Araquistain v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company
176 Cal. Rptr. 3d 620
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (Araquistain, Page, Girouard) are hourly PG&E employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement (the Agreement) and worked “consecutive hour” shifts (≥8 hours) during which they ate on duty.
- Title 104.13 of the Agreement states employees working eight consecutive hours “shall be permitted to eat their meals during work hours and shall not be allowed additional time therefore at Company expense.”
- Until April 1, 2011 PG&E had a Missed Meal Payment program for missed uninterrupted 30‑minute breaks; it was discontinued after AB 569 amendments to Labor Code § 512.
- Plaintiffs sued seeking penalties and damages, alleging PG&E must provide off‑duty 30‑minute meal periods; PG&E defended that § 512(e)/(f)(4) exempts employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement that “expressly provides for meal periods.”
- Trial court granted PG&E summary judgment; plaintiffs appealed. The dispositive question was statutory interpretation of whether the Agreement “expressly provides for meal periods” within § 512(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a CBA provision permitting employees to "eat their meals during work hours" "expressly provides for meal periods" under Labor Code § 512(e) | The Agreement provides for "meals" but not "meal periods"; a "meal period" requires a discrete duty‑free time (beginning/end) akin to Brinker’s off‑duty 30‑minute period | The Agreement expressly provides for meal periods in the collective‑bargained sense by authorizing time to eat during work hours; AB 569 permits alternative, negotiated meal arrangements | The court held the Agreement does "expressly provide for meal periods" under § 512(e); thus § 512(a) does not apply to the covered employees |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012) (describes off‑duty meal period as 30 uninterrupted minutes relieving employee of all duty)
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (2007) (employer must pay an additional hour if required meal or rest periods are not provided)
- Vranish v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 223 Cal.App.4th 103 (2014) (collective bargaining exception may allow different definitions/arrangements than statutory defaults)