Is Predictive Scheduling Coming To Connecticut?

In certain businesses where work volume cannot be known in advance, such as outdoor maintenance work that is dependent on the weather and delivery of materials, or service work that is dependent on the volume of customers, employers try to keep labor costs under control by using “call-in” or “just-in-time” scheduling; i.e., having employees call to find out if they are to work that same day or the following day.

Obviously, what may be a good model for business can be a bad model for workers with family responsibilities and a need for steady income, which has led to the adoption of state and local laws requiring predictive scheduling.  For example, by city ordinance in San Francisco and by Department of Labor regulation in New York State, employers must post schedules at least 14 days in advance, and must provide extra pay for workers who are called to work without compliance with the posted schedule.

A more modest requirement for predictive scheduling has now been introduced in the Connecticut legislature.  Entitled An Act Stabilizing Working Families By Limiting “On Call” Shift Scheduling, Raised Bill No. 321, the proposed law would require most employers to provide not less than 24 hours’ notice to an employee of the employee’s shift.  If enacted by the General Assembly, the law would take effect on October 1, 2018.

The bill contains two exemptions. It exempts health care employees (which includes employees involved both in direct patient care and in registration and escorting of patients or family members), seeming to recognize a major industry where minimum staffing levels  are required by law but actual needs are unpredictable, and where over-staffing can be very expensive.  The other exemption is for per diem and occasional or irregular employment, recognizing that some people choose to be on per diem or on call lists, and can usually decline a last-minute assignment without penalty.

Unlike legislation in other states, the bill punts the issue of enforcement, merely providing that the Labor Commissioner may adopt regulations to provide for implementation and enforcement.

As noted in Mark Sommaruga’s recent post on this blog [Latest Developments From the Connecticut General Assembly: March 8th Public Hearing], this bill was referred to the General Assembly’s Committee on Children rather than the Labor and Public Employees Committee, even though the bill obviously regulates employers rather than children.  The Committee on Children held a public hearing on the bill on March 6, 2018.

This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.

PDF
Subscribe to Updates

About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog

Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, immigration law and union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.

Other Blogs by Pullman & Comley

Education Law Notes

Connecticut Health Law Blog

Recent Posts

Archives

Jump to Page