United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1473 v. Hormel Foods Corp.
876 N.W.2d 99
Wis.2016Background
- Class action by United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1473 on behalf of ~330 Hormel Beloit plant hourly employees claiming unpaid time for donning/doffing required clothing and equipment, causing unpaid overtime under Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 272.12.
- Stipulated median time for donning/doffing, washing hands, and walking to/from workstations was 5.7 minutes/day (≈28.5 minutes/week, ~24 hours/year); employees swipe in before paid shift start and are paid from scheduled shift start to swipe-out, minus a 30‑minute unpaid meal.
- Hormel requires plant-issued clothing/equipment (whites, hair/beard nets, hard hats, eye/hearing protection, captive shoes) for sanitation and safety; laundry/lease through Aramark.
- Circuit court awarded class $195,087.30: unpaid wages for 5.7 minutes/day and $15,000 (stipulated) for unpaid meal-period issues (1% of employees who left premises during meal); circuit court rejected de minimis defense.
- Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed that donning/doffing at beginning and end of day is compensable under Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 272.12 as an activity "integral and indispensable" to principal activities (food production), and held de minimis inapplicable on these facts; it accepted the $15,000 meal-period award by stipulation but did not decide broader meal-period compensability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether donning/doffing required clothing/equipment at start/end of day is compensable work time under Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 272.12(2)(e) | Donning/doffing is integral and indispensable to employees' principal activity (food production) because it ensures sanitation/safety and complies with federal food/safety standards, so it is part of the workday and compensable. | Hormel argued (inter alia) that donning/doffing is preliminary/postliminary, not "integral and indispensable," and that federal precedent (Integrity Staffing) counsels against compensation for activities not intrinsic to productive work. | Held: Compensable. Donning/doffing at beginning/end of day is "integral and indispensable" to food production under § DWD 272.12 and thus within the compensable workday. |
| Whether donning/doffing during unpaid meal periods is compensable | Union argued unpaid meal periods were not bona fide for employees who had to doff/don to leave and return, thus pay is owed. | Hormel contested liability and emphasized facts about how few employees (1%) left during meals; argued de minimis/other defenses. | Court did not further adjudicate broad meal-period liability; it accepted the parties' $15,000 stipulation for the small subset and declined to disturb that award but did not adopt a general rule. |
| Whether de minimis doctrine bars recovery for the stipulated 5.7 minutes/day | Union argued the time is meaningful in aggregate (~24 hours/year; >$500/year per employee) and not a "trifle." | Hormel invoked de minimis (and cited federal cases) to avoid paying brief unpaid time, contending small increments fall outside compensable time. | Held: Assuming de minimis applies, it does not bar recovery here — the time is not de minimis on these facts (aggregate and stipulated daily amount). |
| Whether Tyson Foods (Weissman) should be overruled as inconsistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent | Union relied on Weissman and analogous analysis. | Hormel urged overruling Weissman as inconsistent with Integrity Staffing. | Held: Tyson Foods/Weissman remains good law; Integrity Staffing is consistent when applied properly (focus on whether activity is intrinsic to principal duties). |
Key Cases Cited
- Weissman v. Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc., 350 Wis. 2d 380, 838 N.W.2d 502 (Wis. Ct. App.) (donning/doffing at food plants can be compensable as "integral and indispensable")
- Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 135 S. Ct. 513 (U.S. 2014) (an activity is compensable only if it is an intrinsic element of the principal productive work; required-for-employer-benefit alone is insufficient)
- Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870 (U.S. 2014) (interpretation of statutory language on "changing clothes" and its interplay with collective bargaining; discusses compensability of donning/doffing)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1946) (de minimis doctrine in wage-hour law: "few seconds or minutes" may be disregarded)
- IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (U.S. 2005) (activity that is "integral and indispensable" to principal activity is itself a principal activity)
- Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1956) (changing clothes and showering compensable where compelled by hazardous working conditions)
- Mitchell v. King Packing Co., 350 U.S. 260 (U.S. 1956) (knife-sharpening compensable as integral to meatpacking operations)