FMLA Court Ruling Ignored

[Jtsdaddy]

BACKGROUND :
My large company for years forced employees to use personal time, vacation time for FMLA. people fought and won stating you can't force me to use my company given time IE: vacation, personal, for FMLA.. company appealed to Federal court and lost. You cannot force an employee to use earned vacation and personal for Federal righted FMLA..

Question:
My company is still doing this, making employees use there personal time, the daily vacation, holidays, then tapping into your weekly vacation, and still considering it FMLA time and subtracting that as well.

who do I complain to wage and labor board, or do I file a contempt of court charge against the company.

My union sucks by the way 100.00 a month for nothing

[BOR]

who do I complain to wage and labor board, or do I file a contempt of court charge against the company.

My union sucks by the way 100.00 a month for nothing

If the co. is violating a Federal court Order, yes, they are in Contempt.

Make this known to the Union, and if need be, anyone who is affected can file a grievance against the company, then the union has a legal duty to represent them fairly.

The Union's legal team needs to file a Contempt complaint/petititon and move the court for sanctions, yes.

[aaron]

It is possible for an employer to require an employee to use vacation time as part of their FMLA leave, as is explained here. An excerpt:

(a) Generally, FMLA leave is unpaid. However, under the circumstances described in this section, FMLA permits an eligible employee to choose to substitute paid leave for FMLA leave. If an employee does not choose to substitute accrued paid leave, the employer may require the employee to substitute accrued paid leave for FMLA leave.

(b) Where an employee has earned or accrued paid vacation, personal or family leave, that paid leave may be substituted for all or part of any (otherwise) unpaid FMLA leave relating to birth, placement of a child for adoption or foster care, or care for a spouse, child or parent who has a serious health condition. The term ``family leave'' as used in FMLA refers to paid leave provided by the employer covering the particular circumstances for which the employee seeks leave for either the birth of a child and to care for such child, placement of a child for adoption or foster care, or care for a spouse, child or parent with a serious health condition. For example, if the employer's leave plan allows use of family leave to care for a child but not for a parent, the employer is not required to allow accrued family leave to be substituted for FMLA leave used to care for a parent.

(c) Substitution of paid accrued vacation, personal, or medical/sick leave may be made for any (otherwise) unpaid FMLA leave needed to care for a family member or the employee's own serious health condition. Substitution of paid sick/medical leave may be elected to the extent the circumstances meet the employer's usual requirements for the use of sick/medical leave. An employer is not required to allow substitution of paid sick or medical leave for unpaid FMLA leave "in any situation" where the employer's uniform policy would not normally allow such paid leave. An employee, therefore, has a right to substitute paid medical/sick leave to care for a seriously ill family member only if the employer's leave plan allows paid leave to be used for that purpose. Similarly, an employee does not have a right to substitute paid medical/sick leave for a serious health condition which is not covered by the employer's leave plan.

* * *

[Jtsdaddy]

CLEVELAND, January 15 — On January 14, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will not consider overruling the favorable decisions obtained by Rail Labor in the ongoing Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) litigation.

By denying the carriers’ petition for a writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court decided not to disturb the lower courts’ decisions that the carriers may not rely on the FMLA statute to override BLET agreements. BLET’s legal position has now been fully vindicated.

While the federal court part of this dispute should be over, more work remains to be done.

Unless the carriers reconsider their position regarding settlement, individual BLET General Committees of Adjustment will now have to arbitrate the various claims that have been filed since the dispute started.

“This is an important victory for BLET members and all of Rail Labor,” said BLET National President Don Hahs. “We knew the carriers were violating our collective bargaining rights by forcing members to exhaust personal leave and vacation days prior to taking unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. This victory was a long time coming, but it shows what Rail Labor can achieve when we work together.”

The January 14 announcement from the Supreme Court is the latest victory for Rail Labor in a legal dispute that dates to at least three years ago.

In 2005, a coalition of 11 unions challenged a decision made by the major rail carriers to force their employees to exhaust their vacation and personal leave days for FMLA purposes before taking the unpaid leave they are entitled to under federal law. On January 3, 2006, U.S. District Judge Wayne R. Andersen sided with the unions, ruling that the FMLA does not allow carriers to force employees to substitute paid vacation and personal leave for unpaid leave when existing collective bargaining agreements give the employees — not the carriers — the right to decide when to use their paid leave. The court held that “if a CBA gives employees the right to determine when, or in what manner, they take accrued vacation and/or personal leave, an employer cannot force employees covered by that CBA to use such vacation and/or personal leave at a time of the employer’s choosing.”

[Betty3]

Aaron is correct in that the law allows an employer to require the employee to use their vacation & other PTO as part of their FMLA leave -- unless their is a CBA to the contrary.

[BOR]

Aaron is correct in that the law allows an employer to require the employee to use their vacation & other PTO as part of their FMLA leave -- unless their is a CBA to the contrary.

That was the basis of the decision, the CBA's provisions:

Conclusion:

In short, the FMLA does not allow the carriers to vio-
late contractual obligations protected by the RLA regard-
ing paid vacation and personal leave time. Accordingly,
we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.


http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/BQ1FFOHU.pdf

Since certiorari was denied by SCOTUS, the 7th has the last legal word.

IF the companies are outside the scope of the 7th's opinion as jtsdaddy cliams, then the Union's lawyer's need to address it.

[cbg]

I think the question here is not on the court ruling, but whether or not the OP's CBA specifically prohibits the employer from requiring the use of vacation or personal time during FMLA. If the CBA does not have that provision, then the court ruling does not apply and the statute Aaron quoted would take precedence.

[Betty3]

I agree with that.

[BOR]

I think the question here is not on the court ruling, but whether or not the OP's CBA specifically prohibits the employer from requiring the use of vacation or personal time during FMLA. If the CBA does not have that provision, then the court ruling does not apply and the statute Aaron quoted would take precedence.

Did you read the opinion?? It will clarify what the CBA states and why the suit was filed. It should answer your question!

[cbg]

Yes. I read the opinion.

What I didn't read was the poster saying that this was THEIR suit. I somehow thought they they have found this opinion somewhere and was trying to force it to fit their circumstances.

I could blame it on a lot of things but every so often I just read a post wrong.