United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1473 v. Hormel Foods Corp. - Wisconsin Supreme Court
Facts: United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1473 ("the Union") filed a class action on behalf of current and former Hormel employees who alleged that Hormel violated Wisconsin wage and hour law by failing to pay employees for the time spent donning and doffing required work clothing and equipment such as hard hats, eye wear, and sanitary footwear, among other items. The 330 employees included in the class were involved in grinding and blanching meat, cooking, and then canning the product at a Hormel plant. It was alleged that each employee spent nearly 5.7 minutes per day donning and doffing the clothing and equipment, which amounted to approximately 24 hours per year. The Union argued that because this time was not included in the employees' compensation, the employees were working nearly 40 per week without being paid overtime.
At the trial court level, Hormel was found to be required to compensate its employees for the time they spent donning and doffing the required clothing and equipment at the beginning and end of each day (and during unpaid meal periods).
Holding: (Note, this analysis only looks at the time employees spent donning and doffing clothing and equipment at the start and end of each day, not when the employees went on lunch break). The Wisconsin Supreme Court began its analysis of the issue by pointing out that Wisconsin Admin. Code Sect. DWD 272.12(1)(a)1 provides that en employee must be paid "for all time spent 'in physical or mental exertion...controlled or required by the employer and pursued necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the employer's business.' " In this situation, all parties agreed that this requirement was met. The Court then turned to Wisconsin Admin. Code Sect. DWD 272.12(1)(a)2 which defines the workday at the "period between 'the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences their principal activity or activities' and 'the time on any particular workday at which they cease such principal activity or activities.' "
As readers might have guessed, "principal activities" are defined in Wisconsin as an activity that is "an integral part of a principal activity." (And "integral" activities are those considered to be closely related activities which are indispensable to the performance of the principal activity.) In this case, food safety laws, Hormel policy, and the general nature of the work all required that employees spend time donning and doffing the required clothing and equipment when coming and going from the workplace. Although some employees had testified they could perform their job functions without having to don and doff certain items, Hormel required proper sanitation standards and protective equipment be work to meet federal regulations. In this case, cleanliness and food safety were "intrinsic elements" of preparing and canning food at the plant and consequently integral and indispensable to the performance of the employees' job.
Judgment: The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment and held that the time Hormel employees spent donning and doffing required work clothing and equipment was an "integral and indispensable" part of the employees' jobs and therefore amounted to compensable time.
The Takeaway: Readers might look at this case, compare it to others with similar issues (such as Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk and Frlekin v. Apple) and try to figure out how these cases coincide. Well, as with any legal situation, I would say that it depends upon the facts. In this case, unlike Integrity and Frlekin, the Wisconsin Supreme Court pointed out that the donning and doffing of company required clothing was integral to the principal activities of the employees. Hormel required that employees wear clean whites, hair nets, and other equipment in order to keep foreign objects out of food and keep the food preparation sanitary.
The facts in Integrity and Frlekin both involved time spent in security screening lines which was found to not be a principal activity of the work the employees were required to perform. (The security screening was not in indispensable part of the job). In fact, the Court noted in Frlekin that employees could choose to leave bags at home and avoid having to go through security screening lines entirely. In this case, however, the fact demonstrated that the donning and doffing of the company required clothing was closely intertwined with the principal activities of the job. As a result, I think readers can look at these facts and notice a clear break in the line of reasoning relied upon by each court when considering the relevant issue of whether this donning and doffing (or waiting in security screening lines) amounts to compensable time.
Majority Opinion Judge: Judge Abrahamson
Date: March 1, 2016
Opinion: hr.cch.com/ELD/UFCWHormel030116.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment