Skip to main content

Time Spent Commuting Across Picket Line to Get to Steel Mill Was NOT Compensable


Ralph Smith, et al. v. Allegheny Technologies, Inc., et al. - United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania


Facts:  During a strike and lockout at a steel plant, the employer used a strike staffing company to hire replacement steelworkers to work.  In order to access the plant, these replacement steelworkers had to spend time commuting across the picket line in vans provided by the strike staffing company.  These employees filed suit on the grounds that this time spent commuting across the picket line was compensable under the Portal to Portal Act and not being paid for this time spent commuting was in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and state wage laws.  A Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation that these claims be allowed to proceed.  The matter was then brought before the District Court Judge to make a final ruling.

Holding:  In order to streamline the Court's analysis, I think it is wise to break the Court's ruling down between the FLSA and the state wage claim.

FLSA

As readers are likely aware, the FLSA requires employers to pay employees overtime compensation for each our worked over forty hours in a work week.   The Portal to Portal Act stipulates that employers are not required to pay employees for their commute to and from work unless that commute is either the "principal activity" for which the employee is employed or is "integral and indispensable" to such a principal activity.  An activity is "integral and indispensable" to the principal activities the employees is employed to perform "if it is an intrinsic element of those activities and one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities."

The Court was quick to point out that the replacement steelworkers' travel time across the picket line was noncompensable commuting time.  The commute, in and of itself, was not the "principal activity or activities which [the] employee is employed to perform."  In this case, the replacement steelworkers' job duties included "pressing buttons, operating a crane, lifting materials on to and off of machines, welding, and other repetitive and rote manual labor tasks.  The Court was unmoved by the argument that the replacement steelworkers were hired to serve as economic weapons to put pressure on the labor union.  While the replacement steelworkers might have weakened the union's collective bargaining power, it was because the replacement steelworkers kept the steelmaking business up and running, not simply because the replacement steelworkers crossed the picket line during their commute.

As for the argument that commuting across the picket line was "integral and indispensable" to the principal activity, the Court again was unswayed.  Although the commute was not "ordinary" in the sense that most employees typically do not need to travel across a picket line to get to work, that did not make the replacement steelworkers' commute any more integral to their work than a typical steelworker that does not cross a picket line to get to work.  In this instance, the replacement steelworkers, as noted above, were hired to work at the steel plant during the strike and keep the steel mill up and operating.

State Wage Claim

Under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, for travel time to be compensable, it must be "part of the duties of the employee."  The Court noted that similar to its holding as to the FLSA claim that it could not be established that commuting across the picket line was either a principal activity or integral and indispensable to a principal activity of their employment, it also could not be established that crossing the picket line was a "duty" of their employment.

Judgment:  The District Court Judge held that the FLSA and state wage claims brought by replacement steelworkers failed as it could not be established that their time spent commuting across a picket line to get to work was either a "principal activity" or "integral and indispensable" of their job.

The Takeaway:  Quite the interesting case, right?  I think the District Court Judge got it right here when applying the Supreme Court's 2014 Integrity Staffing Sols., Inc. v. Busk decision.  In reliance upon the Supreme Court's holding in that case, I think the District Court Judge was correct to find that the replacement steelworkers simply had not met their burden here.  When looking at the reason the replacement steelworkers were hired (to keep the steel plant up and running during the labor dispute), it was evident that commuting across the picket line to get to work was not a principal activity of their employment nor was it integral and indispensable to their job.  Without any other justification to rely upon, it became evident that the replacement steelworkers' FLSA and state wage claim had no ground to stand on and therefore was properly dismissed.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Hornak

Date:  February 28, 2018

Opinion:  http://hr.cch.com/eld/SmithAllegheny022818.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