court support the invocation of the exemption, the fact that leave balances may be subject to reduction alone does not defeat compliance with the salary basis regulation. As the Supreme Court held in Auer, because the “salary-basis test is a creature of the Secretary’s own regulations, his interpretation of it is, under our jurisprudence, controlling unless ‘plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.’ ” 519 U.S. 452, 117 S.Ct. 905, 910, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (citations and internal quotations omitted). The position of the Secretary is consistent with the language of the regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 541.118(a), and is therefore controlling on this issue. The language of the regulation specifically refers to the “amount” of compensation. See Barner v. City of Novato, 17 F.3d at 1261-62 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, subsection (1) of section
holding that the words amount and compensation in the regulation referred to cash or salary rather than to all forms of compensation holding that the words salary and expense are separate and distinct terms which connote entirely different concepts salary is a fixed periodical compensation paid for services rendered whereas an expense is a charge incurred in performing those services holding that the plaintiff was entitled to back pay for the differential between unemployment compensation received and the salary he would have earned if not terminated holding that provisions of section 40115102 are applicable to the determination of the status of truck drivers as employees or independent contractors under the workers compensation act and discussing legislative history indicating intent to apply these provisions both to workers compensation and unemployment compensation matters holding unenforceable a regulation that would have provided greater workers compensation benefits than permitted by statute