|
On December 9th the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) unanimously ruled that time spent by hourly workers in security screenings after the end of their shift was not time worked and thus not required to be paid under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The employees' position was that the time should have been compensable because the screenings were required by the employer, took up to 25 minutes between waiting and actual screening time, could have been conducted in a manner that would have taken less time (staggered shifts) and was for the sole benefit of the employer and its customers.
The employees in question were warehouse workers. Their primary duties included retrieving products from warehouse shelves and packaging them for delivery. The employer implemented post-shift security screenings to help prevent and detect theft of company property.
So the question for the court was whether the security screenings were "integral and indispensable to the employees' principal activities."
Under the Portal-to-Portal Pay Act, preliminary and postliminary activities are not considered time worked and thus need not be paid. For example, the Act exempts from compensable time the time spent "walking, riding or traveling to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity." Most employers are familiar with this concept as it relates to driving or traveling to and from work each day (although join this month's webcast for the spins and twists of travel time!).
The court applied the same rationale here. The workers could perform their principal activities of retrieving products from warehouse shelves and packaging them with or without being screened. The latter was not indispensable to the performance of the employees' principal activity.
Implications? (1) Remember you can always go above and beyond what the law requires. Just because such time does not have to be paid does not mean you could not choose to provide some compensation for the time spent; perhaps minimum wage. (2) Consult with legal counsel as the interpretation of what is/not "integral and indispensable" is tricky - what about walking from the time clock to the workbench? Or time spent changing into or out of a uniform? (3) Want more practical examples and detail of the court's analysis? Join this month's webcast, "Wage & Hour Woes: Part II" as we review these issues and more! Discounted annual subscriptions available.
| 
