Cal. Codes » Labor Code
California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 227.3 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Unless otherwise provided by a collective-bargaining agreement, whenever a contract of employment or employer policy provides for paid vacations, and an employee is terminated without having taken off his vested vacation time, all vested vacation shall be paid to him as wages at his final rate in accordance with such contract of employment or employer policy respecting eligibility or time served; provided, however, that an employment contract or employer policy shall not provide for forfeiture of vested vacation time upon termination. The Labor Commissioner or a designated representative, in the resolution of any dispute with regard to vested vacation time, shall apply the principles of equity and fairness.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 73 cases (34 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc., 209 Cal. App. 4th 62 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc., 209 Cal. App. 4th 62 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “2005 and filed a first amended complaint in April 2006 alleging counts for (1) failure to pay overtime compensation due under state law; (2) failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks; (3) failure to pay wages for work performed “off the clock”; (4) failure to pay promised…”
Church v. Jamison, 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9880 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “Accordingly, we will decide the issue anew based on (1) the language of Labor Code section 227.3 and (2) the fundamental principles of law that govern the application of statutes of limitations.”
In re Bank of Am. Wage & Hour Emp. Litig., 286 F.R.D. 572 (D. Kan. 2012). · cites it 4× “7 and 512; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code § 226; forfeiture of vacation pay in violation of California Labor Code § 227.”
Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (1994). “Cal. Lab. Code Ann. §227.3 (West 1989) (allowing parties to collective-bargaining agreement to arrive at different rule for vacation pay).”
Massachusetts v. Morash, 490 U.S. 107 (1989). “§11-4-401 (1987); Cal. Lab. Code Ann. §227.3 (West Supp. 1989); Colo.”
Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (C.D. Cal. 2006). · cites it 2× “Cal. Labor Code § 227.3 . The California Supreme Court has held that a proportionate right to a paid vacation “vests” as the labor is rendered.”
In Re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Wage & Hour Litig., 505 F. Supp. 2d 609 (N.D. Cal. 2007). “Plaintiffs assert six claims for relief against Wal-Mart, alleging that Wal-Mart has “administered and employed a corporate policy, practice and/or custom” of engaging in the following: (1) violations of California Labor Code sections 201-203 by late payment of wages at…”
Lucas v. Santa Maria Pub. Airport Dist., 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8397 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “This is a decision which lies within the sound discretion of the agency, pursuant to statutory authority. We may not disturb it.”
Henry v. Amrol, Inc., 222 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 1 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 1990). · cites it 3× “Once vested, Labor Code section 227.3 protects it from forfeiture.”
Boothby v. Atlas Mech., Inc., 15 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2030 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Such a provision does not attempt forfeiture of vested vacation and is therefore permissible. Here, an employee sued his former employer for, among other things, vacation allegedly earned over several years but unused, for which his employer did not pay him at termination.”
Czechowski v. Tandy Corp., 731 F. Supp. 406 (N.D. Cal. 1990). · cites it 2× “Moreover, counsel have an obligation to bring to the court’s attention any possible defect in subject matter jurisdiction whenever discovered in order to avoid further proceedings in the federal courts that may prove futile.”
Choate v. Celite Corp., 20 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1498 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “” (Lab. Code, § 227.3; see § 201.) 1 We hold that a collective bargaining agreement “otherwise provide[s]” and thereby abrogates an employee’s statutory right under section 227.”
Show all 73 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.