Copy Another Company's Employee Handbook at Your Peril
Eric Swenson of Managing People in the 21st Century discusses how small businesses will sometimes "borrow" and "modify" another company's employee handbook in an effort to save money. Swenson's post illustrates why this is a bad idea.
In one instance, a small company not required to offer FMLA benefits under the law was required to do so because of misstatements in their employee handbook. The article from the Sedgwick Law Firm in California refers to an Iowa Federal Court decision by Judge Bennett in Myers v. Tursso Company, Inc. Judge Bennett held it is possible that an employer with fewer than 50 employees within a 75 mile radius, could still find themselves "required" to grant FMLA leave, based on their conduct, even though not technically within the coverage of the statute.
For more check out the article by Michael Fox on Jottings by an Employment Lawyer.
Rush - thanks for the shout out!
Eric
The handbook in question was from the company's St. Paul, Minnesota headquarters and printing plant, which mirrors the Fort Dodge,Iowa plant. The plant shares job tickets, tooling, supplies, payroll, and some pesonnel for the Fort Dodge plant.
I don't see how the Tursso Companies St. Paul plant
and the Fort Dodge, Iowa plants are separate companies. To me, a former employee, they are like Wal-Mart stores in separate towns.
Steve:
I appreciate your comment. The title of my post is not necessarily related to the circumstances of your former employer. The title of the post is a warning to all employers that merely copying a handbook without making sure the provisions apply to your company's circumstances is critical. I have seen this happen several times and I know other employment lawyers have seen this as well.
Your former employer's case provided an excellent example of what can happen to even the SAME company when the same provisions are used for employee handbooks in different locations. In this case the provisions caused liability for FMLA leave where the statute did not require it.
Another example could be a company that has no provisions relating to sexual orientation and gender identity in accordance with its home state laws but now because of new Iowa laws a plant in Iowa should absolutely have those policies.
I hope that clears up any confusion you may have.
Rush