On the other hand, an appeal division of the Los Angeles Superior Court in Mitchell v. Yoplait, concluded that employers outside of health could introduce alternative work schedules that regularly provide 12-hour days. This case is clearly contrary to the current interpretation of the LSD. Alternative weekly hours allow many employers to avoid daily overtime for workers who work no more than 40 hours per week. Employers and workers can benefit from such agreements. For example, employers can reduce energy costs by closing their businesses for extra days per week or by taking advantage of other benefits from their activities. Workers can benefit by reducing their shuttle costs and with greater flexibility in their work schedule than in an eight-hour/five-day week. The alternative schedule proposed by the employer must be approved by a majority of two-thirds of the workers involved in the work unit. Voting must be by secret ballot in the workplace. At least 14 days before the vote, the employer must disclose in writing and a meeting on the impact of the alternative work week on workers` wages, hours and benefits. The employer must send written information to all staff members who are not attending the meeting. The DSLE has taken a rigid approach to the interpretation of alternative workweek statutes and regulations and has limited the maximum daily working time to 10 in another schedule, with the exception of health workers.
The DLSE bases its interpretation on the language of the labour code section 511 and focuses on the subdivision (a) in which it states: “On the proposal of an employer, workers of an employer can accept an alternative work week that regularly provides for the work of the workers concerned for no more than 10 hours per day in a 40-hour week without pay. . . . overtime… Although an employer is not allowed to intimidate or coerc workers about their vote, employers are allowed to give their opinion on the alternative weekly schedule. Similarly, workers cannot be dismissed or discriminated against when they issue notices about the adoption or repeal of another weekly work program or if they remove it. Jackson Lewis P.C. 950- Lawyers who are located in major cities nationwide, has been focusing since 1958 on labour and labour law and identifies them consistently and reacts to new ways of cutting down labour law. We help employers develop proactive strategies, strong strategies and business-oriented solutions to cultivate high-level, dedicated, stable and diverse employees, and we share our clients` goals to focus on inclusion and respect for each employee`s contribution. For more information, see www.jacksonlewis.com. Workers can repeal an alternative work programme that has been duly adopted, with the majority of two-thirds of the workers involved.
An employer must re-election by secret ballot in order to remove the alternative timetable at the request of a third of the workers concerned. In addition, an election must be held within 30 days of the petition, unless the alternative work week has been in effect for less than a year. A minimum of 12 months between the adoption and the lifting of elections is required, except in special circumstances. An employer may unilaterally terminate another weekly work schedule without choice as long as the work units concerned are properly informed. Although an employer with a two-thirds majority of the workers involved in this work unit can implement an alternative weekly work plan for all workers in the work unit, the employer must make reasonable efforts to provide an eight-hour-a-day schedule for workers who cannot work with the alternative schedule. In addition, an employer implementing an alternative weekly work plan must explore reasonable alternatives when the religious beliefs of the