§ 4.173 Meeting requirements for vacation fringe benefits.

(a) Determining length of service for vacation eligibility. It has been found that for many types of service contracts performed at Federal facilities a successor contractor will utilize the employees of the previous contractor in the performance of the contract. The employees typically work at the same location providing the same services to the same clientele over a period of years, with periodic, often annual, changes of employer. The incumbent contractor, when bidding on a contract, must consider his liability for vacation benefits for those workers in his employ. If prospective contractors who plan to employ the same personnel were not required to furnish these employees with the same prevailing vacation benefits, it would place the incumbent contractor at a distinct competitive disadvantage as well as denying such employees entitlement to prevailing vacation benefits.

(1) Accordingly, most vacation fringe benefit determinations issued under the Act require an employer to furnish to employees working on the contract a specified amount of paid vacation upon completion of a specified length of service with a contractor or successor. This requirement may be stated in the determination, for example, as “one week paid vacation after one year of service with a contractor or successor” or by a determination which calls for “one week's paid vacation after one year of service”. Unless specified otherwise in an applicable fringe benefit determination, an employer must take the following two factors into consideration in determining when an employee has completed the required length of service to be eligible for vacation benefits:

(i) The total length of time spent by an employee in any capacity in the continuous service of the present (successor) contractor, including both the time spent in performing on regular commercial work and the time spent in performing on the Government contract itself, and

(ii) Where applicable, the total length of time spent in any capacity as an employee in the continuous service of any predecessor contractor(s) who carried out similar contract functions at the same Federal facility.

(2) The application of these principles may be illustrated by the example given above of a fringe benefit determination calling for “one week paid vacation after one year of service with a contractor or successor”. In that example, if a contractor has an employee who has worked for him for 18 months on regular commercial work and only for 6 months on a Government service contract, that employee would be eligible for the one week vacation since his total service with the employer adds up to more than 1 year. Similarly, if a contractor has an employee who worked for 16 months under a janitorial service contract at a particular Federal base for two different predecessor contractors, and only 8 months with the present employer, that employee would also be considered as meeting the “after one year of service” test and would thus be eligible for the specified vacation.

(3) The “contractor or successor” requirement set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is not affected by the fact that a different contracting agency may have contracted for the services previously or by the agency's dividing and/or combining the contract services. However, prior service as a Federal employee is not counted toward an employee's eligibility for vacation benefits under fringe benefit determinations issued pursuant to the Act.

(4) Some fringe benefit determinations may require an employer to furnish a specified amount of paid vacation upon completion of a specified length of service with the employer, for example, “one week paid vacation after one year of service with an employer”. Under such determinations, only the time spent in performing on commercial work and on Government contract work in the employment of the present contractor need be considered in computing the length of service for purposes of determining vacation eligibility.

(5) Whether or not the predecessor contract(s) was covered by a fringe benefit determination is immaterial in determining whether the one year of service test has been met. This qualification refers to work performed before, as well as after, an applicable fringe benefit determination is incorporated into a contract. Also, the fact that the labor standards in predecessor service contract(s) were only those required under the Fair Labor Standards Act has no effect on the applicable fringe benefit determination contained in a current contract.

(b) Eligibility requirement—continuous service. Under the principles set forth above, if an employee's total length of service adds up to at least one year, the employee is eligible for vacation with pay. However, such service must have been rendered continuously for a period of not less than one year for vacation eligibility. The term “continuous service” does not require the combination of two entirely separate periods of employment. Whether or not there is a break in the continuity of service so as to make an employee ineligible for a vacation benefit is dependent upon all the facts in the particular case. No fixed time period has been established for determining whether an employee has a break in service. Rather, as illustrated below, the reason(s) for an employee's absence from work is the primary factor in determining whether a break in service occurred.

(1) In cases where employees have been granted leave with or without pay by their employer, or are otherwise absent with permission for such reasons as sickness or injury, or otherwise perform no work on the contract because of reasons beyond their control, there would not be a break in service. Likewise, the absence from work for a few days, with or without notice, does not constitute a break in service, without a formal termination of employment. The following specific examples are illustrative situations where it has been determined that a break in service did not occur:

(i) An employee absent for five months due to illness but employed continuously for three years.

(ii) A strike after which employees returned to work.

