Human resources FSLA Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Human resources FSLA - Case ruminate ExampleThere atomic number 18 prerogatives of fee of the extra hours by the Act, meaning that not all employees are appropriate for compensation by the Act.The role player in this case is eligible for compensation of the overtime hours by the employer under the Act. From the scenario, there was denial for the employees appeal for compensation by the department. The department claims to have a policy where they do not consider overtime where an employee is on duty during his off duty hours (Calvasina et al, 2010). Conversely, the worker works for extra hours so that he is able to keep to the standards of his job description of top fleshly conditioning. The extra hours by the worker, area benefits the company too, because during the overtime hours the employee works for the good of the employee, and not for his own squash (Calvasina et al, 2010)There are no legal exemptions by the Act against the employee in this scenario, so the department s hould reward him (Costa, 2000). The Act vividly expounds overtime hours as time that one works when there are no authoritative directions from the employer to do so. The employee in this case toils for not certified operational extra hours therefore, the employee should get his compensation from the employer. (Scott, 2010)Employers can shun FLSA claims by guaranteeing that they consult with the human resource team to ensure that they comply with the requirements by the Act (Calvasina et al, 2010). This entails making sure that there is the proper classification of all employees, to know whether the law excludes the worker. The employee does this by asking some questions relevant to the Act and carrying out tests where there is no clarification about the exemption status (Costa, 2000).The human resource department should ensure that they explain to the employees about the Act so that they annul scenarios where the employees state to have claims, whereas there is none (Scott, 2010). Employers do