California Supreme Court Clarifies Definition Of “Hours Worked”

April 23, 2024

The California Supreme Court has issued its opinion in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc., providing clarity on compensable time under California law. Although the decision discusses “hours worked” in the context of construction, drilling, logging, and mining industries under Wage Order 16, the decision has significant implications for employers across various industries in the state, especially employers with employee security checks or site-restrictive meal periods.

Facts Of The Case:

Huerta stemmed from a class-action lawsuit involving a remote construction site. A private road connected a guard shack located at the perimeter of the company’s property and the employee parking lots. A security gate was located on that road several miles from the guard shack. Employees would drive approximately 10 to 15 minutes to reach the parking lots once through the security gate.

According to the plaintiff, vehicles formed a long line outside the security gate as employees arrived to work in the morning. At the security gate, guards scanned badges and looked into vehicles. At the end of the day, employees waited in line inside the security gate, where vehicles were inspected before employees could leave the property. These exit inspections caused delays of five to over thirty minutes. Employees were not paid for this time, neither at the start nor end of the day.

Due to environmental factors, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife required a twenty mile per hour speed limit on the access road between the guard shack and parking lot. To avoid disturbing wildlife on the property, employees were prohibited from traveling by bike, walking onto the property, and playing loud music, honking, etc. Violation of these rules could result in discipline up to and including termination. Employees were not paid for time spent traveling between the guard shack and parking lot.

The plaintiff’s employment also was governed by a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”), which described a standard workday and included an unpaid, 30-minute meal period. Workers were not allowed to leave the property during the workday, and the company required employees to take their meal periods at designated areas.In accordance with the CBA, employees were not paid for their meal periods.

At the heart of the ruling were three fundamental questions that the California Supreme Court addressed:

1. Security Procedures: The first question revolved around the compensability of time spent on an employer’s premises awaiting and undergoing mandated exit procedures, including vehicle inspections. The Court declared that such time constitutes compensable “hours worked.” It emphasized that despite employees being in their personal vehicles, the employer’s control over the exit procedures, coupled with their inherent benefit to the employer, renders the time compensable. In light of the Court’s 2020 decision involving Apple stores’ security checks, this holding is not surprising. See Frlekin v. Apple Inc., 8 Cal.5th 1038 (2020).

2. Travel on Employer’s Premises: The Court’s ruling also provided clarity on the compensability of travel time between the outer security gates and employee parking lots. The Court held that the time an employee spends traveling between a security gate and parking lot at the start and end of the workday is not compensable as “employer-mandated travel” because the security gate was a practical necessity of the workplace. Furthermore, the Court found that this travel time did not constitute “hours worked” because the application of ordinary workplace rules to employees during transit does not constitute sufficient employer control to warrant additional compensation.

However, the Court advised that if an employee’s presence at the security gate is mandated for employment-related reasons beyond mere site access, such as picking up supplies or receiving work orders, then the travel time would become compensable.

3. Compensation for Restricted Meal Periods: Lastly, the Court addressed the compensability of meal periods, particularly in cases governed by CBAs exempting employers from certain meal-period requirements. The Court held that when an employee is covered by a CBA that provides the employee with an “unpaid meal period,” that meal period is nevertheless compensable as “hours worked” if the employer prohibits the employee from leaving the employer’s premises during the meal period or if this prohibition prevents the employee from engaging in personal activities.

In light of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Huerta, employers should take proactive steps to ensure their security and meal period practices are compliant.

1.  Review Security and Screening Procedures: Employers should evaluate their security and screening protocols, especially those involving bag and vehicle inspections. If employees are required to spend time being screened at entrances and exits, the time likely constitutes “hours worked” under Huerta and Frlekin, and employers should compensate their non-exempt employees for this time.
2.  Clarify Compensability of Travel Time: Given the Court’s discussion of compensable travel time, employers should revisit policies regarding travel between security gates and employee parking lots. While ordinary workplace rules during transit may not render travel time compensable as “hours worked,” once the employer’s control test is met, that travel time likely becomes compensable.
3.  Review Policies on Meal Periods: Employers covered by collective bargaining agreements exempting them from certain meal period requirements must carefully assess policies regarding employee meal breaks. It is important to avoid prohibitions on employee movement during unpaid meal periods, as such restrictions could lead to the compensability of meal-period time as “hours worked.”

If you have questions about what activities constitute “hours worked” for your employees, please do not hesitate to contact your SFSSW attorney.

www.swerdlowlaw.com