2010) for support that the employees should be paid for this commute time. The court in this case noted: “The rule of Morillion applies only where use of the employer-provided transportation is compulsory.” Plaintiffs relied on the case of Rutti v. Under the definition of ‘hours worked,’ that travel time is compensable.” ( Morillion, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. Time employees spend traveling on transportation that an employer provides but does not require its employees to use may not be compensable as ‘hours worked.’ Instead, by requiring employees to take certain transportation to a work site, employers thereby subject those employees to control by determining when, where, and how they are to travel. “employers do not risk paying employees for their travel time merely by providing them transportation. In Morillion, the Court, however, made it clear that Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded, “When an employer requires its employees to meet at designated places to take its buses to work and prohibits them from taking their own transportation, these employees are ‘subject to the control of an employer,’ and their time spent traveling on the buses is compensable as ‘hours worked.’ ” Therefore, under these facts, the employer controlled the employees within the meaning of “hours worked.” In Morillion, although the employees could read or sleep on the bus, they could not use the time for their own purposes they “were foreclosed from numerous activities in which they might otherwise engage if they were permitted to travel to the fields by their own transportation.” The court in Morillion noted that during the bus ride employees could not drop off their children, stop for food, or run other errands. Instead, the court held that as long as the employee is “subject to the control of an employer,” the time is considered compensable “hours worked.” Morillion v. The court noted that the California Supreme Court rejected an argument that to constitute “hours worked” the time must be spent actually working. The court explained that the wage order defined “hours worked” as: the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so. Here are five key issues regarding the new decision in Hernandez v. All causes of action were based on the failure to pay for the transporting time. Plaintiffs alleged three causes of action: failure to pay the minimum wage, failure to pay wages timely, and unfair business practices. Under this option, they were compensated for time spent traveling to and from the garage. The second option available to the technicians was to pick their company vehicle up at the company garage prior to going to the first customer visit. If the technicians had to drive to the employer’s warehouse to restock equipment, they were paid for this time. The technicians were not paid for the time spent driving home with the equipment and tools after their last appointment. Technicians were not paid for any time before 8:00 spent driving from their homes to the first worksite. The HDP was optional, and the techs were permitted drive the company vehicles, containing tools and equipment, to and from home each day. The first option was the Home Dispatch Program (HDP), under which the technicians were allowed to take a company vehicle home each night instead of returning all vehicles to the Pacific Bell garage. There were two options made available to the technicians for travel with the company vehicle. Their work day schedule started at 8:00 a.m.
They were also required to carry all necessary equipment and tools to perform their job in the company vehicle. The technicians could not use their own vehicles while on the job, were required to use a company vehicle. The Plaintiff technicians were paid on an hourly basis and installed equipment at customer’s homes. Plaintiffs alleged they were owed for the time they spent traveling in an employer-provided vehicle that carried equipment and tools between their homes and a customer’s residence under an optional and voluntary Home Dispatch Program established by the employer.
Driving personal vehicle for work clock time install#
Plaintiffs represented current and former employees of defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company who install and repair video and internet services in customers’ homes.
A new decision was published this week on when commute time is required to be paid by employers.
0 kommentar(er)
