Search form

Seattle Mayor’s Office Proposes Predictable Scheduling Law

By Bryan P. O'Connor, Michael A. Griffin, Jonathan M. Minear and David A. Nenni
  • August 18, 2016

The Seattle Mayor’s Office has proposed a Secure Scheduling Proposal that would require certain large employers operating within Seattle city limits to give their hourly workers advance notice of their schedules and to pay workers extra for being required to work on call.

The Proposal, introduced on August 9, 2016, has a stated goal of providing employees predictability and flexibility in scheduling work hours. It is being considered by the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee of the Seattle City Council. It will then go before the full Council for a vote in September.

Affected Employers

The Proposal would apply to:

  1. Retail establishments with at least 500 employees worldwide,
  2. Quick and limited food service establishments with at least 500 employees worldwide, and
  3. Full-service restaurants with at least 500 employees and at least 40 establishments worldwide.

Affected Employees

The Proposal applies to the wages, hours, and scheduling of non-exempt employees who work at least 50 percent of their work hours inside the Seattle city limits.

Similar to Seattle’s Paid Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance, the Proposal’s requirements would not apply to unionized workforces that ratify an “alternative structure” that meets the stated public policy goals.

Employer Requirements

The Proposal would require the following:

Good Faith Estimate of Work Hours – Employers, at the time of hire, on an annual basis, and upon a significant change, must provide qualifying employees with a written good faith estimate of (1) the median number of hours the employee will be expected to work each week and (2) whether the employer will expect the employee to work on-call shifts.

Notice of Schedules – Employers must provide qualifying employees their schedules at least 14 calendar days before the schedule is implemented.

The Interactive Process in Scheduling – Affected employees may state a preference for scheduling options and employers would have to engage employees in a timely manner in a good faith interaction related to scheduling. If an affected employee requests a schedule change because of caregiving obligations, a second job, or educational purposes, the employer must grant the request, unless a bona fide reason exists to deny the request (e.g., it interferes with business operations). Employers must be prepared to prove the business justification.

Minimum Breaks Between Shifts and Additional Overtime Pay – Excluding split shifts, employers must provide each affected employee with at least 10 hours off between the employee closing one shift and opening a subsequent shift. This would not apply if the employee volunteers to waive the 10-hour rest period and work the shifts. However, the employer would be required to pay the employee overtime rates (time-and-a-half) for the hours worked that is part of the rest period (e.g., if an employee had worked the 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. shift and the employer asks this employee to work that same night’s 7:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. shift, a total of 7 more hours, the employer would have to pay the employee time-and-a-half for 7:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m., the 5-hour period that cuts into the 10-hour rest period).

On-Call Shifts – Employers must pay affected employees one-half of their regular hourly rate for each hour during which the employees are on call, even if they are not called into work.

Predictability Pay – Except where employees swap shifts or when employers ask for coverage of shifts using mass communication to affected employees (e.g., in emergencies or to cover for another employee who is sick), employers must give employees one hour of additional pay at the regular rate for changes to a schedule after its original posting. If an employer cuts an employee’s hours after posting a schedule, the employee would be entitled to one-half of the regular hourly rate for each hour cut from the schedule.

Offering Hours to Current Employees Before Hiring Externally – With certain exceptions, before making any external hires to fill available hours, employers must offer the additional available hours to existing employees. If an existing employee accepts the additional hours, the employer must give the hours to that employee. This provision has a three-day posting requirement and employees would have two days to accept the offer. Employers need not offer overtime hours to existing employees before making external hires.

Anti-Retaliation Provisions

As with most laws, the Secure Scheduling Proposal has an anti-retaliation provision that would prohibit employers from:

  1. forcing employees to accept additional hours not on their schedule; and
  2. punishing employees who refuse additional hours not on their schedule or who otherwise exercise their rights under the Proposal.

Jackson Lewis will continue to monitor the Proposal and provide updates as warranted.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

September 13, 2019

California Supreme Court Rejects Claim for Unpaid Wages under PAGA

September 13, 2019

Putting an end to employees’ backdoor attempts to recover unpaid wages in Private Attorneys General Act-only actions under California Labor Code Section 558, the California Supreme Court has ruled against allowing such claims. ZB, N.A., et al. v. Superior Court, No. S246711 (Sept. 12, 2019). This is surprising, as the Court provided... Read More

September 13, 2019

California Worker Misclassification Bill Closer to Enactment

September 13, 2019

The California Assembly has passed a bill that would require workers to be classified as employees if the employer exerts control over how the workers perform their tasks or if their work is part of the employer’s regular business. Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) passed by a vote of 61-16 in the Assembly. Governor Gavin Newsom has stated his... Read More

September 9, 2019

Non-Agricultural Employers May Use Workweek Averaging to Satisfy State Minimum Wage Obligations in Washington

September 9, 2019

The Washington Supreme Court has confirmed that non-agricultural employers may use a workweek averaging methodology to satisfy the Washington Minimum Wage Act. Sampson et al. v. Knight Transportation Inc. et al., No. 96264-2 (Sept. 5, 2019). In other words, non-agricultural employers can satisfy their state minimum wage... Read More

Related Practices