Predictable Scheduling Laws: The Next Trend in Workplace Regulations
Seattle will likely be the next city to limit employersf use of on-call scheduling
By Lisa Nagele-Piazza, SHRM-SCP, J.D.
Sep 27, 2016 - SHRM
Inconsistent work-scheduling practices—such as
"just-in-time" or on-call scheduling—in the retail and restaurant industries
have led some cities to pass or consider laws that provide more stability for
workers.
On-call scheduling allows employers to staff at levels
that correspond to daily customer traffic and fill any gaps caused by workers
who call in sick or make other last-minute changes to their schedules.
However, advocates for predictable scheduling laws say
that on-call scheduling negatively impacts low-wage earners who may need to plan
ahead for their financial, child care and transportation needs, as well as for
second-job or school conflicts.
San Francisco enacted a predictable scheduling law
in 2015, and a pending law in Seattle is likely to take effect on July 1,
2017.
"The law is designed to provide predictability and
income stabilization for employees in certain industries that work for employers
of a particular size," said Bryan O'Connor, an attorney with Jackson Lewis in
Seattle, about the city's pending law. "But it creates more delays and
complexity for retail and food employers that need to quickly resolve scheduling
issues."
It's safe to assume, however, that predictable
scheduling laws will be proposed in many of the same cities where coalitions
have pushed for a $15 minimum wage and mandatory paid sick leave, he noted.
Seattle Law Pending Signature
On Sept. 19, the Seattle City Council unanimously
passed the Secure Scheduling Ordinance, which will require certain
employers to provide new hires with a good-faith estimate of their work hours
and to give employees their work schedules 14 days in advance.
It will also require covered employers to provide
additional compensation to workers when their hours are changed with less than
two weeks' notice or when they are scheduled to work "clopenings," meaning
back-to-back shifts with less than a 10-hour break between shifts.
The ordinance is pending Mayor Ed Murray's signature,
but he has expressed his support of the law.
"Secure scheduling helps working families, young
people, students and workers of color by providing stability and clarity to
their work schedule," Murray said in a press statement.
The ordinance would apply to large retail and food
service establishments with 500 or more employees worldwide, explained Catharine
Morisset, an attorney with Fisher Phillips in Seattle.
"This includes any employer within a franchise network
that employs over 500 people, as well as full-service restaurants with 500
or more employees and more than 40 locations worldwide," she said.
Morisset noted that only employees who physically work
at least 50 percent of the time within the city of Seattle are covered.
"While touted as a secure scheduling law, it does
much more than prohibit last-minute changes in employee schedules," she
added.
Among other things, the ordinance would:
- Allow employees to request their preferred schedule and location.
- Require employers to engage in an interactive process with employees to
discuss schedule requests, which must be granted in certain situations unless
there is a "bona fide business reason" not to grant the request.
- Prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who decline a shift
that is added to their schedules with less than two weeks of notice.
- Require employers to offer shifts to existing staff before hiring
additional workers.
There will be an exception for employers with an
alternative scheduling arrangement pursuant to a collective bargaining
agreement that "meets the policy goals of the ordinance."
Seattle employers should get input from managers now
about changes that will need to be made to scheduling practices, Morisset
suggested. "Starting to educate front-line managers about their affirmative
obligations and what will constitute a violation will only help with smooth
implementation of any new processes and mitigate against risk of
noncompliance."
San Francisco Paved the Way
Although more expansive, Seattle's law was
initially designed after San Francisco's ordinance that took effect in 2015.
"The San Francisco ordinance has two main parts,"
explained Jason Geller, an attorney with Fisher Phillips in San Francisco.
There's the "hours component," which requires
employers to first offer available hours to existing part-time employees before
hiring new workers, he said. "And the second part imposes penalties on employers
for changing schedules on short notice."
Employees in San Francisco must receive one hour of
"predictability pay" when their schedules are changed with less than seven days
but more than 24 hours of notice.
Workers must receive additional pay if they are
provided less than 24 hours of notice regarding a schedule change or are not
called in to work during an on-call period.
The ordinance applies to "formula retail businesses"
that have 20 or more employees in the city of San Francisco and 20 or more
locations worldwide.
Even if the San Francisco location is part of a bigger
organization, the law creates another barrier for small employers, Geller said.
If an employer only has 20 workers, it was difficult even before this law to
manage the schedule when employees called in sick or didn't show up for shifts,
he noted.
Is New York City Next?
The predictable scheduling issue has received
considerable attention in New York over the past few years.
The state already has a "call-in pay" law that
requires employers to pay workers a certain minimum amount of wages if they show
up for a scheduled shift and are sent home early.
Furthermore, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was
very active in 2015 in his
effort to persuade large retail chains to end their on-call scheduling
practices, said William Perkins, an attorney in Seyfarth Shaw's New York City
office.
Schneiderman has entered agreements with at least
eight retailers.
Moreover, on Sept. 15, New York City Mayor Bill de
Blasio announced his commitment to enacting "fair workweek" legislation.
The law would specifically apply to fast-food workers
and would impose similar scheduling requirements as the Seattle ordinance.
Perkins said he thinks a predictable scheduling law
will pass in New York City.
This is like the paid-sick-leave phenomenon we
experienced recently, he noted, and the mayor has lined up a lot of political
force to support the scheduling law.
As it stands, the effort is focused solely on
fast-food establishments, Perkins said, but it may become more expansive with
time.