September Bulletin 2014

Denver 303.839.5177 Scottsdale 602.955.7558 Colorado Springs 719.667.0677 Fort Collins 970.223.4107 Toll Free 800.884.1328

Health Care Reform Compliance Series Part XXIV:Upcoming Reporting RequirementsCindy Prado-Gutierrez, Human Resource Services Consultant, CCP, CBP, GPHR

The Affordable Care Act requires insurers and employers to provide annual reports to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as well as annual statements to employees covered by health insurance. These reports and statements are intended to help the IRS monitor compliance with the individual and employer mandates.

RETURNS TO THE IRSInsurers and self-insured employers providing “minimum essential coverage” to individuals during a calendar year must report certain information about the coverage. For fully insured plans, insurers submit the reports. For self-insured plans, plan sponsors have reporting responsibility. These reports must include:

• name, address, and the employer identification number (EIN) of the employer sponsoring the plan (if the report is submitted by an insurer providing coverage through an employer’s fully-insured plan);

• name, address, and taxpayer ID number (i.e., social security number (SSN)) of employee or for-mer employee;

• name and SSN of each other covered individual;

• months during which each individual was enrolled in coverage during the calendar year for at least one day; and

• any other information the IRS requires.

Applicable Large Employers (ALEs) must also file annual returns demonstrating compliance with the employer mandate. The return must show:

• employer name, date, EIN, and the calendar year for the information reported;

• name and telephone number of the employer’s contact person;

• certification as to whether the employer offered full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under the plan each calendar month;

• number of full-time employees for each calendar month during the calendar year, by calendar month;

• for each full-time employee, the months during the calendar year for which minimum essential coverage under the plan was available;

Page 1Health Care Reform

Compliance Series Part XXIV:

Upcoming Reporting Requirements

Page 3Communication and Intention:

What Are You Really Saying?

Page 4NLRB Continues to Scrutinize

Social Media and No-Gossip Policies

Page 6You Asked:

What Qualifies an Employee for the Outside Sales or Highly

Compensated Exemption?

Page 8The State of Pregnancy

Accommodation Following New EEOC Guidance

Page 9Colorado Employers Prepare

for More Employment Verification Letters

Page 10Are You a Fiduciary of Your

Employer’s Retirement Plan?

Page 12Public Employers:

Supreme Court Says Court Testimony is Free Speech

Page 13Survey News

EMPLOYMENT LAW | SURVEYS | HUMAN RESOURCES | TRAINING

TheBulletinSEPTEMBER 2014

CONTINUED ON NEXT

PAGE

2 | The Bulletin | September 2014 | MSEC.org

• for each full-time employee, the employee’s share of the lowest cost monthly premium for self-only coverage providing minimum value offered to that full-time employee under the plan, by calendar month; and

• name, address, and SSN of each full-time employee during the calendar year and the months, if any, during which the employee was covered under the plan.

The return will also include indicator codes to report additional information, such as:

• Whether coverage offered to full-time employees and their dependents provides minimum value and whether employees had the opportunity to enroll their spouses in coverage

• Total number of employees, by calendar month

• Whether an employee’s effective date of coverage was affected by a permissible waiting period

• Whether there were no employees during a particular month

Applicable Large Employers with self-funded plans will complete a single form to report information related to minimum essential coverage and compliance with the employer mandate. Simplified reporting methods may be available to employers who:

1. certify that they made a “qualifying offer” of minimum value, affordable minimum essential coverage to every full-time employee, their spouse, and dependents for all months during the year in which the employee was a full-time employee (for 2015 only, this method may be used if the employer certifies that they made a qualifying offer to 95 percent of employees, their spouses, and dependents), or

2. certify that they offered coverage to at least 98 percent of employees including full-time and part-time employees.

STATEMENTS TO EMPLOYEESAn annual written statement must be furnished to each responsible individual (i.e., the employee or former employee) included in the IRS return described above. Employers with fully insured plans whose insurers report to the IRS on their behalf about minimum essential coverage must also provide this statement. The statement must be issued on or before January 31 of the year following the calendar year for which the information was required to be reported (e.g., by January 31, 2016 for 2015). This statement must include:

• name, address, and contact information of the reporting person; and

• the information required to be shown on the return for that individual (see above).

