The information you receive on this website does not constitute legal advice and is not intended to be so. You should seek advice from a lawyer about your personal situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and emails. Contacting us does not create a customer relationship. Please do not send us confidential information until an attorney-client relationship is established. Read the full disclaimer. The complaint alleges that P.F. Changas failed to pay its servers the full federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for time spent performing the work without tips (often referred to as « escort work, » such as rolling or polishing cutlery, cleaning work areas, preparing food or workplaces, restocking jobs, etc.). The lawsuit alleges that P.F. Changâs wrongly paid its servers minimum wage (which allows an employer to apply the tips that waiters earn to its minimum wage obligation in certain circumstances) for all hours worked, even though the servers spent more than 20% of their time working without tips. Because of the underpayment of the minimum wage for each hour worked, the lawsuit also alleges that P.F.
Changâs failed to pay overtime at the correct rate for overtime of more than 40 hours worked in a work week. The lawsuit, filed as a class action under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and as a class action under the laws of Pennsylvania and Virginia, seeks unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime pay, double damages and additional state damages. Before initiating criminal proceedings, EPFO gives the employer a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The EPFO authorities may also charge interest for the late filing of ETH deductions and take collection measures. The second question put to the Court of First Instance was whether the directors of the company were to be regarded as employers to be penalised for the infringement provided for by the relevant legislation. After filing a complaint, the supervisory authority of the pension fund investigates the employer. Legal action will be taken if it is found during the investigation that the EPF amount has been deducted but not filed. On Friday, April 1, 2016, Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, in collaboration with Werman Salas P.C., filed a class action lawsuit against P.F.
Changâs China Bistro, Inc. (âP.F. Changâsâ or âdefend). The lawsuit is filed on behalf of all servers, bussers, runners, bartenders and other « tip workers » who work or have worked at P.F. Chang`s China Bistro restaurants owned and/or operated by P.F. Chang`s China Bistro, Inc. in the United States. The lawsuit alleges that P.F. Chang`s implemented widespread practices and policies that violate its employees` tipping rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Illinois Minimum Wage Act (« IMWL ») and the New York Labor Act (« NYLL »). The lawsuit alleges that P.F. Changâs failed to pay its tips at appropriate minimum rates, overtime, off-duty work and allocation of hours of work, as well as misappropriation of tips, by making illegal deductions and failing to provide accurate pay statements and proper annual salary notices. In particular, the complaint alleges that the defendants required their tipped employees to regularly perform non-tipped work that had nothing to do with their inclined profession.
This self-employment accounted for more than 20% of employees` time tipped each work week and included, but was not limited to, sweeping floors, cleaning stainless steel kitchen appliances, folding and filling take-out food containers, emptying garbage cans, cleaning and filling spice containers, cutting fruit and rolling cutlery. While this work should have been paid at the full minimum wage rate, the lawsuit alleges that P.F. Changas paid hourly wages to its employees overpaid below minimum wage and tip credit, in violation of FLSA, IMWL and NYLL. In light of previous Supreme Court decisions, the High Court ruled that « the directors of the company cannot be named as employers/owners for the purpose of prosecution for the commission of criminal breach of trust under Section 405/406/409 of the Indian Penal Code ». HC dismissed the criminal charges against the directors. He noted that the directors were not « major employers » and « cannot be held vicariously responsible for the company`s alleged crimes. » Employers cannot shirk their responsibility to file employees` Public Service contributions in a timely manner. In addition, the employer cannot be exempted even if he files the dues after a late appeal has already been filed, according to a recent Kolkata Supreme Court ruling in Malhati Tea & Industries Ltd. & Ors vs State of West Bengal & Anr. In that case, one of the important questions before the court was: Do the arrears of statutory contributions exempt the corporation from liability for the crime committed as a result of the late filing of the employee`s share fund? The court did not acquit Malhati Tea & Industries Ltd, which had committed the offence of failing to file the PF contribution on time. The employer must deposit the amount withheld into the employee`s FP account each month.
The length of this type of trial varies from case to case, but it usually lasts from one to three years. Under section 14-B of the Employees` Provident Funds Act 1952 and Miscellaneous Provisions, EPFO is entitled to recover damages if an employer fails to make contributions to the PF account. In such cases, employees can take several steps to deduct their salary amount from the FP contribution. EPFO regularly informs subscribers of monthly deposits in their FP accounts by means of SMS notifications. Of the employer`s share, 8.33 per cent goes to the Employees` Pension Plan (EPS), with the remaining 3.67 per cent going to the PF account. The employer must remit the monthly deductions to the EPF in the employee`s FP account. The employer must pay the ETH contribution within 15 days of the salary paid for the last month. The Provident Fund enforcement agent had filed an FIR in 2011 against the company, one of its former directors and three existing directors, alleging that they had failed to pay the employees` share of the pension fund contribution for the period April 2007 to October 2007 in the amount of Rs 12,72,266. The PF official had alleged that the company and its directors had committed an offence punishable under Section 406/409 of the Indian Penal Code. Police closed the investigation and filed a complaint against the company in December 2013.
A special judge issued an arrest warrant for the directors. The special judge also rejected the administrators` request to recall the arrest warrant. The authority vigorously stated: « It insisted that it would not be reasonable and justified to terminate the proceedings for failure to deposit shares in the employees` and employer`s pension fund with the legal authority within the prescribed period. » According to the ETH Act, non-payment of the amount deducted from the provident fund would result in a penalty.