938 N.E.2d 897
Mass. App. Ct.2010Background
- Wakefield, MA allegedly must compensate ten probationary firefighters for travel time to the Massachusetts Fire Academy during a 12-week recruit program under G. L. c. 149, § 148 and G. L. c. 151, § 1A; plaintiffs seek overtime for travel time under c. 151, §§ 1A, 1B.
- Firefighters attended the MFA for 12 weeks in 2005–2006, reporting to MFA each day and being paid for 42 hours in a 40-hour week.
- Travel was approximately one hour each way, with one exception traveling from Andover, and plaintiffs went directly to MFA and then directly home after each day.
- The town’s collective bargaining agreement requires recruiting new firefighters to attend Fire Academy during the first year, at the Chief’s discretion and subject to funds; completion is a condition for tenure.
- The dispute centers on whether travel time to the MFA qualifies as compensable time under the Wage Act and related regulations governing hours worked.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether travel time to MFA is compensable under hours-worked rules | Travel time exceeds ordinary commute; should be compensable | Travel time is ordinary commute unless the site is fixed and for employer convenience | Compensable travel time; MFA was the fixed work site during training |
| Whether MFA travel time satisfies the ‘fixed location’ prong | MFA was not the regular fixed site | MFA can be a fixed site for the period | MFA constituted the plaintiffs’ fixed and regular work site during training |
| Whether the travel requirement was for the convenience of the employer | Training is not compelled by employer convenience | Training may be for employer convenience | Not for the employer’s convenience under the regulation; training is an employment requirement to earn tenure |
| Whether regulatory interpretation of travel time aligns with DOS letters and state law | Regulations allow compensation for travel under certain assignments | DOS letters provide interpretation under specific circumstances | Court adopted a construction that supports compensability given fixed site and non-convenience rationale |
Key Cases Cited
- Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 117 (1991) (de novo review of summary judgment and standard guidance)
- Johnson v. Commissioner of Pub. Welfare, 414 Mass. 572 (1993) (interpretation of statutes and undefined terms; standard of construction)
- Imada v. City of Hercules, 138 F.3d 1294 (9th Cir. 1998) (travel time for off-site training; employer benefit analysis in § 785.37 context)
- Wayland, District Attorney for the N. District v. School Comm. of Wayland, 455 Mass. 561 (2009) (de novo review of summary judgment in regulatory context)
- Murphy’s Case, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 708 (2002) (interpretation of undefined terms; regulatory construction)