Statements need not be provided to employees who waived coverage or are not eligible. Statements can be pro-vided electronically if specific requirements are met, including that employees have consented to receiving them electronically.

Employers should use the appropriate IRS form for reporting. The forms vary depending on whether the employer is self-funded or fully insured, an ALE or a small employer, or both an ALE and self-insured. Reporting begins in early 2016 (by February 28 if filing on paper, or by March 31 if filing electronically) to report coverage provided in 2015. The IRS can penalize employers who fail to comply with these requirements. However, the IRS will not impose penalties on the reporting due in 2016 for the 2015 calendar year on those who show good faith efforts to comply. See the Health Care Reform Learning Zone at MSEC.org for more information. £

Health Care Reform continued


Communication and Intention: What Are You Really Saying? Kathleen Hart, Human Resource Services Consultant, SPHR

While communication involves our words and our nonverbal actions, under-neath is our intention for entering into the conversation. Intention is powerful in directing our energy and guiding our underlying actions. An example of sens-ing a person’s intention can be found when buying a car. Sure, the salesperson is friendly and helpful. He or she smiles, looks you in the eye, asks how he or she can help you, yet you sense he or she doesn’t really care about what you want and just wants to make the sale. Compare this experience to one where you felt the salesperson had your best interests at heart and wanted to understand and meet your needs. Both salespeople may have said the same things and acted the same way, but the impact is very different based on their intention.

When our intention is not in alignment with what we communicate, seeds of distrust and conflict can grow or escalate. For example:

“My boss says he cares about helping me improve my performance yet I can see he just wants to get rid of me.”

“My peer says she wants my input on her project, yet she has already made up her mind and just wants me to affirm what she is already doing.”

Just wanting to have good intent in your communications is not enough. If our intention is mixed, camouflaged, or even unknown, the intention inadvertently shows up in our underlying actions and energy. One of the first steps in building trust and reducing conflict is clarifying your intention before having the conversation. Here are some questions to ask yourself before having an important conversation:

• What am I thinking about the situation and the other person?

• What kind of emotional energy surfaces when I think about having this conversation?

• What is my motivation for having this conversation? What do I want to happen?

• Where am I on the “Intention Barometer”? Is the barometer leaning toward building or eroding goodwill? Am I giving this person the benefit of the doubt to reach an understanding and hear their ideas? Or, am I trying to prove I am right, win the argument, and/or make this person change?

• If I am leaning toward eroding goodwill, what would help me shift my intention toward building goodwill?

Clarifying your intention provides the foundation for preparing and communicating your message. In addition, remembering your goodwill intention during the conversation can help keep you grounded in the moment. £


NLRB Continues to Scrutinize Social Media and No-Gossip Policies Chad Orvis, Director of Labor Relations, Esq., SPHR

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has for at least the past three years been actively scrutinizing employer social media and no-gossip policies to determine whether they inter-fere with employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activity. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects employees in both union and nonunion workplaces in freely discussing wages, hours, and working conditions and joining together for their mutual aid and protection. The NLRB has struck down employer policies prohibiting such activities as being overbroad and unlawful.

Since the dawn of the office worker, employers have tried to address the detrimental effects “water cooler talk” and office gossip have on employee productivity. The advent of social media has increased this concern as it allows employee conversations about the workplace to spread far beyond office hallways. Employers have attempted to limit the impact of social media and office gossip by instituting policies aimed at curbing such behavior. However, the NLRB has found many policies dealing with these matters unlawfully overbroad and required employers to rescind them.

In a recent NLRB decision, Boch Imports, Inc. d/b/a Boch Honda (NLRB 2014) ,an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reviewed a social media policy that included the following provisions:

1. The Company requires its employees to confine any and all social media commentaries to topics that do not disclose any personal or financial information of employees, customers or other persons, and do not dis-close any confidential or proprietary information of the Company.

5. If an employee’s online blog, posting, or other social media activities are inconsistent with, or would nega-tively impact the Company’s reputation or brand, the employee should not refer to the Company, or identify his/her connection to the Company.