(iii) An interim period of three months between contracts caused by delays in the procurement process during which time personnel hired directly by the Government performed the necessary services. However, the successor contractor in this case was not held liable for vacation benefits for those employees who had anniversary dates of employment during the interim period because no employment relationship existed during such period.

(iv) A mess hall closed three months for renovation. Contractor employees were considered to be on temporary layoff during the renovation period and did not have a break in service.

(2) Where an employee quits, is fired for cause, or is otherwise terminated (except for temporary layoffs), there would be a break in service even if the employee were rehired at a later date. However, an employee may not be discharged and rehired as a subterfuge to evade the vacation requirement.

(c) Vesting and payment of vacation benefits.

(1) In the example given in paragraph (a)(1) of this section of a fringe benefit determination calling for “one week paid vacation after 1 year of service with a contractor or successor”, an employee who renders the “one year of service” continuously becomes eligible for the “one week paid vacation” (i.e., 40 hours of paid vacation, unless otherwise specified in an applicable wage determination) upon his anniversary date of employment and upon each succeeding anniversary date thereafter. However, there is no accrual or vesting of vacation eligibility before the employee's anniversary date of employment, and no segment of time smaller than one year need be considered in computing the employer's vacation liability, unless specifically provided for in a particular fringe benefit determination. For example, an employee who has worked 13 months for an employer subject to such stipulations and is separated without receiving any vacation benefit is entitled only to one full week's (40 hours) paid vacation. He would not be entitled to the additional fraction of one-twelfth of one week's paid vacation for the month he worked in the second year unless otherwise stated in the applicable wage determination. An employee who has not met the “one year of service” requirement would not be entitled to any portion of the “one week paid vacation”.

(2) Eligibility for vacation benefits specified in a particular wage determination is based on completion of the stated period of past service. The individual employee's anniversary date (and each annual anniversary date of employment thereafter) is the reference point for vesting of vacation eligibility, but does not necessarily mean that the employee must be given the vacation or paid for it on the date on which it is vested. The vacation may be scheduled according to a reasonable plan mutually agreed to and communicated to the employees. A “reasonable” plan may be interpreted to be a plan which allows the employer to maintain uninterrupted contract services but allows the employee some choice, by seniority or similar factor, in the scheduling of vacations. However, the required vacation must be given or payment made in lieu thereof before the next anniversary date, before completion of the current contract, or before the employee terminates employment, whichever occurs first.

(d) Contractor liability for vacation benefits.

(1) The liability for an employee's vacation is not prorated among contractors unless specifically provided for under a particular fringe benefit determination. The contractor by whom a person is employed at the time the vacation right vests, i.e., on the employee's anniversary date of employment, must provide the full benefit required by the determination which is applicable on that date. For example, an employee, who had not previously performed similar contract work at the same facility, was first hired by a predecessor contractor on July 1, 1978. July 1 is the employee's anniversary date. The predecessor's contract ended June 30, 1979, but the employee continued working on the contract for the successor. Since the employee did not have an anniversary date of employment during the predecessor's contract, the predecessor would not have any vacation liability with respect to this employee. However, on July 1, 1979 the employee's entitlement to the full vacation benefit vested and the successor contractor would be liable for the full amount of the employee's vacation benefit.

(2) The requirements for furnishing data relative to employee hiring dates in situations where such employees worked for “predecessor” contractors are set forth in § 4.6. However, a contractor is not relieved from any obligation to provide vacation benefits because of any difficulty in obtaining such data.

(e) Rate applicable to computation of vacation benefits.

(1) If an applicable wage determination requires that the hourly wage rate be increased during the period of the contract, the rate applicable to the computation of any required vacation benefits is the hourly rate in effect in the workweek in which the actual paid vacation is provided or the equivalent is paid, as the case may be, and would not be the average of the two hourly rates. This rule would not apply to situations where a wage determination specified the method of computation and the rate to be used.

(2) As set forth in § 4.172, unless specified otherwise in an applicable fringe benefit determination, service employees must be furnished the required amount of fringe benefits for all hours paid for up to a maximum of 40 hours per week and 2,080 hours per year. Thus, an employee on paid vacation leave would accrue and must be compensated for any other applicable fringe benefits specified in the fringe benefit determination, and if any of the other benefits are furnished in the form of cash equivalents, such equivalents must be included with the applicable hourly wage rate in computing vacation benefits or a cash equivalent therefor. The rules and regulations for computing cash equivalents are set forth in § 4.177.