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

Oregon businesses face destruction from future earthquake

The Latest
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
htctthumb1BY KIM MOORE | RESEARCH EDITOR

An earthquake would completely destroy many Oregon businesses, highlighting the urgent need for the private and public sectors to collaborate on shoring up disaster preparedness, said panelists at an Oregon Business breakfast summit today.


Read more...

No Boundaries

June 2015
Friday, May 22, 2015
BY AMY MILSHTEIN

Floor plans embrace the great wide open.


Read more...

Apartment Mania

Guest Blog
Thursday, June 18, 2015
4805983977 11466ce1d6 zBY BRAD HOULE | CFA

While most categories of commercial real estate have performed well, one of the most robust has been apartment buildings.


Read more...

Modern design defines new Portland indoor market

The Latest
Thursday, June 25, 2015
thumbSnøhetta JBPM exterior www mir noBY KIM MOORE | RESEARCH EDITOR

An international architecture firm known for its design of the National September 11 Memorial Museum Pavilion in New York unveiled its plan this week for a modern indoor/outdoor food market at the foot of the Morrison Bridge in downtown Portland.


Read more...

Up in the Air

June 2015
Friday, May 22, 2015
BY ANNIE ELLISON

Portland tech veteran Ben Berry is leaving his post as Portland’s chief technology officer for a full-time role producing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) aimed at first responders and the military. Berry’s AirShip Technologies Group is poised to be on the ground floor of an industry that will supply drones to as many as 100,000 police, fire and emergency agencies nationwide. He reveals the plan for takeoff.


Read more...

The Green Paradox

June 2015
Friday, May 22, 2015
BY EMILY LIEDEL

Inside the topsy-turvy world of corporate sustainability rankings.


Read more...

Fixing Oregon’s broken roads

The Latest
Tuesday, June 09, 2015
RUCCostComparison rev4-30BY KIM MOORE | RESEARCH EDITOR

The technology at the center of Oregon’s road usage fee reform.


Read more...
Oregon Business magazinetitle-sponsored-links-02
SPONSORED LINKS