7. While the Company respects employees’ privacy, conduct that has, or has the potential to have a negative effect on the Company might be subject to disciplinary action up to, and including, termination, even if the conduct occurs off the property or off the clock.

8. Employees may not post videos or photos which are recorded in the workplace, without the Company’s permission.

9. If an employee is ever asked to make a comment to the media, the employee should contact the Vice Presi-dent of Operations before making a statement.

11. Employees choosing to write or post should write and post respectfully regarding current, former or potential customers, business partners, employees, competitors, managers and the Company. Employees will be held responsible for and can be disciplined for what they post and write on any social media. However, nothing in this Policy is intended to interfere with employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

CONTINUED ON NEXT

PAGE


The ALJ said, “it requires little discussion to find that a number of these provisions clearly violate the [NLRA] as employees would reasonably construe these provisions as preventing them from discussing their conditions of employment with their fellow employees, radio and television stations, newspapers or unions, or limiting the sub-jects that they could discuss.”

In another case, Laurus Technical Institute (NLRB 2014), the NLRB thwarted an employer’s attempt to limit office gossip when it upheld an ALJ decision that its no-gossip policy was unlawful. In relevant part, the policy stated, “Employees that participate in or instigate gossip about the company, an employee, or customer will receive disci-plinary action.” Nine months after the school instituted the policy, it terminated an employee, in part, for multiple complaints about repeated violations of the company’s written no-gossip policy. The ALJ concluded the policy violated the NLRA as overbroad, ambiguous, and restrictive of an employees’ right to discuss terms and conditions of employment. The ALJ then ruled the termination unlawful as it was based in part on the policy.

Many employers maintain social media and no-gossip policies similar to those at issue in these cases. Both deci-sions highlight that employers, union and nonunion, must be mindful of the NLRA when crafting policies to limit an employee’s use of social media and office gossip. As the case law continues to develop, employers are encouraged to revisit their handbooks to revise policies that may run counter to the NLRB’s enforcement position. Contact an MSEC attorney for assistance. £

NLRB continued


What Qualifies an Employee for the Outside Sales or Highly Compensated Exemption? Tina Harkness, Information Resource Manager, Esq., SPHR

This month we cap off our series by discussing the Outside Sales and Highly Compensated Exemptions. These are lesser-known exempt statuses for a couple of reasons. One reason is few

individuals qualify for the Outside Sales Exemption. The second reason is Highly Compensated Employee Exemp-tion is new since the 2004 regulation changes.

To qualify for the Outside Sales Exemption:

1. The employee’s primary duty must be making sales or obtaining orders.

2. The employee must be customarily and regularly engaged away from the employer’s place(s) of business.

SALARY BASIS EXCEPTION: Outside sales employees need not be paid on a salary or fee basis. And no minimum wage is required. They are not eligible for the Highly Compensated Exemption available to adminis-trative, executive, and professional employees.

WORDS TO THE WISE: Outside sales employees are rarely seen in the office, except perhaps the annual holiday party. They spend most of their time at customers’ places of business or, if selling door-to-door, at customers’ homes making and following up on sales. Work in the office incidental to and in conjunction with their outside sales, including incidental deliveries and collections, is considered exempt, as is other work that furthers the employee’s sales efforts, including writing sales reports, updating or revising sales or display catalogs, planning itineraries, and attending sales conferences.

WORDS TO THE WISE: Outside sales work does not include sales by mail, phone, or Internet unless such contact is merely an adjunct to personal calls. Employees who use a fixed site, whether home or office, as a headquarters or for telephonic solicitation of sales are inside—not outside—sales employees and non-exempt. Drivers who deliver and sell products may qualify as outside sales employees if their primary duty is making sales.

To qualify as a Highly Compensated Employee, an employee must:

1. Be paid a total annual compensation of $100,000 or more including commissions and non-discretionary bonuses.

2. Perform office or non-manual work.

3. Regularly perform one or more of the exempt duties in the tests for the executive, administrative, or professional exemptions.

