In recent opinion, Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, The California Supreme Court addressed three questions raised by the Ninth Circuit. These inquiries specifically concern the definition of “hours worked” under the California Wage Ordinance and the California Labor Code as it applies to construction, drilling, logging, and mining.
In the underlying action, the employee worked at a solar power facility located on private property with limited access on and off highways. As a result, employees’ entry was sometimes delayed, had to pass through gates and security checkpoints (which moved during the project), and had to drive slowly to protect endangered species in the area. There wasn’t.
First question from 9 peopleth At issue is that the time spent riding in a private vehicle on the employer’s premises, waiting for an ID card to be scanned, having a security guard look inside the vehicle, and then exiting through a security gate is compensated as “work time.” The question was whether it would be possible.
In response to this question, the California Supreme Court has ruled that time spent on an employer’s premises awaiting and undergoing exit procedures established by the employer is compensable as “work time.”
Second question: Is the time spent in a personal vehicle on the employer’s premises, driving between the security gate and the employee parking area, subject to the employer’s specific rules for “working time”?
In response to the second question, the California Supreme Court held that travel time from the security gate to the employee parking lot is compensable if this is the first location where the employee requires the security gate for employment-related reasons. said. However, this travel time does not count as working time because the employer’s standard rules do not establish sufficient employer control over employees traveling to work by personal vehicle.
The court stated in its opinion: “We reject the reduction of administrative tests to clear rules for compensation for time spent by employees traveling within the workplace. General site rules or the “rules of the road” at issue here Regulations designed to ensure safe, lawful, and orderly conduct when traveling on an employer’s premises, such as , do not impose a level of control that can compensate for time. … Because employee driving on access roads is not an exertion that management would recognize as on-site work, driving time is not compensated under the burden or permit provisions. ”
Third question: When a worker is prohibited from leaving their home but is not required to engage in an activity prescribed by the employer, is the time spent on the employer’s premises eligible under a qualified collective bargaining agreement (CBA)? Is this the working time when meal time is designated as unpaid meal time?
As a final question, the California Supreme Court has held that even if an employee is subject to a CBA that complies with Labor Code Section 512 and the Wage Order and provides an employee with an unpaid meal period, if… The court held that such time was compensable as “work time.” Employers must prohibit employees from leaving the employer’s premises or designated areas during meal times, and the prohibition prevents employees from engaging in personal activities that they may otherwise perform. If you are
However, the court stated:[w]e Interpreting Wage Order No. 16, Sections 10(D) and (E) to permit employees to voluntarily negotiate the payment period for on-the-job meals. In other words, the Section 10(D) exemption allows workers to negotiate a contract regarding meal times during work hours even if the “nature of the work” does not “preclude” them.[] Employees are exempted from all obligations. ”
