Blog


DOL Issues Final Rules on Sponsor Fee Disclosure
Written by Mike Rogers, Chief Compliance Officer   
Sunday, 05 February 2012 00:00

The U.S. Department of Labor has issued final regulations under ERISA 408(b)(2) sponsor fee disclosure. Due to their delay in issuing the final rule, the DOL also extended the due date for sponsor fee disclosure by 3 months, until July 1, 2012, from the previously extended April 1st date.

As a result of the change in implementation dates for sponsor level fee disclosure, the DOL also extended the timing for participant fee disclosure under ERISA 404(a). Now, the standard “annual” disclosure for participant-directed plans will be due no later than August 30, 2012, and the quarterly participant statement fee disclosure must be furnished before November 14, 2012.

You can get information about the final rule directly from the DOL website at the following link:

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fs408b2finalreg.html

Additionally, changes made from the “interim” final rule are available at the following link:

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/408b2changes.html

.

 
Important Developments for California Employers
Written by John Dean, RVP   
Thursday, 19 January 2012 00:00

California’s Wage Prevention Theft Act (the “Act”), Labor Code Section 2810.5, took effect on January 1, 2012. The California Labor Commissioner recently posted 15 frequently asked questions about the Act on its website. According to Simpson, Garrity, Innes and Jacuzzi, PC, a California-based law firm specializing in employment and labor law, the Labor Commissioner’s responses to the FAQs appear to significantly expand employers’ obligations. These responses can be viewed here.

An important addition from the FAQs is that the notice must be a standalone document.  Including the information in an offer letter will not meet the requirements of the statute.

The FAQs are also very specific about requirements for electronic notice. A company that provides the notice electronically must have a system where workers can acknowledge receipt of the notice and print out a copy of the notice.

The FAQs also state that a signed notice is not sufficient to constitute a voluntary written agreement between the employer and employee to credit any meals or lodging against the minimum wage.  Written agreements to this effect must be contained in another separate document.

The FAQs failed to address several significant unanswered questions about the notice form, such as what it means for an employee to be employed pursuant to a “written” or “oral” agreement and what is meant by the Labor Commissioner’s reference to businesses or entities that “administer wages or benefits.” 

On December 29, 2011, the Labor Commissioner issued a template Wage Disclosure Notice form that employers may use, which can be found at http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Governor_signs_Wage_Theft_Protection_Act_of_2011.html.  The website includes translations into Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean, and Tagalog.

Should any of the above required notice information changes, the employer must provide the employees notice of these changes within seven days by: (1) providing a written amendment to the statement; (2) issuing an entirely new notice; or, (3) via paycheck stub, if the updated information is contained on the paycheck stub.

All non-exempt, private sector employees are covered by the Act for purposes of receiving the notice, except employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement that provides premium overtime rates and an hourly wage that is at least 30 per cent more than minimum wage. The notice must be provided to employees “in the language the employer normally uses to communicate employment-related information with the employee.”

Penalties for non-compliance include: a civil penalty pursuant to Labor Code Section 2699(f)(2) of one hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation and two hundred dollars ($200) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation.

The Act requires employers to give covered, non-exempt employees a customized notice at the time of hire with the following specific information about their wages and other employment-related information upon hire:

? The rate or rates of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or otherwise, including any rates for overtime, as applicable;

? Allowances, if any, claimed as part of the minimum wage, including meal or lodging allowances;

? The regular payday designated by the employer in accordance with the requirements of the Labor Code;

? The name of the employer, including any “doing business as” names used by the employer;

? The physical address of the employer’s main office or principal place of business, and a mailing address, if different;

? The telephone number of the employer;

? The name, address, and telephone number of the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier;

? Any other information the Labor Commissioner deems material and necessary.

 

 
Rights-Posting Implementation Date Delayed Again
Written by Kevin Frankovich, CGR Associates   
Monday, 16 January 2012 00:00

A statement on the NLRB website announces that The National Labor Relations Board has agreed to postpone the effective date of its employee rights notice-posting rule at the request of the federal court in Washington, DC hearing a legal challenge regarding the rule. The Board’s ruling states that it has determined that postponing the effective date of the rule would facilitate the resolution of the legal challenges that have been filed with respect to the rule. The new implementation date is April 30, 2012.  

Most private sector employers will be required to post the 11-by-17-inch notice on the new implementation date of April 30. The notice is available at no cost from the NLRB through its website, www.nlrb.gov, which has additional information on posting requirements and NLRB jurisdiction.

 

 
NLRB Split Along Party Lines on Proposed rule
Written by Kevin Frankovich, CGR Associates   
Thursday, 01 December 2011 00:00

The National Labor Relations Board met yesterday to vote on a proposed rule that would shorten the amount of time between employees filing to start a union and the day the vote is cast. The NLRB, which currently has only three members, was split 2 - 1 along party lines, with the lone Republican voting against the proposed rule. The NLRB is required to have three members to constitute a quorum.  Republican member Craig Hayes has considered resigning, which would leave the Board without the quorum needed to make new rules. In addition, Democratic member Craig Becker's recess appointment to the Board is set to expire in December. 

You can read the LA Times coverage of the NLRB and yesterday's vote here.