SALARY BASIS EXCEPTION: “Total annual compensation” must include at least $455 per week paid on a sal-ary or fee basis, but may also include commissions, nondiscretionary bonuses, and other nondiscretionary compensation, but not board, lodging, and other facilities, or payments for medical or life insurance, contribu-tions to retirement plans, or the cost of other fringe benefits.

WORDS TO THE WISE: If an employee’s total annual compensation does not total $100,000 by the last pay period of the 52-week period, the employer may, during the last pay period or within one month after the end of the 52-week period, make one final payment sufficient to achieve the required level. For example, an employee earns $80,000 in base salary, and the employer anticipates he or she also will earn

CONTINUED ON NEXT

PAGE


$20,000 in commissions. However, due to poor sales, the employee only earns $10,000 in commissions. The employer may pay the employee $10,000 within one month after the end of the year to satisfy the exemption.

WORDS TO THE WISE: An employee who does not work a full year may qualify if the employee receives a pro rata portion of $100,000 based upon the number of weeks the employee will be or has been employed. The employer may use any 52-week period as the year, such as a calendar year, a fiscal year, or an anniversary of hire year. If the employer does not identify some other year period in advance, the calendar year will apply.

WORDS TO THE WISE: A high level of compensation is a strong indicator of an employee’s exempt sta-tus, eliminating the need for a detailed analysis of the employee’s job duties. Thus, a highly compensated employee will qualify for exemption if the employee customarily and regularly performs any one or more of the duties of an executive, administrative, or professional employee. For example, an employee may qual-ify as a highly compensated employee, if he or she customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more employees, even though the employee does not meet all of the other requirements for the executive exemption.

We know that properly classifying employees is not easy. Contact MSEC with your questions about exempt classifications. £

You Asked! continued

A benefit of MSEC membership

Log in at MSEC.org


The State of Pregnancy Accommodation Following New EEOC Guidance Meryl Eschen Mills, Employment Law Services Attorney

On July 14, 2014, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) pub-lished new enforcement guidance on pregnancy discrimination and related issues. The EEOC’s continued focus on pregnancy discrimination is no surprise. In December 2012, the agency highlighted accommodating pregnancy-related restrictions as an emerging and developing issue in its Strategic Enforcement Plan. Moreover, the number of charges alleging pregnancy discrimination has increased significantly—from approximately 3,900 in 1997 to 5,342 in 2013.

The guidance discusses who is covered by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), what violates the Act, the interplay between the PDA and the amended

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), accommodations for pregnant workers, other legal requirements affecting pregnant employees, and best practices.

Reactions to the guidance are mixed. Some feel the EEOC takes an overly broad view of an employer’s obligation to accommodate pregnant employees. The EEOC guidance indicates employers must offer accommodations to pregnant workers if they offer such accommodations to other non-pregnant employees with similar work restric-tions. It specifically notes that light-duty positions, which employers sometimes reserve for employees suffering from work-related injuries, should also be offered to pregnant employees. Failure to do so could be grounds for a pregnancy discrimination claim.

Others have questioned the timing of the guidance. Just two weeks prior to the guidance’s issuance, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (4th Cir. 2014). In Young, the Fourth Circuit held an employer did not necessarily have to offer light-duty work to pregnant workers as long as it consistently refused light-duty assignments to employees not injured on the job. It will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court considers the EEOC guidance in reaching its decision next term.

There was even internal disagreement at the EEOC over the guidance. Three commissioners voted to approve the guidance, while two opposed it.

Despite this, employers would be wise to take pregnancy discrimination issues seriously, as the EEOC is likely to continue its aggressive approach in fighting it. In particular, employers should evaluate their accommodation procedures to ensure they apply them consistently and do not inadvertently (or purposefully) adversely impact pregnant workers. Employers should also train managers and supervisors on how to treat pregnant employ-ees. Several of the discrimination examples cited in the guidance resulted from supervisors imposing their own stereotypes on pregnant workers, such as where a foreman forced a pregnant woman to take leave because he was worried the bending and pushing she had to do for her job would harm her unborn child, even though the employee did not have any restrictions.

