Wage & Hour Counsel : Wage & Hour Lawyer & Attorney : Littler Mendelson Law Firm : Employment Law, Labor Relations

In Allen v. McWane, the Fifth Circuit considered whether an employer is required to pay for pre- and post-shift donning and doffing of protective gear under Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) where the company and the union never discussed the issue, and where the employees (and union representatives) attested that they were not even aware that changing time could potentially be compensated under the FLSA. Section 203(o) of the FLSA provides that an employer does not have to pay its employees for time “changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of each workday ... by custom or practice under a bona fide collective bargaining agreement.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(o).

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Sepulveda v. Allen Family Foods, Inc., the Fourth Circuit held that the company does not have to pay its employees for time spent donning and doffing because it was the subject of collective bargaining between the union—the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 27—and the company. Specifically, the issue in this case was whether time spent donning and doffing protective gear at a unionized poultry processing plant constituted “changing clothes” within the meaning of Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. This section provides that that an employer does not have to pay its employees for time “changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of each workday ... by the express terms of or by custom or practice under a bona fide collective bargaining agreement.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(o).

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Kellogg Company (Kellogg) was granted summary judgment and dismissal of claims raised by a manufacturing employee in its Rossville, Tennessee manufacturing plant. In Franklin v. Kellogg Company, C.A. No. 08-2268 (W.D.Tenn.), the district court held that time spent by manufacturing employees changing into and out of company-issued gear was noncompensable under Section 3(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. This is because Section 3(o) excludes time spent by employees donning and doffing “clothes” from compensable hours worked where such time is either explicitly addressed in a collective bargaining agreement, or by custom or practice established under a collective bargaining agreement.

Plaintiff Alice Franklin claimed that she was entitled to compensation for time spent changing into and out of company uniforms and other gear both prior to and after her work shifts. She sought to represent Kellogg employees on a nationwide basis. Ms. Franklin’s motion to certify a collective action under the FLSA, however, was rendered moot by the court’s finding in favor of Kellogg. As an initial matter, the court found that the company uniform and standard equipment used by the plaintiff constituted “clothes” under Section 3(o). The uniforms in question consisted of pants, snap front shirts and slip-resistant shoes and the standard equipment included hair nets, beard nets, safety glasses, ear plugs and bump caps. The court relied on its prior decision in Sisk v. Sara Lee Corp., 590 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (W.D.Tenn. 2008), holding that protective gear worn by meat processing employees fell under the definition of clothes under Section 3(o). It found that plaintiffs failed to present any compelling reason to reconsider that holding.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 27, 2009, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of class certification in Babineau, et al. v. Federal Express Corporation, a decision that may impact wage and hour cases brought under state law. The plaintiffs sought Rule 23 certification of a broad class of hourly employees in Florida, alleging state law claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit. The breach of contract claim consisted of allegations that plaintiffs were not paid for: (1) work performed during “gap periods” (any time interval between their manual punch in and their scheduled start time and/or any time interval between their manual punch out and their scheduled stop time); and (2) work performed during unpaid break periods. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the case of Kasten v. Saint Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered the question of whether verbal complaints may constitute protected activity under the FLSA. In this case, the plaintiff alleged that he verbally complained to his supervisors and the company’s human resources department about the legality of the location of the company’s time clocks. The plaintiff alleged that he told two supervisors and a human resources employee that the placement of the clocks was illegal because it prevented employees from being paid for time spent donning and doffing required protective gear.

The Seventh Circuit first affirmed the district court’s conclusion that internal, intra-company complaints may be protected activity for purposes of the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA. The Court then turned to the question of whether verbal, intra-company complaints may be protected activity.

The Seventh Circuit held that because the FLSA prevents employees from being retaliated against for filing complaints, the statute could not be interpreted as intending to protect unwritten complaints. The court viewed the “natural understanding” of the phrase “file any complaint” to connote the use of a writing. Therefore, to constitute protected activity under the FLSA, the “complaint” must involve the submission of a writing to an employer, court, or administrative body. Notably, other courts have reached a different conclusion.

This blog entry was authored by Theresa Waugh.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A federal district court ruled that hourly production and maintenance workers at U.S. Steel’s Clariton, Pennsylvania coke plant were not entitled to compensation for time spent donning, doffing, and showering at the beginning and end of their work days under Section 3(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Section 3(o) effectively excludes time spent by employees donning and doffing “clothes” or washing time from compensable hours worked where such time is either explicitly addressed in a collective bargaining agreement, or by custom or practice established under a collective bargaining agreement. The FLSA does not define the term “clothes,” and many courts have disagreed over what constitutes changing clothes.

In Andrako v. United Steel Corp., plaintiffs brought an FLSA collective action alleging violations based on the company’s failure to compensate for donning and doffing certain protective equipment, showering time, and time spent walking to and from their working stations. The court held that the items donned and doffed by U.S. Steel workers plainly were clothes within the meaning of the statue. In making its determination, the court noted that it was applying a common and ordinary meaning of the term. The items in question included safety glasses, hard hats, flame retardant jackets and pants, flame resistant gloves, hearing protection, snoods or hoods, wristlets, and respirators. The court rejected plaintiffs’ narrow construction that Section 3(o) should not apply to any apparel or equipment intended for protection and/or required by the employer or law. Similarly, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that showering does not fall with Section 3(o)’s exception for washing time.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On January 21, 2009, the City of Phoenix obtained summary judgment in a collective action brought by approximately 600 police officers claiming millions in unpaid work. What were the officers claiming? That the City should have compensated them for time spent putting on and taking off police uniforms and gear. In the matter of Dager et al. v. City of Phoenix, Case No. 2:06-cv-01412-PHX-JWS, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ruled that the City did not have an obligation to pay its police officers for the time spent donning and doffing (i.e., putting on and taking off ) their police uniforms and gear. Specifically, Judge John Sedwick held that under Ninth Circuit precedent and the persuasive guidelines of the U.S. Department of Labor, only those employees actually required to change at work could claim that the time spent donning and doffing was compensable. The evidence in the case showed that the City allowed officers to change at home or at the station, depending on their own preference, and that a significant number of officers, including some of the claimants, regularly changed into their uniforms and/or gear at home. The court also held that, although the City's police department required officers to wear certain specified uniforms and protective gear, the uniform itself was not 'necessary" to the performance of police work (as the term necessary is defined under applicable regulations and case law).

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link