29 C.F.R. § 778.303

Retroactive pay increases

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Where a retroactive pay increase is awarded to employees as a result of collective bargaining or otherwise, it operates to increase the regular rate of pay of the employees for the period of its retroactivity. Thus, if an employee is awarded a retroactive increase of 10 cents per hour, he is owed, under the Act, a retroactive increase of 15 cents for each overtime hour he has worked during the period, no matter what the agreement of the parties may be. A retroactive pay increase in the form of a lump sum for a particular period must be prorated back over the hours of the period to which it is allocable to determine the resultant increases in the regular rate, in precisely the same manner as a lump sum bonus. For a discussion of the method of allocating bonuses based on employment in a prior period to the workweeks covered by the bonus payment, see § 778.209.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1982–2008 · leading case: Scott v. City of New York, 592 F. Supp. 2d 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Scott v. City of New York, 592 F. Supp. 2d 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “See 29 C.F.R. § 778.303 . 151 . See id. § 778.”

Laffey v. Nw. Airlines, 582 F. Supp. 280 (D.D.C. 1982). “Defendant then observes that an FLSA regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 778.303 , specifically provides for determining the existence and extent of a differential by including retroactive payments made under a collective bargaining agreement that fixes the wage rates for an earlier period.”

Hisle v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 113 Wash. App. 401 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “That being so, 29 C.F.R. § 778.303 is directly in point and highly persuasive with respect to the treatment of the ratification incentive in this case, which is tied directly to the number of hours actually worked by non-Washington State Ferry Project employees that were…”

Hisle v. Todd Pac. Shipyards Corp., 54 P.3d 687 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “303 is directly in point and highly persuasive with respect to the treatment of the ratification incentive in this case, which is tied directly to the number of hours actually worked by non-Washington State Ferry Project employees that were actively employed or had seniority…”

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.