California employers need to routinely need to review their policies and practices to make sure they are complying with intricacies that may arise in their work place. In law school, attorneys-to-be are taught to “issue spot,” and the unfortunate litigation landscape that faces California employers, business owners and their supervisors must also “issue spot” and make sure the unique aspects of California employment law are being complied with to avoid liability. This Friday’s Five covers five issues employers should issue spot on a routine basis to help ensure compliance and reduce liability:
Reporting time pay is triggered when an employee is required to report for work, but is not put to work or is furnished less than half their usual or scheduled day’s work. If this occurs, the employee needs to be paid for half the usual or scheduled day’s work, but in no event for less than two (2) hours nor more than four (4) hours, at the employee’s regular rate of pay, which cannot not be less than the minimum wage.
It is important for employers to train managers and supervisors about this requirement, so that they understand the need to pay reporting time pay, or report the instance to HR to ensure the employee receives reporting time pay if they are sent home before one-half of their shift is worked.
A split shift is a work schedule that is interrupted by a non-paid, non-working period established by the employer that is other than a meal or rest break. So if the employee is required to work a shift, but then asked to report to a second shift over later in the same day, the employer may be obligated to pay a split shift premium. Again, this issue is one that front-line managers and supervisors need to be trained on to ensure that split shifts are being reported to HR or other appropriate management in the company to ensure any split shift pay obligations are being paid.
Under Labor Code section 2802, employers need to reimburse employees for any business expenses they incur in the course of completing their work for the employer. This basic concept sounds easy in principle, but given the technology used in today’s workplaces, there can be many areas that expose employers to liability. For example, if employees are required to work at home, have access to the internet, print reports, or send and receive faxes, the costs for completing this work should be reimbursed by the employer. Other areas that are often litigated are cell phone reimbursement, mileage reimbursement, and reimbursement for the costs of uniforms and safety equipment.
Employers can be held liable for unpaid wages if they knew or should have known that employees were working and not being paid for the work. Employers should establish and regularly communicate a time keeping policy to employees and supervisors. The policy should set forth that employees always have an open door to complain to their supervisors and other managers or human resources about missed meal and rest breaks, unpaid wages, or unpaid wages. If employees routinely acknowledge that they understand the time keeping policy and are agreeing to record their time through the employer’s system, this can go a long way in defending any off-the-clock claims.
Even though employees are traveling to a work site or even sleeping, if the employee is under the control of the employer, the employer may have to pay them for being on-call. For example, the California Supreme Court held that security guards who were required to reside in a trailer provided by the employer at construction worksites would still need to be paid for the time they slept while on-call. In that case, during weekdays the guards were on patrol for eight hours, on call for eight hours, and off duty for eight hours. On weekends, the guards were on patrol for 16 hours and on call for eight hours. The Court held that the employer was not permitted to exclude the time guards spent sleeping from the compensable hours worked in 24-hour shifts. See Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc.
Likewise, in Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., the California Supreme Court held that, “we conclude the time agricultural employees are required to spend traveling on their employer’s buses is compensable under Wage Order No. 14-80 because they are ‘subject to the control of an employer’ and do not also have to be ‘suffered or permitted to work’ during this travel period.” Generally, travel time is considered compensable work hours where the employer requires its employees to meet at a designated place and use the employer’s designated transportation to and from the work site.