Remember the guidance is not law; it is simply guidance on how the EEOC would view a pregnancy discrimi-nation claim. It remains to be seen whether the courts will agree with the agency’s interpretation. Even so, employers should review their practices and procedures for potential pregnancy-related bias. £


Colorado Employers Prepare for More Employment Verification Letters Tina Harkness, Information Resource Manager, Esq., SPHR

Colorado employers who contract with The Work Number should prepare to receive more employment verification letters from county offices of the Colorado Division of Child Support Services (CSS). Please read the following letter from CSS:

The Colorado Division of Child Support Services (CSS) would like to request the cooperation of our State’s employers. Going forward, county CSS offices will be sending employment verification letters to employers who have The Work Number as their employment verifier.

County CSS offices formerly were able to verify employment through The Work Number; however, they are no longer able to do so. Although we realize that this is an additional requirement for employers who have contracted with The Work Number, the county CSS offices have no other option at present.

Colorado law requires employers to respond to CSS office requests to provide information on employment, compensation, and benefits for anyone for whom they have this information on record. County CSS offices need this information to enforce support orders. Going forward, employers will have to respond to the employment verification letters issued by the county CSS offices, even if they have an existing contract with The Work Number.

We thank you for your continued support. Please contact either Mary Clair at [email protected] or Mike Erickson at [email protected] with your questions.

We asked CSS a few follow-up questions and they graciously responded. Here are those questions and answers:

Is there a penalty for employers who fail to provide the information?

No. There is no specific penalty under Colorado law.

Are employers protected in providing this information?

Yes. The same law that requires employers to provide this information also protects them from liability.

Can employers provide health insurance information without violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)?

Yes. The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) has responded to this question at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/medical-support-enforcement-under-iv-d-program-phi-hipaa. In its response, the OSCE cites a portion of HIPAA’s Privacy Rule, which it interprets as giving CSS authority to collect this information from employers. £


Are You a Fiduciary of Your Employer’s Retirement Plan? Peggy Hoyt-Hoch, Employment Law Services Attorney, SPHR, CBP, GBA

Employees call you with questions. You conduct employee orientation where you explain your plan to new hires. You collect enrollment forms and loan applications and handle participant terminations and distribution requests. At least one employee at each orientation session has asked you what investment funds you selected to save and invest your deferrals. Your plan clearly says Susan Smith is the “Named Fiduciary.” You are off the hook, right? Well, not so fast. Read on.

Fiduciary responsibility can attach to you, even when you are unaware of it. Somewhat like bubonic plague, it is easy to share, but difficult to get rid of. Every company-sponsored retirement plan comes with fiduciary liability. Generally, any individual who has discretion over plan assets, management, or administration of a benefit plan, or who is paid to provide investment advice to a plan, can share it. For this reason, employers who sponsor retire-ment plans need to learn what fiduciary liability is; who has it; how one gets it; what responsibility comes with it; and how to ensure the fiduciaries of your plan are aware, informed, and protected from unnecessary exposure and risks that accompany fiduciary responsibility. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) governs the identification of, standards of behavior for, and designation of fiduciaries.

Identify the FiduciariesMost plans have more than one. ERISA recognizes both a Functional Fiduciary and a Fiduciary in Fact. ERISA sec-tion 402(a) requires the Named Fiduciary to be identified in the plan document. This is generally the employer, the employer’s board of directors, or the employer’s retirement plan committee or other appointed committee. Smaller plans may actually put the person’s name or position into the plan document. Other individuals can take on fiduciary status by their behavior alone. This requires a careful analysis of facts and circumstances.

Whether an individual is a Fiduciary in Fact is determined by the behavior or actions taken by the person. Any individual who exercises discretion over plan assets, operations, or decisions can be a Fiduciary in Fact. Courts have confirmed that fiduciary administration functions encompass even such activities as communicating plan terms and choices to participants and beneficiaries. In a case from the late nineties, it was argued that an indi-vidual employee, who had acted as a fiduciary in fact, was liable for the action. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the individual was a fiduciary since he exercised control, even though it was not clear whether he was ever authorized to do so. Yeseta v. Baima (9th Cir. 1989). The individual was never designated a plan fiduciary but, even so, the court held he was a responsible fiduciary.

