AuditBible
November 20, 2017, 11:01:31 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Google
 
   Home   News Alerts Help Search Calendar Members Contributions Staff List Login Register  
Download Original Documents Sport Beans Energizing Jelly Beans
Del.icio.us Digg FURL FaceBook Stumble Upon Reddit SlashDot Google Bookmarks

Pages: 1   Go Down
  Add bookmark  |  Print  
Author Topic: AuditBible Bulletin - Precedential Decision ~ 88101  (Read 4597 times)
 
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
auditor1
Chief Scribe
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 98



Activity
70%


View Profile WWW
« on: September 19, 2008, 02:45:21 AM »

The attached AuditBible Bulletin summarizes the most recent Precedential Decision adopted 8-27-08 by the Insurance Commissioner of California. 

It involves a non-profit corporation with 25 employees operating group-centered summer camp programs for children and families in Tuolumne County, with administrative offices in San Francisco.  With the exception of 2 employees, all others work under a 9-month contract on an hourly basis at the San Francisco office, and under a separate contract during the summer months at the Appellant's campsite. 

Our AuditBible Bulletin summarizes the pertinent classification issues addressed in the dispute between the Appellant and SCIF and the WCIRB, however, there are additional relevant details in the decision to aid in classifying camp operations.  Please refer to the You must login to view links.
Register or Login
Precidential Decisions post
to obtain a copy of the 18-page decision and read it for yourself.

As always, we've provided a thumbnail to allow non-members to view a portion of the bulletin.  In order to download the entire bulletin, please take five minutes to become a member of our community.  There's no cost or obligation. Smiley

There are 1 attachment(s) in this post which you cannot view or download. Please login to have access to attachments.
AB Bulletin Precedential Decision - 8810.pdf
Logged
beancounter
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Experience: 1985
Posts: 168



Activity
100%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2008, 09:30:56 AM »

Why would the Bureau would assert that
Quote
...an employee's payroll cannot be split between two classifications based on the amount of time the employee performs each task."
Seems like a contradiction of Part 3, Section V, Paragraph 3 Division of Single Employee's Payroll.
Logged

bc
auditor1
Chief Scribe
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 98



Activity
70%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2008, 10:04:56 AM »

Right you are, Beancounter -- I noticed that too.

The Division of a Single Employee's Payroll rule details the conditions in which the "splitting" of an employee's payroll between two classifications based on the amount of time the employee performs each task is permitted.  The exceptions to this rule are:

  a. In connection with the Standard Exception classifications (i.e. 88101 Clerical and 87421 Salespersons) and,
  b. If the division is contrary to classification phraseology

Having found a handful of typos throughout the decision, I can only assume that the Bureau's contention was inadequately recorded.  It would appear to me that the Bureau must have qualified that statement by saying that a clerical employee's payroll cannot be split...
Logged
Bracketman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Occupation: Classification and Test Audit
Location: CA
Experience: 1970
Posts: 2



Activity
0%

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2009, 03:12:15 PM »

You're quite correct, of course.  The original issue was whether the payroll of individuals could be segregated between the camp classification 9048 and the clerical office classification 8810 based upon time spent in each activity.  The California Division of a Single Employee's Payroll prohibits such segretation. 
Logged
auditor1
Chief Scribe
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 98



Activity
70%


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2009, 08:20:45 PM »

Thank you Bracketman - I appreciate your confirmation on that  Wink
Logged
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Add bookmark  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
9011, 8740, 8810 Resident Employees - CDI Precedential Decision Manual Rules & Legislation beancounter 0 438 Last post January 12, 2017, 03:33:44 PM
by beancounter
9048 CDI Precedential Decision Manual Rules & Legislation beancounter 0 386 Last post January 12, 2017, 03:51:03 PM
by beancounter
9048 CDI Precedential Decision Manual Rules & Legislation beancounter 0 387 Last post January 12, 2017, 03:55:43 PM
by beancounter
3643 CDI Precedential Decision Manual Rules & Legislation beancounter 0 414 Last post January 12, 2017, 04:03:06 PM
by beancounter
8015 CDI Precedential Decision Manual Rules & Legislation beancounter 0 389 Last post January 12, 2017, 04:04:37 PM
by beancounter
8021 CDI Precedential Decision Manual Rules & Legislation beancounter 0 402 Last post January 12, 2017, 04:06:03 PM
by beancounter
8390, 8391 CDI Precedential Decision Manual Rules & Legislation beancounter 0 565 Last post January 12, 2017, 04:08:31 PM
by beancounter
Jelly Belly Shop The-House (Active Sports)
Unique Hits: 1817549
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
AuditBible © 2008 | Sitemap
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!