Wages cut by 15% but promised to be returned

[aotoole]

What is the name of your state? NJ

I worked for a small company that cut all employee's salaries by 15% for over a year but promised that the money be repaid when funding was secured. None of this was in writing, just mentioned at company meetings(both the promises of re-payment and the reducing of wages)....it was represented as onlysupposed to be for only a short time (several weeks). It actually took 17 months for the funding to be secured.

I was fed up and left the company, the employees who stayed were returned their docked pay...I have tried to contact the officers to request my fair share and they have not been responsive. Am I legally entitled to those wages because I was promised them by an officer of the compay? and am I a victim of discrimintation because the people who are still there were paid but those who left were not?

Thanks,
AJ

 

[Beth3]

Am I legally entitled to those wages because I was promised them by an officer of the compay? That's difficult to say as it depends upon what EXACTLY was said by managment. While I expect this won't strike you as fair, it's understandable why the company provided back pay only to those employees still with them when the funding was finally secured - they rewarded those who stuck it out. If you want to know whether they have to reimburse you for the paycut, you'll need to consult with an attorney.

and am I a victim of discrimintation because the people who are still there were paid but those who left were not No - not even close.

 

[aotoole]

While I expect this won't strike you as fair, it's understandable why the company provided back pay only to those employees still with them when the funding was finally secured

I understand that why they would want to reward people for "sticking it out" but there were never any conditions put on the repayment of the money. It's not really a reward if they are just paying you what they withheld from your agreed upon salary. I also understand that the last thing that they want to do is to write a check to a person who is no longer working for them, but I invested 15% of my salary in the company for over 1 year and recieved nothing in return while others that did the same were repaid.


I think that the discrimintation comes into play when they tell everyone that they will be repaid in full but only feel that they have to repay those that still are employed there. This repayment was promised to everybody in the same way.

 

[gryndor]

I think that the discrimintation comes into play when they tell everyone that they will be repaid in full but only feel that they have to repay those that still are employed there. This repayment was promised to everybody in the same way.

Discrimination only becomes a factor when unequal treatment is because of race, gender, religion, blah, blah, blah...

Otherwise, it's just "unfair."

Gryn

 

[Beth3]

I understand why you feel they should pay you the 15% even though you're no longer working there and I'm not saying that they shouldn't. I'm just saying I understand why they haven't.

I think that the discrimintation comes into play when they tell everyone that they will be repaid in full but only feel that they have to repay those that still are employed there. This repayment was promised to everybody in the same way. The criteria that constitutes prohibited discrimination is fully laid out in State and federal laws. Your situation does not come close to any of those. You may call it discrimination if you wish but the law does not.

You may have a civil claim to bring for the back pay but only an attorney can advise you on that.