Wal-Mart’s mea culpa in a case involving overtime pay for
thousands of workers cost it tens of millions of dollars, but may have saved the
company millions more, according to legal experts.
On Thursday, January 25, the giant retailer reached an
agreement with the Department of Labor to pay $33 million in back wages and
interest to 86,680 employees who were not properly compensated for overtime
under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The company reported itself to the federal
agency two years ago when it found errors during an internal review.
Ft. Smith, Arkansas.
The company admitted that it failed to include bonuses and
other incentives when calculating regular pay, which is then used to determine
overtime pay. It also set the regular rate on a biweekly rather than weekly
basis and didn’t give appropriate overtime payments to managers in training.
“We want our associates to know that the situation has been
fixed, that overtime calculations now are being done correctly, and that we’ve
added safeguards to our payroll processes to make sure these types of errors
don’t happen again,” said Sue Oliver, senior vice president of the Wal-Mart
people division. “We are committed to our associates and we apologize to them
for this error.”
Wal-Mart says that it went back five years, instead of the
two years required by the law, to settle underpayments. The average amount that
will be paid in back wages is $386 per worker. Salaried nonexempt managers in
training will get an average of $843. Some workers will receive much higher
payments.
The company also says that it found that 215,000 workers were
overpaid but that it won’t ask for the money back.
Wal-Mart’s proactive approach impressed employment lawyers.
“I have to applaud Wal-Mart for stepping forward the way they did,” says T.J.
Wray, a partner at Fulbright & Jaworski, a Houston law firm. “It was a smart thing to
do.”
The company may have saved millions of dollars in court fees
and legal hassles by reporting itself.
“It would have been much more costly for Wal-Mart to fight
the class action through the court system,” says Thomas B. Lewis, partner in
charge of the employment litigation group at Stark & Stark in Princeton, New
Jersey.
In this case, Wal-Mart workers would have been able to pursue
a solid case based on violation of federal law. If a class action had been
brought, it could have been fought out in each state where the company has
stores.
“Wal-Mart recognized that and grabbed [the situation] before
it spun out of control,” Lewis says. “It takes out huge potential exposure down
the road.”
The company lost a $78 million case in Pennsylvania this past
fall for failing to pay employees who worked off the clock.
Even though Wal-Mart blew the whistle on itself, its
opponents were not satisfied with the outcome.
“Today’s settlement between Wal-Mart and the Bush Labor
Department is not only an admission of wrongdoing by Wal-Mart but represents
another ‘backroom sweetheart deal’ that potentially undermines the rights of
millions of Wal-Mart workers and proves that Wal-Mart’s cozy dealings with the
Bush administration have no bounds,” Chris Kofinis, communications director for
WakeUpWalMart.com, said in a statement.
Kofinis also accused the government and Wal-Mart of making a
“secret settlement without any outside legal representation for the workers
affected.”
A Department of Labor official, however, dismissed the notion
that the agency gave Wal-Mart a slap on the wrist.
Steven Mandel, associate solicitor in the Fair Labor
Standards division, says workers received five years of recovery in an agreement
that went beyond the two-year statute of limitations.
“We take very seriously our obligation to enforce the Fair
Labor Standards Act on behalf of employees,” Mandel says.
Wal-Mart employees were not consulted during the
investigation because there was no dispute about the violations or the
application of the law. “There was no need to interview employees or get
employee input,” Mandel says.
He also emphasized that by entering into the settlement,
Wal-Mart agreed to a nationwide injunction. If it commits further overtime
violations, it would mean that Wal-Mart is in contempt of court.
“That is probably the most powerful weapon we have at our
disposal,” Mandel says.
Wray doubts that the agency has an inappropriately close
relationship with Wal-Mart.
“In 30 years of practice, I’ve never seen the Department of
Labor cozy with anybody,” he says.
—Mark Schoeff Jr.