Fiduciaries typically include trustees, investment advisors, all individuals exercising discretion in the administra-tion of the plan, all members of a plan’s administrative committee or retirement plan committee, and those who select committee officials. Attorneys, accountants, and actuaries are not fiduciaries when acting solely in their professional capacities. The key to determining whether an individual or an entity is a fiduciary is whether they exercise discretion or control over the plan.

Courts tend to construe fiduciary status quite liberally. As the term fiduciary evolves, we see courts expand the general policies and objectives of operating the plan in the best interests of participants and beneficiaries (not the plan sponsor). This generally describes the standard of care, duty, and prudence required of each fiduciary.

Fiduciaries are jointly and severally liable for one another’s actions. If you serve as a fiduciary with a co-fiduciary who performs bad acts—even if you are unaware of those acts—a court may decide you “should have been

CONTINUED ON NEXT

PAGE


aware” of them. This failure to know, when you should have known, is in itself a fiduciary violation! Generally, a fiduciary that knowingly participates in a co-fiduciary’s breach of responsibility, conceals the breach, or does not act to correct it, also becomes liable for it.

Educate the FiduciariesFiduciary duties are the highest known in law. While a trustee is held to something stricter than the morals of the marketplace, fiduciaries are subject to three different and overlapping standards of ERISA section 404. Since fiduciary liability can pass to an individual fiduciary’s own person and assets, employers should fully brief any fiduciary, ensuring they are aware of the standards of behavior and that they consult professionals when it comes to complex situations or other required due diligence. MSEC can tailor a fiduciary briefing to your board or plan committee, for members who request one, on a for-fee basis.

Fiduciary DutiesFiduciaries are expected to uphold certain duties with the skills of a prudent person and to follow specific stan-dards of conduct, including:

• Acting solely in the best interests of plan participants and their beneficiaries and with the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to them

• Carrying out their duties prudently

• Following plan documents (unless inconsistent with ERISA)

• Diversifying plan investments

• Paying only reasonable plan expenses

The duty to act prudently requires expertise in a variety of areas. Lacking that expertise, a fiduciary should hire someone with the professional knowledge to carry out the investment or other complex responsibilities. Pru-dence focuses on the process followed when making fiduciary decisions—even more than the actual decision. This is why it is important to document your process for reaching plan-level decisions. A common example is to survey a number of potential providers or even conduct a formal request for proposal asking for the same infor-mation and providing the same requirements. By doing so, a fiduciary can document the process and make a thoughtful comparison and proper selection.

Future articles will discuss retirement plan bonding requirements, indemnification practices, and insurance pro-tections available to support and protect your plan and plan fiduciaries. Remember, you may be one of them! £


Supreme Court Says Court Testimony is Free Speech Lorrie Ray, Director of Membership Development, Esq., SPHR

In 2006, Edward Lane discharged Alabama State Representative Suzanne Schmitz from the state program he directed. He later testified against her in front of a grand jury and in two sepa-rate jury trials, about her behavior at work. Eventually, Schmitz was convicted of mail fraud and theft.

Steve Franks, Lane’s boss, discharged Lane. Lane believed Franks fired him for testifying against Schmitz and sued. Franks argued Lane’s speech was part of his job duties and as such not protected by the First Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. Lane appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, who handed down its deci-sion in June of this year. Lane v. Franks (U.S. 2014).

The Supreme Court determined the question they were to answer was a discrete one: whether the First Amend-ment protects an employee who does not ordinarily testify as a part of his job for testifying about matters related to work. In a unanimous decision, the Court held when a public employee testifies about a work related matter—unless testifying is part of his or her job duties—he or she is testifying as a citizen and entitled to protection.

The Court explained, “Sworn testimony in judicial proceedings is a quintessential example of speech as a citi-zen for a simple reason: Anyone who testifies in court bears an obligation, to the court and society at large, to tell the truth.” The justices pointed out that when there is a public corruption scandal, it is important for public employees, who have a great deal of information and insight as a result of their jobs, to be able to testify truthfully without being at risk for doing so.

