50 Cal.App.5th 786
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Gutierrez was a journeyman scaffold worker for Brand Energy; his on-site shifts at refineries required pre-shift badging, walking to a shuttle, riding to a lunch tent, donning safety gear, then attending a mandatory safety meeting. He was at the refinery 30–40 minutes before shift start.
- Brand’s practice was “in on the employee’s time, out on the Company’s”: Brand paid post-shift travel but did not pay for pre-shift employer-mandated travel time.
- Gutierrez sued for unpaid wages, wage statement and waiting-time violations, and UCL restitution on behalf of himself and a putative class, alleging Brand failed to pay minimum wage for employer-mandated pre-shift travel time.
- Brand asserted as an affirmative defense that IWC Wage Order No. 16, §5(D) permits a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) to exempt employer-mandated travel from compensation; Brand relied on CBA(s) amended by a June 2017 letter of understanding (LOU) that characterized in-refinery travel to first worksite as non-compensable.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Brand, holding the CBA/LOU satisfied §5(D) and thus exempted pre-shift travel from compensation; the Court of Appeal reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wage Order 16 §5(D) allows a CBA to waive the right to minimum wage for employer-mandated pre-shift travel time | §5(D) does not and cannot waive the separate minimum-wage mandate in Wage Order §4 and Lab. Code §1194; §5(D) only governs the rate (regular or premium) for travel time under §5 | §5(D) exempts CBA-covered employees from §5’s compensation requirement so long as the CBA "expressly provides otherwise," effectively permitting no compensation for such travel | Court held §5(D) does not permit waiving the right to minimum wage; CBA exemption extends to §5’s regular/premium-rate rules only and cannot override §4 and §1194’s minimum-wage requirement |
| Whether the Brand CBA/June 2017 LOU satisfied §5(D)’s exemption requirements | (Alternate argument) The CBA/LOU did not meet §5(D) formal requirements (court did not decide after resolving statutory issue) | Brand argued the LOU constituted a collectively bargained agreement that met §5(D) and so insulated its practice | Court reversed judgment for Brand and remanded; it did not reach the alternative §5(D)-compliance question because it resolved the case on statutory interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (employees’ compulsory travel and waiting time were compensable when under employer control)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (wage orders are legislative regulations and must be given independent effect; interpret wage orders to effectuate employee protection)
- Troester v. Starbucks Corp., 5 Cal.5th 829 (hours worked and remedial construction; de minimis/work time recording arguments rejected)
- Frlekin v. Apple Inc., 8 Cal.5th 1038 (wage-and-hour laws construed liberally to protect employees)
- Gentry v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 443 (rights to legal minimum wage are unwaivable)
- Stoetzl v. Department of Human Resources, 7 Cal.5th 718 (legislatively approved labor agreements can supersede general laws; distinguishes private CBAs from statutory enactments)