Port Of Tacoma, V. Joel Sacks, Dept. Of L & I, 495 P.3d 866

Port of Tacoma arranged multiple out-of-town trips (two to China, one to Houston) for hourly crane mechanics to inspect manufacturing and attend training; Port purchased tickets and instructed travel logistics.
Employees were paid only per a union agreement (up to 8 hours/day) and not for all time spent traveling (including travel to/from airport, time at airport, and flight time).
Four mechanics filed wage claims with the Department of Labor & Industries seeking compensation for all travel time; the Department investigated using WAC 296-126-002(8), policy ES.C.2, and an unpublished Desk Aid, and issued a citation finding travel time compensable.
The Office of Administrative Hearings granted summary judgment to the Port; the Department’s Director reversed, concluding out-of-town travel is compensable as “hours worked.”
The Port obtained judicial review in superior court, which granted summary judgment to the Port and reversed the Director.
The Court of Appeals reversed the superior court, reinstated the Director’s order, held out-of-town travel compensable under the WAC, and remanded for further proceedings on wage calculations.

Issue	Department's Argument	Port's Argument	Held
Whether travel for out-of-town work assignments qualifies as "hours worked" under WAC 296-126-002(8)	Travel authorized/required by employer and performed for employer's benefit is an integral part of the assignment; travel is "on duty" at a "prescribed work place" and thus compensable	Travel time is noncompensable commute-like time; Stevens and Anderson restrict compensability of similar travel	Court: Out-of-town travel is distinguishable from daily commute and is compensable as "hours worked" under the WAC
Whether the Department's interpretation (including Desk Aid and ES.C.2) is entitled to deference	The Department has a longstanding, consistent policy treating travel time as compensable; its expertise warrants deference to its interpretation of its own regulation	The Desk Aid is unpublished and therefore not entitled to deference; agency policy cannot override law	Court: Agency interpretation of its own properly promulgated regulation gets substantial weight if plausible and not contrary to law; deference appropriate here
Whether Stevens and Anderson control the outcome	Federal and state distinctions recognize out-of-town travel as different from daily commutes; Stevens/Anderson concern daily-commute contexts	Relies on Stevens/Anderson to argue travel time is noncompensable	Court: Stevens and Anderson address daily-commute facts and are inapplicable to out-of-town travel assignments

Stevens v. Brink's Home Security, 162 Wn.2d 42 (2007) (Supreme Court decision on compensability of employer-provided vehicle commute time)
Anderson v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 115 Wn. App. 452 (2003) (Court of Appeals ruling that daily ferry commute was not "hours worked")
Silverstreak, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 159 Wn.2d 868 (2007) (explains deference to agency interpretation of its own regulations)
Carranza v. Dovex Fruit Co., 190 Wn.2d 612 (2018) (addresses limits of reliance on agency policies when interpreting statutes and regulations)
State v. Numrich, 197 Wn.2d 1 (2021) (reaffirms substantial weight accorded to agency interpretations within their expertise)