Skip to main content

Required to Monitor Work Radios While on Break? Sorry Employees...That is Not Compensable 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 1.


Ruffin v. MotorCity Casino - Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  The plaintiffs in the case were current and former security guards at MotorCity Casino.  Under the parties' collective bargaining agreement, a guard who worked an eight hour shift was entitled to a paid, thirty minute meal period.  There was no dispute that the guards were free to do whatever they wanted during their break, though they were not allowed to leave the casino property, have food delivered, or receive visitors.  As a result, the guards spent their meal time in a large cafeteria or smaller break rooms. 

While the guards were not "working" during this meal period, they were required to monitor their radios and respond to an emergency in the casino if the dispatcher said a certain code.  A guard who did not respond to a mid-meal emergency was subject to discipline.  Although meal breaks were apparently not interrupted often, the guards were exposed to constant work related chatter when they listened to the radios. 

The plaintiffs subsequently sued MotorCity for Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") violations on the grounds that they were required to work 41.25 hours per week but were only paid for 40 hours' work.  As a result, plaintiffs relied on the claim that the half hour meal periods were actually working time and thus compensable. 

The district court held that the undisputed evidence showed the meal periods were non-compensable.  The district court determined that monitoring the radio was a de minimis activity, rather than a substantial job duty. 

Holding:  The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court and held that MotorCity did not commit any FLSA violations by failing to pay its employees for the extra time spent monitoring the radios during meal breaks.  The Court noted that so long as (i) the employee can pursue his or her mealtime adequately and comfortably, (ii) the employee does not perform any substantial duties during the period, and (iii) the mealtime is not predominately for the employer's benefit, the employee is "relieved of duty" and is not entitled to compensation under the FLSA.

As to the claim that monitoring the radio, which exposed the guards to a steady stream of work related radio chatter during meal periods, was a substantial job duty, the Court disagreed.  Instead, the Court pointed to caselaw which held that monitoring a radio and being available to respond if called is generally a de minimis activity rather than a substantial job duty.  In this instance, the guards were free to do whatever they wanted while on their meal breaks and simply had to listen to the radio in the event an emergency call went out. 

Judgment:  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling and held that requiring workers to monitor work radios during meal breaks was not compensable time under the FLSA as it was a de minimis activity rather than a substantial job duty.  Consequently, the employer was not required to pay the employees for this time.

The Takeaway:  I understand where the Court is coming from on this one, but if I were an employee who was having to monitor a work radio while eating lunch and being "on call" to respond to any emergency, I would probably consider this compensable time.  These employees likely find it difficult to relax and have downtime when the employer threatens to discipline employees who do not respond to emergencies on the radio during a meal period.  

With that being said, this was probably the right ruling.  Employers would be wise to examine the three part test laid out by the Court when considering whether an employee will have a valid FLSA claim for unpaid wages when required to do work related activities even while on break.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Carr

Date:  January 7, 2015

Opinion:  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0004p-06.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