Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., California Supreme Court


As with many labor and employment law cases around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on.


Facts:  Several former security guards brought a class action and alleged they were entitled to additional compensation as a result of having to monitor work radios and pagers while on unpaid breaks and respond if an emergency arose.  The guards claimed that because they were not relieved of all duties while on an unpaid break, there were entitled to compensation for this time spent monitoring work radios and being available to respond if needed.  The trial court agreed and awarded the plaintiffs a judgment of nearly $90 million.

Looking Back:  Earlier this year, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reversed an award of nearly $90 million dollars from the lower court and held that an employee who is on call during a break is not actually working and therefore is not entitled to be compensated for this time spent on call.  (Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. - Court of Appeal Ruling).  The Court of Appeal held that even though the employees were required to monitor work radios and pagers while on break and remain in the area, this on call time did not constitute work and therefore was not compensable. 

The Main Issue:  Is an employee who is required to monitor radios and pagers and remain on call, even though on an unpaid break, entitled to be compensated for this unpaid time spent on call?

Lower Court Opinion:  www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B243788.PDF

Current Status:  On April 29, the California Supreme Court granted the employee's petition for review of the Court of Appeal's decision.  This one is still in the early stages while the Court accepts briefs and then sets the matter for argument. 

Looking Ahead:  It is hard to say whether the California Supreme Court will disturb the Court of Appeal's decision, but if I had to decide where I think this case will go, I would have to say that I think the Court of Appeal's decision will stand.  As the lower court held, simply having an employee remain vigilant and be able to respond to an emergency call if needed while on break does not necessarily mean the employee is "working".

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more