 

 
DOL Sues Wisconsin-based Contractor; Alleges Failure to Remit PW Contributions
Written by Mike Rogers, Chief Compliance Officer   
Friday, 21 October 2011 00:00

The U.S. Department of Labor recently announced that it has sued B & K Builders Inc. of Marshfield and its co-owners, Robert Aschenbrenner and Kenneth Staab, to restore $17,835.41 plus interest to the company’s 401(k) profit-sharing plan. Additionally, the suit seeks restitution of $97,307.79 from B & K Builders Inc. and Staab as fiduciaries to the B&K Builders Inc. Prevailing Wage Plan.  

The case is the result of an investigation by the department’s Employee Benefits Security Administration into alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
 
The lawsuit alleges that the company, Aschenbrenner and Staab failed to forward $17,835.41 in employee contributions to the company’s 401(k) plan from Sept. 23, 2006, to May 15, 2008.  They also failed to timely remit employee contributions to the plan from June 30, 2005, to Aug. 24, 2006.  The plan had 52 active participants and $222,633 in assets as of March 31, 2009, the latest information available.
 
The suit also alleges that B & K Builders Inc. agreed to utilize a portion of the money received under state and federal contracts to pay employer contributions to the Prevailing Wage Plan. The Prevailing Wage Plan mandates that B & K Builders Inc. pay required prevailing wage contributions to the Prevailing Wage Plan.  Staab and B & K Builders Inc., as fiduciaries, failed to remit $97,307.79 in employer contributions for the period of June 2007 through June 2009 to the Prevailing Wage Plan. 

The suit seeks a court order to restore money owed to both plans; correct transactions prohibited by law; remove B & K Builders, Aschenbrenner and Staab from serving as fiduciaries to the plans; and permanently bar them from serving as fiduciaries to any ERISA-covered plan in the future.  It also asks the court to appoint an independent fiduciary to administer the plans. 

You can read the DOL's News Release here.

 

 
Advance Notice of OFCCP Rulemaking
Written by Kevin Frankovich, CGR Associates   
Sunday, 02 October 2011 00:00

An advance notice of public rulemaking was recently released by the OFCCP requesting input on the development of a system to capture federal contractor salary information.  The notice states that the purpose is to assist with efforts to prevent salary discrimination. Comments must be submitted by October 11, 2011.
 This system would only apply to contractors with more 50 employees and $50,000 in federal contracts.  It would not apply to construction firms, but it would apply to other types of federal contractors. 

While the system and the rule are far from being implemented, the volume and types of information being requested make it appear this would be quite onerous. Much of the information requested might not be easily available, and if implemented this would likely be a difficult and expensive requirement for some contractors to comply with.

More information on the notice can be found here.

 

 
Labor Secretary, IRS Commissioner Sign Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Worker Misclassification
Written by Jess Glidewell, RVP   
Wednesday, 28 September 2011 00:00

Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Internal Revenue Service that will improve efforts to end the business practice of misclassifying employees in order to avoid providing employment protections. Labor commissioners and other agency leaders representing seven states signed memorandums of understanding with the department's Wage and Hour Division and, in some cases, its Employee Benefits Security Administration, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs and Office of the Solicitor. Participating states include Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Utah and Washington. Secretary Solis has announced agreements for the Wage and Hour Division to enter into memorandums of understanding with the state labor agencies of Hawaii, Illinois and Montana, as well as with New York's attorney general.


The memorandums of understanding will enable the U.S. Department of Labor to share information and coordinate law enforcement with the IRS and participating states in order to level the playing field for law-abiding employers and ensure that employees receive the protections to which they are entitled under federal and state law. You can read more about this effort here.

 
Final Rule Regarding Contractor Business Ethics Program Takes Effect
Written by Kevin Frankovich, CGR Associates   
Wednesday, 28 September 2011 00:00

A final rule providing guidance regarding the responsibility to ensure that contractors have implemented the mandatory contractor business ethics program requirements of FAR 52.203-13 to the list of contract administration functions at FAR 42.302 took effect June 30, 2011.

However federal prime contracts that exceed $5 million and have a period of performance of 120 days, and all subcontracts of the same dollar amount or duration, contain a clause which requires contractors to have a written Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct.  This Code must be made available to each employee working on the contract.  

Whether clause 52.203-13 applies or not, contractors may be suspended and/or debarred if a principal fails to timely disclose to the government, in connection with the award, performance, or closeout of a government contract performed by the contractor or a subcontractor, credible evidence of a violation of Federal criminal law involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery or gratuity violations found in Title 18 of the United States Code or a violation of the civil False claims Act. Knowingly failing to timely disclose credible evidence of any of these violations is cause for suspension and/or debarment until three years after final payment on a contract.  

If applicable,  contractors must also have an ongoing business ethics awareness and compliance program, which must be established within 90 days of a contract award. In general, this program must periodically communicate the standards and procedures of the contractor’s business ethics program to the contractors principals, employees, and its agents and subcontractors when appropriate.

Federal auditors have been charged with “vigorously verifying contractor compliance programs”.  Contractors should be aware that it’s likely they will be asked to produce evidence of compliance with the requirement to have a written code of Business Ethics and Conduct and, if applicable, to have an ongoing business ethics awareness and compliance program.

 

 
More Articles...


Fringe Benefit Group:  The prevailing wage benefits experts.