attorney providing the answer was not serving as the attorney for the person submitting the question or in any attorney-client relationship with such person. Laws may vary from state to state, and sometimes change. Tiny variations in the facts, or a fact not set forth in a question, often can change a legal outcome or an attorney's conclusion. Although AttorneyPages.com has verified the attorney was admitted to practice law in at least one jurisdiction, he or she may not be authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction referred to in the question, nor is he or she necessarily experienced in the area of the law involved. Unlike the information in the Answer(s) above, upon which you should NOT rely, for personal advice you can rely upon we suggest you retain an attorney to represent you.