Recently in Department of Labor (DOL) Category

July 8, 2010

Department of Labor Finds that Employees who Wear Safety Equipment Must be Paid to Don and Doff that Equipment

On June 16, 2010 the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued Administrator's Interpretation No. 2010-2, Section 3(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. ยง 203(o), reversing two prior DOL opinions relating to under what circumstances employees should be paid for time spent donning and doffing uniforms, and the Supreme Court's ruling in IBP v. Alvarez. The Department of Labor concluded that Personal Protective Equipment such, but not limited to, arm guards, protective aprons and hard hats, which are required by the employer to be worn or as a result of some regulation, generally do not constitute clothing within the meaning of Section 3(o).

23 U.S.C. 203(o) allows employers to avoid paying its employees for time spent donning and doffing clothing, if the employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement, and the Union has acquiesced to such time being non-compensable either by agreement or by custom and practice. Section 203(o) generally does not apply to non-union employees, and non-union employees generally must be paid for time spent changing clothes.

The result is that an employee does not get paid for the time spent putting on or removing required safety equipment at the beginning and end of a work shift if an employee's union agreed with the employer that workers would not be paid for that time. Also, an employee does not get paid for this time if custom or practice in an industry was or has been to exclude this activity from an employee's compensation.

The DOL further concluded that even if clothes changing activities are considered non-compensable within the meaning of Section 203(o), any time spent walking to and from employees' workstations generally should be compensated, because "...clothes changing covered by section 203(o) may be a principal activity. Where that is the case, subsequent activities, including walking and waiting, are compensable."

In some instances, the process of donning and doffing materials, equipment and garb, and traveling to and from one's workstation can amount to thirty minutes a workday or more, resulting in two and a half hours or unpaid work time per week. Such uncompensated time can result in a windfall to the employer, saving the company vast sums of money which it would otherwise be obligated to pay to its employees.

Frequently, the employer provides a changing room for employees to put on and take off safety equipment. The employee walks to a time clock very close to his or her work station and clocks in to start the workday. This deprives the employee of the time putting on safety gear and walking to the workstation.

July 1, 2010

Department of Labor Increases Wage & Hour Oversight

In her February 2010 presentation of the 2011 budget request for the U.S. Department of Labor, Secretary Hilda L. Solis included funding to hire 90 new investigators for the department's Wage and Hour Division. These increases will allow the Labor Department's worker protection agencies to "vigorously protect wages and working conditions of 135 million workers in more than 7.3 million workplaces."

Secretary Solis' presentation also includes plans for budget increases for a Misclassification Initiative to address misclassification with 100 additional enforcement personnel and grants to increase states' incentives to address the problem. Misclassification of employees as "independent contractors" deprives the employee of benefits and protections such as overtime and unemployment benefits.

Continuing the message on April 1, 2010, Secretary Solis unveiled the U.S. Department of Labor's "We Can Help" campaign. This campaign is to be led by the department's Wage and Hour Division and will focus on employees in industries such as construction, janitorial work, hotel/motel services, food services and home health care.

Courts have used what is called the Economic Realities Test to determine whether individuals are properly classified as independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Under this test, the Court considers the following factors: (1) the degree of control which the alleged employer exerts over the worker; (2) the worker's opportunity for profit or loss; (3) the worker's investment in the business; (4) the permanence of the working relationship; (5) the degree of skill required to perform the work; and (6) the extent to which the work is an integral part of the alleged employer's business. None of the factors alone is dispositive; the Court assesses the totality of the circumstances. See, Lewis v. ASAP Land Express, 554 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (D. Kan., 2008).

Source:
Secretary Hilda L. Solis presents US Department of Labor budget request for fiscal year 2011

US Labor Secretary sends message to America's under-paid and under-protected: 'We Can Help'