The Court also held the speech related directly to a matter of both political and social concern to the community at large. Under the Pickering test, the public concern must be balanced against efficient government operations. However, the justices found absolutely no government interest to weigh against the matter of a public concern when using the balancing test.

This case makes quite clear that an employee who does not ordinarily testify as a part of his or her job is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be discharged for testifying about a work-related matter. The court has left open the issue of what happens when an employee testifies as part of his or her job. £


2015 Pay ProjectionsLook for the 2015 Pay Increase and Health Insurance Increase Projections on MSEC.org in September. As data are collected, we will keep this site up-to-date with the latest numbers. The 2014 Planning Packet containing the 2015 Pay Increase Projections for Arizona, Colorado, and Wyoming will be available in September.

2014 Paid Time Off – Arizona, Colorado, and WyomingDo you often find yourself wondering how many weeks of paid vacation an employee receives after one year of ser-vice? Or, how much sick time a non-exempt employee receives in a year? Well, MSEC’s biennial Paid Time Off Survey collects data related to vacation, sick, PTO plans, holiday, bereavement leave, FMLA, inclement weather and other paid time off policies. Help us produce a valuable resource your organization can use when benchmarking paid-time-off policies by participating in the 2014 edition of the survey. MSEC members have received an email with instructions for completing the online questionnaire for this survey. For individuals who prefer to complete a paper questionnaire, a hard copy is available on our website at MSEC.org under “Survey Questionnaires.”

As always, it is the participation of our members that helps make MSEC surveys the number-one data source for the region!

Salary Survey Data: Making Sense of the NumbersSeptember 9, 2014 / 8:30-11:30 am FREE MSEC Denver Office This free seminar presents the basics of wage and salary data. Topics include questionnaire mechanics, survey meth-odologies, and what to look for when using the MSEC surveys. This seminar is designed for individuals responsible for completing MSEC questionnaires and using survey data, especially those new to the responsibility.

Survey Highlights2014 Colorado REA Compensation SurveyThe 2014 Colorado Rural Electric Association Compensation Survey is now available. This survey provides wage and salary information in 22 Colorado Rural Electric Associations for 53 positions. Salary data are displayed by employment size. Also included are compensation costs as a percentage of operating revenue and total revenue, average entry-level hir-ing rates for inside and outside positions, and flexible work schedules.

Union Wage Increases Remain UnchangedUnion wage increases, collectively bargained through August 4, 2014, averaged 2.0 percent, the same as during the comparable period of 2013. The industry group with the greatest increase in first-year wage increases (lump sums not factored) from 2013 was manufacturing, which increased from 2.0 percent to 2.6 percent. State and local government had a slight increase from 1.6 percent in 2013 to 1.8 percent. The greatest decrease was in the construction industry dropping from 2.9 percent to 1.8 percent in 2014. The non-manufacturing (excluding construction) industry also had a slight decrease from 2.6 percent to 2 percent 3 percent. For first-year wage increases (lump sums factored), again the manufacturing industry had the greatest increase from 2.9 percent to 3.9 percent in 2014. These data are compiled by the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA).

CONTINUED ON NEXT

PAGE


Thank you for reading The Bulletin

Want to participate?If you would like to participate in any of the above surveys and have not received a questionnaire, please call the Surveys Department. You can also download the questionnaire from our website at MSEC.org.

As always, it is the participation of our members that helps make MSEC surveys the number-one data source for the region. Thank you!

To request copies of the surveys, please contact the MSEC Surveys Department. Copies of these resources are available to authorized personnel of MSEC members. Call 800.884.1328, email [email protected], or go online to MSEC.org.

By major industrial groups the average first year wage increases, year-to-date was:

First-Year Average Wage Increases (Lump Sums Not Factored)

First-Year Average Wage Increases (Lump Sums Factored)

2014 2 013

All Industries 2.0% 2.0%

Manufacturing 2.6% 2.0%

Non-manufacturing (w/out Construction) 2.3% 2.6%

Construction 1.8% 2.9%

2014 2013

All Industries 2.3% 2.4%

Manufacturing 3.9% 2.9%

Non-manufacturing (w/out Construction) 2.6% 3.3%

Construction 1.8% 2.9%

Documents

September Bulletin 2014