Sponsored by Oregon Business

Wage and hour law: U.S. Supreme Court decides on paid time

| Print |  Email
Saturday, April 01, 2006

Complying with wage and hour laws seems fairly simple on its face. Unless they are exempt, all employees must be paid at least minimum wage for all hours worked. However, determining what is “work,” or what constitutes paid time, is not always as clear as you might think. In fact, “work” is not defined in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal statute governing minimum wage and overtime and their exemptions.

In a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Court tried to clarify the definition of work and address a problem created by the 1947 Portal-to-Portal Act. The Portal-to-Portal Act exempts from coverage under the FLSA any walking from a site at the workplace to the location of the employee’s “principal activity or activities” as well as activities that are “preliminary or postliminary” (prior to and after) to the “principle activity or activities” of the employee.

For example, employees who punched a time clock and then walked to their job posts were not required to be paid for the time during which they walked before they began their daily work at their post. The consolidated cases, IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez and Tum v. Barber Foods, Inc., were decided by the Supreme Court in November. The issue was whether meat-processing employees had to be paid for the time they spent walking from the locker room through the processing plant to the production floor after they put on their protective clothing.

The court had already determined in prior decisions that putting on and taking off (donning and doffing) protective clothing is part of the principal activity of an employee when it is indispensable to the principal activity. Therefore, it had to be paid time. Now, the question was whether the time spent waiting to put on the clothing and then walking to the principal activity after putting on the clothing (but before beginning the processing work) was paid time.

The Supreme Court found all time after donning the protective gear was paid time. The donning of protective safety gear (in some cases this included Plexiglas arm shields and chain mail chest protectors) was part of the principal activity of the meat processing employees; thus when they put the gear on, the work day began. All the time following donning the protective clothing was part of the paid workday. However, time spent walking to the locker room before donning the protective gear and time spent waiting to don protective gear would still be portal-to-portal time that is excluded, as it is not part of the principal work activity or integral and indispensable to processing meat.

In the IBP case, the protective gear was required by the employer and by government regulation. However, the outcome would have been different if the gear had simply been clothing the employees choose to change into but was not required for the work. In such cases, the workday would not begin with the donning of clothing, but would begin when the employee began the work activity.

Federal regulations interpreting the Portal-to-Portal Act give other examples where travel time must be paid. For example, when an employee is required to report at a meeting place to receive instructions, to perform other work, or to pick up or carry tools, the travel time to and from the designated place is part of the day’s work and must be counted as time worked. Waiting time or travel time before the principal activity may also be compensable if there is an agreement between the employer and employees, or if it is a practice in the industry to treat that time as paid.

As a general rule, employers can take away two main lessons from IBP and the Portal-to- Portal Act:

Donning and doffing of equipment. If the clothing or equipment is required by the employer or by government regulation, or if the clothing and equipment is an integral part of the work, time spent putting it on and taking it off must be paid. If changing clothing and putting on equipment is an option that employees choose on their own, the time is not required to be paid.

Travel time. Once the workday begins, travel time contained within the workday will be paid. If employees are traveling between job sites, are picking up tools, or are required to report to a site before beginning work, the travel time between sites is paid time.

— Christine M. Meadows,
Jordan Schrader PC
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


More Articles

Aim High

September 2015
Thursday, August 20, 2015

We get the education we deserve.


Getting What You Pay For

September 2015
Wednesday, August 19, 2015

A conversation with Chris Maples, president of the Oregon Institute of Technology.


Up on the Roof

September 2015
Wednesday, August 19, 2015

In 2010 Vanessa Keitges and several investors purchased Portland-based Columbia Green Technologies, a green-roof company. The 13-person firm has a 200% annual growth rate, exports 30% of its product to Canada and received its first infusion of venture capital in 2014 from Yaletown Venture Partners. CEO Keitges, 40, a Southern Oregon native who serves on President Obama’s Export Council, talks about market innovation, scaling small business and why Oregon is falling behind in green-roof construction. 


Summer of acquisition

Wednesday, September 09, 2015


Salad Days

October 2015
Monday, September 28, 2015

How Portland's Garden Bar plans to become the Starbucks of salad.


Mayoral musings

Linda Baker
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
091515-mayors-thumbBY LINDA BAKER

The 2016 presidential election is shaping up to be the year of the outsider, with Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump capturing leads in the polls and the headlines. In Portland, Wheeler vs. Hales is bucking the outlier trend.


Counterpoint: CLT not as green as people think

Contributed Blogs
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
photo-flickr-glasseyes viewthymbBY GREGG LEWIS | OP-ED

The issue of green-washing remains a significant challenge to those of us who would like to see the building sector in this country do more than make unverifiable claims of sustainability. Transparency about the impacts of a given material is the only way to allow designers to make intelligent choices when selecting building products.

Oregon Business magazinetitle-sponsored-links-02