Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc.
194 Cal. App. 4th 361
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Seymore and Blonden sued Metson Marine, Inc. and Metson Offshore, Inc. for unpaid overtime under Labor Code §1194 and for unfair business practices; case arises from two-week hitches aboard offshore vessels to respond to oil spills/offshore discharges (2004–Dec 2007).
- Employees were on 14-day hitches with 12-hour daily shifts; eight hours of sleep per 24 hours were designated as off-duty sleep, four hours as on-call standby with a 30–45 minute return requirement; they were required to sleep aboard ships and could be restricted in personal activities during standby.
- Metson designated a Monday–Sunday workweek for pay calculations, while the actual schedule began Tuesday at noon, creating a potential misalignment that could suppress overtime payments; plaintiffs argued this was a subterfuge to evade overtime requirements.
- Metson paid for 12-hour shifts, with overtime rates for hours over eight per day and double time for emergency work beyond 12 hours; seven-day overtime premiums were paid only once per 14-day hitch under Metson’s schedule.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Metson, holding compensation complied with the Labor Code; plaintiffs cross-moved for summary adjudication on several issues, including seventh-day premium and on-call standby compensation; the court’s decision was appealed.
- The court reversed and remanded: (i) the seventh-day premium issue because the artificial workweek designation appeared to evade overtime, and (ii) the on-call standby hours because eight sleep hours may be excluded but four hours of standby remain compensable; overall, Metson failed to prove proper compensation for all hours worked.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Seventh-day premium calculation | Seymore/Blonden argue Metson used an artificial workweek to avoid overtime. | Metson argues workweek may be designated flexibly and Supports its schedule as permissible under §500. | Designated workweek to evade overtime is improper; plaintiffs entitled to second seventh-day premium. |
| On-call standby hours compensation | Seymore/Blonden contend on-call standby hours (12 per day) are hours worked. | Metson contends eight hours sleep can be excluded; only four hours of standby are compensable. | Eight sleep hours may be unpaid; four on-call hours per day are compensable; overall, standby time is hours worked for the four hours. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal.4th 575 (Cal. 2000) (employer control over travel time determines hours worked)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 505 F. Supp. 2d 609 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (overtime if work hours are counted to evade overtime)
- Monzon v. Schaefer Ambulance Service, Inc., 224 Cal.App.3d 16 (Cal. App. 1990) (sleep time exclusion permissible with adequate sleeping facilities and agreement)
- Aguilar v. Association for Retarded Citizens, 234 Cal.App.3d 21 (Cal. App. 1991) (sleep time exclusions differ by wage order; control test applied)
- Bright v. Houston Northwest Medical Center Survivor, Inc., 934 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1991) (on-call restrictions can make time compensable)
- Rousseau v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 805 F.2d 1245 (5th Cir. 1986) (on-call off-duty time in certain contexts not compensable; distinguish when on-site sleep)