Skip to main content

Time Spent Donning and Doffing Work Clothes is Compensable Time...In Wisconsin


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

Opinionhr.cch.com/ELD/UFCWHormel030116.pdf

Comments

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

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

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