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,...
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