November 29, 2022

Volume XII, Number 333

Advertisement

November 29, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

November 28, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Changing Retail Staffing Models – Unforeseen Risks in a New Economy

Events related to the COVID-19 pandemic may have caused roles within retail operations to shift, and managers may have been required to do more when employees are unexpectedly sick or when staffing levels fell due to the “great resignation.” Therefore, employers need to be careful to potential loss of managers’ exempt status. This risk to exempt status has consequences not only for potential wage and hour liability for overtime pay, but union organizing efforts as well.

The Executive Exemption in the Retail Sector

Twenty years ago, brick-and-mortar retail locations would typically have a manager, one or more assistant managers, and many part-time employees making sales, re-stocking, and assisting customers. The expanding online business sector, as well as waves of class and collective action lawsuits in the 2000s and 2010s, however, caused a shift in the traditional retail staffing model. Retailers moved away from having “exempt” assistant store managers and focused instead on leaner staffing with part-time, non-exempt employees. Today, in the retail sector, fewer store and warehouse employees are classified as “exempt” from overtime. Those who are exempt are typically store or warehouse managers who fall under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state “executive” exemption(s).

Generally, to be exempt, a manager must earn a minimum salary and:

  • The employee must customarily and regularly direct the work of at least two or more other full-time employees or their equivalent;

  • The employee must have the authority to hire or fire other employees, or the employee’s recommendations must be given particular weight; and

  • The employee’s primary (principal, most important) duty must be management of a customarily recognized department or subdivision.

(In California, in addition to a minimum salary, an executive employee also must earn a monthly salary equivalent to no less than two times the state minimum wage for full-time employment. Full-time employment means 40 hours per week as defined in Labor Code Section 515(c). Generally, this means employees must make an annual salary of at least $62,400. The FLSA exemption only requires employees be paid at least $684 a week.)

(California, the largest retail market in the country, uses a “quantitative” not “qualitative” measure of exempt employee time to determine primary duty. This is a key distinction. In California, an exempt manager must spend more than 50 percent of their time on exempt managerial tasks. California also requires that the employee “customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment.”)

The first two requirements are straightforward. Most brick-and-mortar and warehouse locations have at least two full-time equivalent employees for managers to direct and have the authority to hire and fire. “Management” activities are defined by the federal regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 541.102, (as adopted by California) to include activities such as interviewing, selecting, and training of employees; setting and adjusting their rates of pay and hours of work; directing employees’ work; appraising employees’ productivity and efficiency; handling employee complaints and grievances; disciplining employees; apportioning work among employees; determining the type of materials, supplies, machinery, equipment, or tools used or merchandise bought, stocked, and sold; controlling the flow and distribution of materials or merchandise and supplies; providing for the safety and security of the employees or the property; planning and controlling the budget; and monitoring or implementing legal compliance measures.

While these exempt management activities must be the employee’s primary duty under the FLSA, exempt employees can perform other duties without risking the exemption. A manager will not lose their exemption, for example, if they cover the register while an employee takes a break or if they help cover the occasional shift. If a manager is not primarily or more than 50 percent of the time (in California) supervising more than two people and performing management tasks, however, exemption issues may arise.

Unintended Consequences of Staffing Shortages

The COVID-19 pandemic changed the retail sector in ways few expected. After weathering shutdowns and furloughs in 2020, brick-and-mortar stores had to adjust to lower foot traffic or local laws limiting the number of customers in a store. At the same time, online and warehouse retailers could barely keep up with demand, experiencing staffing shortages, and shipping delays. All retail sectors experienced heavy turnover. These challenges may have resulted in full-time exempt managers taking on more tasks in addition to their managerial duties, and potentially weakening the exemption.

If it is determined that a manager is not exempt from overtime, that employee could be owed unpaid overtime and liquidated damages. In California, they could be owed meal and rest period premium pay and additional state-specific penalties.

Additional NLRB Concerns

As headlines have shown, union activity is on the rise among retail locations. Managers who do not retain supervisory status might be eligible to join a union, rather than viewed as sitting on the management side. The assistant manager is key for the daily running of the retail location. The assistant manager is there every day and knows the employees best. Keeping the assistant manager as a supervisor under the law facilitates management’s ability to access the employees. These factors make the assistant manager a critical component of the management response in the event of union organizing. During union organizing, the lowest level supervisor (typically the assistant manager in the retail setting) often is a key organizational communicator of the company message, with frequent direct access to those who will vote on unionization. Without their supervisory status, it would be improper for the organization to ask the assistant managers to communicate on its behalf – that would infringe on their rights as an eligible person to join a union.

Core factors that determine supervisory status by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) include a job title’s responsibility to interview, hire, discipline, fire, evaluate, and assign work (among many others) or the authority to effectively recommend such actions. With fewer employees working in a retail location, and to supervise, and more time spent performing non-supervisory tasks, the opportunity for an assistant manager to exercise these authorities may drop so low as to be unpersuasive in establishing to the NLRB’s satisfaction that the assistant manager continues to retain supervisory authority. As a result, the organization could lose this key communicator with the most day-to-day contact and potential effect on the staff’s decision on unionization. When faced with the question of whether an assistant manager is a supervisor under the National Labor Relations Act, an employer must show actual authority of an assistant manager exercising duties such as hiring, disciplining, and effectively recommending terminations.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022National Law Review, Volume XII, Number 256
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Richard D. Landau Principal New York Metro Labor and Preventive Practices Workplace Training
Principal

Richard D. Landau is a Principal in the White Plains and Albany, New York, offices of Jackson Lewis P.C. He has represented employers in all aspects of labor law and has extensive experience providing employers with strategic advice related to union organizing, negotiations, handling arbitrations and in proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board.

He has negotiated hundreds of collective bargaining agreements in dozens of industries including complex contracts covering over 1,500 employees, and handled over 100 arbitrations running the full gamut of...

914-872-6886
Shannon Bettis Nakabayashi Employment Attorney Jackson Lewis San Francisco
Principal

Shannon Bettis Nakabayashi is a principal in the San Francisco, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She has extensive experience litigating employment matters in state and federal courts, before arbitrators and administrative agencies.

Shannon regularly defends employers in statewide and nationwide wage and hour class, representative, and/or collective actions, including those brought under California’s complex and unique labor and employment laws.

Shannon regularly counsels clients...

415-394-9400
Laura Pierson-Scheinberg Employment Lawyer Jackson Lewis
Principal

Laura A. Pierson-Scheinberg is a Principal in the San Francisco, California, and Baltimore, Maryland, offices of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Ms. Pierson-Scheinberg represents employers in labor and employment matters, with a particular focus on traditional labor issues, union elections and unfair labor practice charges. She has extensive experience in collective bargaining, from serving as chief spokesperson to developing strategy behind the scenes. Her background includes bargaining for both large and small clients from a local to a national level in a wide range of...

415-796-5408
Jamielee Martinez Silicon Valley Labor and Employment Lawyer Attorney Jackson Lewis PC Law Firm
Associate

Jamie Martinez is an associate in the Silicon Valley, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. Jamie’s practice focuses on representing employers in workplace law matters, including defending a broad range of litigation claims.

Emphasizing the importance of pre-trial litigation, Jamie tackles each stage of litigation from all angles. He believes in using these tools to provide his clients with aggressive, relentless, and creative representation, ensuring the best outcome possible. Jamie works closely with clients, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of...

408-513-2263
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement