Skip to main content

Department of Labor: Driver's Time Spent in Sleeper Berth is Not Compensable Under FLSA


In late July, the Department of Labor issued an opinion letter that addressed whether a motor carrier company was required to pay its drivers for time spent in the truck's sleeper berth, in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  Never let it be said that The Majority Opinion does not delve into the minutiae of the FLSA...

To begin with, the facts which made up the opinion letter are as follows:  A motor carrier company employed drivers to undertake multi-day trips.  During these trips, the drivers would often spend time in the truck's sleeper berths.  In the example cited, on one of its driver's trips, 55.84 hours were spent driving, inspecting, cleaning, fueling, and completing paperwork and 49.96 hours were spent by the driver in the sleeper berth, during which the driver was permitted to sleep, did not perform any work, and was not on call.  As a result, the Department of Labor considered whether the motor carrier company was required to pay its drivers for just the time spent working (the 55.84 hours, in this case) or also have to pay its drivers for time spent in the sleeper berth (49.96 hours, in this case.)

As many readers might know, an employee is working, and therefore must be compensated, when suffered or permitted to work.  Waiting time is on-duty and compensable if the employee is "engaged to wait," but off duty and not compensable if the employee is "waiting to be engaged" to work.  "Engaged to wait" occurs when "waiting is an integral part of the job."  A truck driver can be "engaged to wait" if required to wait at a job site for goods to be loaded onto his/her truck.  On the other hand, an employee is "waiting to be engaged" during a period when it is shown he/she is "completely relieved from duty" and the periods are "long enough to enable him to use the time effectively for his own purposes."

In addition, sleeping time may be considered compensable if the employer permits the employee to sleep during an on duty period when the employee is not busy.  (With that being said, if an employee is required to be on duty for a continuous 24 or more period, the parties may agree to set aside 5 to 8 on duty hours as a non compensable sleeping period.  

Finally, travel time is compensable when the employee requires the employee to "perform [work] while traveling[.]"  However, employees who drive vehicles are not "working while riding" when they are "permitted to sleep in adequate facilities furnished by the employer[,]" such as a sleeper berth.  Consequently, traveling while sleeping in a sleeper berth is not "[work] while riding," if drivers are "completely relieved" from their duties.

In this instance, based upon the facts as presented by the motor carrier company, the Department of Labor opinion letter found that the time the drivers spent in the sleeper berth was not compensable.  Therefore, under the FLSA, the employer was only required to pay the drivers for the time actually spent working...55.84 hours in the example cited.


For a copy of the opinion letter:  https://www.dol.gov/whd/opinion/FLSA/2019/2019_07_22_10_FLSA.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

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
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