Skip to main content

Employees Required to Monitor Work Radio and Pager on Break? Employees, Do Not Plan on Being Compensated for This Time

Note, there are two recent cases that deal with similar issues in regard to employees not being entitled to compensation when required to monitor work radios while on break.  As a result, I am posting both of these side by side so readers can follow the two cases more closely.  This is Part 2.


Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. - California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One


Facts:  The plaintiffs, former security guards employed by ABM, sued ABM on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals on the grounds that ABM failed to provide rest periods as required by law.  Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that ABM failed to relieve security guards of all duties during rest breaks and instead required its guards to remain on call during breaks. 

After a class was certified, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the grounds that undisputed evidence showed that the guards were required to keep their radios and pagers on during rest breaks, remain vigilant, and respond as needed in emergency situations.  The trial court agreed and granted judgment for plaintiffs for around $90 million.

Holding:  In its unpublished decision, the Court of Appeal reversed and held that under the relevant statute and Wage Order, an employee cannot be required "to work" during a break.  As a result, the Court reasoned that simply being on call does not per se constitute performing "work".  Although the security guards were on call, they were still permitted to engage in various non-work related activities, which they apparently did.  Perhaps one of the more important distinctions the Court made was pointing out that "remaining available to work is not the same as actual working." 

Judgment:  The Court of Appeal reversed the lower court and held that requiring an employee to keep their radios and pagers on during breaks and remain vigilant if needed to respond to an emergency, was not actually compensable time as the employees were not required "to work". 

The Takeaway:  This is another recent case to come along dealing with rest periods and whether this time is compensable.  As with the other case, this Court reached the same conclusion:  simply requiring an employee be available to respond to an emergency by monitoring a work radio and/or pager does not constitute compensable time that the employee should be compensated for.  Employers can breathe a sigh of relief with this one. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Chaney

Date:  December 31, 2014

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


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