Salaried vs. hourly-can boss pull this?

Standard salaried-vs-hourly-trick from boss, only with a new twist.
(Not me, incidentally, so there wil be gaps in the story)
Employee works 40 plus hours per week. Needs treatment by a doctor for a condition, during standard work hours.Let’s say 6 hours a week of treatment.
Employee will still be working 40 or more hours. Boss plans to require 6 hours be deducted from “Personal Time” accruals, or whatever built up time is called in their office.
Is this legal?
thanks,
hh

Best bet is to call local DeptofLabor

The company might require its employees to work during standard working hours, so it would make sense in that case. Perhaps employee should work exactly 34 hours a week from now on, rather than the over 46 hours/week employee was working before. Blame it on the medical condition. If fired, sue.

Alternatively, have a nice friendly chat with HR rather than the boss.

The OP doesn’t seem to specify whether the employee is exempt under the FLSA. Exempt means doesn’t need to pay for OT, non-exempt means time over 40 hours needs to be paid at time and 1/2. This will probably have a bearing on the answer. Non-exempt receives greater protection under the law.

As an HR person, I actually do believe this is legal. Leave (personal, sick and vacation) allows employees to get paid for time away from work. Since the employee needs 6 hours away from work, and will presumably get paid for the hours, the time will be deducted from leave.

If the employee would truly prefer to have this be unpaid time off, he may be able to explore that with mgmt./ HR. I don’t know that they’d have to give it to him, but maybe the general assumption is that he’d rather get paid for the time.

The Family and Medical Leave Act governs entitlements to leave for medical reasons. It does not require that any of the leave be paid, though. It just says they have to let you take the medically necessary time off without firing you.

before we get too far into this, what country does this apply to?

Having worked in H/R I can say absent a state law or union contract saying such is ILLEGAL it is legal.

Most people fail to realize how little the state laws cover them

I find people thinking they are entitled to ANY days off. For sick or holiday. This is not so. Companies do it on a voluntary basis.

The Family Leave Act states the employer CAN require you to use your vacation and or sick/holiday time off first.

Employers ARE NOT required (absent union contract) to give any employees time off for any condition EXCEPT the family leave act (or if local law applies).

Remember time off shows up on the books as a liablity and it decreases profit. Companies WANT you to use your time off ASAP.

Well, the OP is in the USA, and this is a US message board, so in general isn’t it just safe to always assume we’re in the USA unless the poster qualifies it otherwise? I’m not trying to be nitpicky, but I see this question asked a lot. I mean, I wouldn’t participate on a Venezuelan message board and assume we’re talking about the United States.

Uh, union contracts don’t make things illegal. They’re not laws; they’re contracts. It’s not even generally illegal to violate a contract.

Assuming that you are talking hourly (FLSA non-exempt)

OK, so an example fitting your scenario:

Example 1 (no time off)

Employee works 50 hours in a week, gets paid 40 straight and 10 OT
Example 2 (w/time off)

Employee works 44 hours in a week, has 6 hrs Personal time:
Here’s the trouble: some companies only count OT after 40 actual work hours are performed, so he would get 40 straight, 6 personal (straight), 4 OT

But other companies (like mine) count all hours against OT:
He would get paid 34 straight, 6 personal (straight) and 10 OT
(at mine, even if you take 40 hours of vacation in a week, if you have to come in one hour that week, you get OT)

So inconclusive, based on your company. He will be paid for all relevant hours used, just not clear how much will be OT. If you company allows comp time, he would be able to make up the six hours elsewhere, but clearly that may not be an option so his boss is having him cover the hours with leave time.