Skip to main content

Let's Take a Break: New Penalties for Failure to Follow California's "Heat Illness Prevention" Statute


Summer "officially" started as of last Saturday, and with the start of the season, warmer temperatures are around the corner.  As a result, it is important for employers (and employees) in California to be mindful of some of the important laws regarding working conditions in extreme heat, and the new penalties that have been put in place for failure to adhere to these laws.

Under California’s Heat Illness Prevention statute, Title 8 Section 3395(d), employers are required to provide training and access to shade and adequate drinking water for employees who work outdoors in high heat conditions.  When the outdoor temperature exceeds 95 degrees Fahrenheit, California OSHA mandates a recovery period of not less than 5 minutes for employees who work outside to take a cool-down rest, in the shade, to protect themselves from overheating.  However, it is important to note that prior California OSHA Board decisions and Standard Board committee notes have refused to characterize these cool down periods as work-free breaks.  As a result, employers are likely allowed to require employees to continue working during periods when they are in shade or air conditioned locations.

One of the new laws that came into effect on January 1, 2014 amended California Labor Code Section 226.7 and now imposes a fine against employers that do not provide employees with these rest periods.  Employers that do not provide these breaks will now have to pay employees one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest or recovery period is not provided.  

Employers need to be mindful of this recent change to the law and ensure that their work procedures are mindful of these required breaks. 

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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more