[PeteMcCracken]

Originally Posted by boar_d_laze

It's hard to believe any California "labor law" attorney doesn't know this.

BDL

We're "in the back woods" here, the information I was given: qualified employees may set up a "tip pool" as long as management has nothing to do with the structure, setup, or payout AND does not receive any "benefit" from the pooled tips.

Additionally, management cannot require nor prevent participation.

Apparently, there is more to be learned....

[boar_d_laze]

Originally Posted by PeteMcCracken

We're "in the back woods" here, the information I was given: qualified employees may set up a "tip pool" as long as management has nothing to do with the structure, setup, or payout AND does not receive any "benefit" from the pooled tips.

Additionally, management cannot require nor prevent participation.

Apparently, there is more to be learned....

Management is prohibited from sharing in the tip pool. To that extent, you and your attorney (?) are right.

Management is also prohibited from using tips as an offset against an employee's minimum or "market" wages. In other words, the practice of "tip crediting," is barred. See, Henning v. Industrial Welfare Com. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1262, 1270-1275; and Industrial Welfare Com. v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal.3d 690, 729, 730.

There is no legal obstacle to management establishing the pool or its structure -- as long as the structure fits within the strictures of Cal. Lab. C. sec. 351. See, Leighton v. Old Heidelberg, Ltd. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1062. Moreover, in the event that an establishment does have a conforming tip pool, an employee may neither refuse to participate, nor opt out. Id; and see also the previously mentioned Etheridge v. Reins (2009) Slip Opinion, http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions...ts/B205005.PDF.

I hope you misunderstood your attorney. If, in fact, you're accurately reporting legal advice from a practicing attorney, it's a little scary. (S)he should be more familiar with the law upon which (s)he advises you. "Back woods" is no excuse for a lawyer. Same law, same Lexis, same internet, same standard of care.

Your attorney should read every case I've cited. I've left them here more for her or his benefit than yours. (S)he could do worse than to start with Etheridge -- not so much for its holding, but because of the discussion beginning on p. 8 (slip opinion).

Good luck,
BDL

PS. The "style" of this post should be sufficient for your attorney to at least begin her or his independent research. At minimum, (s)he owes you an apology.

[PeteMcCracken]

I appreciate the information and will transmit it to our legal counsel for their review and comment.

[3dfan]

Pooled tips establishments made great impression on me! very cool service and tasty food!

[ED BUCHANAN]

In fact, the definition of "normal chain of service," was just extended a few days ago in my very own 2d District in Etheridge v. Reins (2009), slip opinion. The Etheridge court held that California law does not restrict mandatory tip pools to employees providing "direct table service." Rather any any employee who participates in the chain of service may be required to share and participate in the pool.

BDL

Case just settled in Florida. Palm Beach Kennel Club VS Dealers in Poker room.

For years pooling of all tips, dealers, pit bosses, managers, desk man. etc .Dealers sued claiming they had direct contact with patrons(verbally and while dealing cards at tables) whereas managers and the rest did not .Court ruled in favor of dealers and awarded back tips(in form of additional salary to all of them whether they still worked their or did not. In a gambeling place we are talking Thousands Here.