Labor & Employment Law

Is Training Time Working Time?

By Mark E. Tabakman, Esq.

A federal court has ruled that an airline was not required under the Fair Labor Standards Act to compensate a prospective flight attendant for the periods of time that she attended a full-time training program that lasted five weeks. Interestingly, during this period, the trainee received free housing and an allowance for meals. The case was brought in federal court in Washington and was docketed as Ulrich V. Alaska Airlines Inc.

The court dismissed the case because the judge determined that the training was of benefit to the trainee. It enabled her 'to qualify for employment by Alaska' Airlines and to gain 'first-hand experience in the type of customer service provided by Alaska.' Of equal significance was the concomitant finding that the airline-employer 'received no immediate benefit' from her work 'serving passengers on board the training flights, because the airline still had to staff the airplane with a full complement of regular flight attendants.' This element, i.e. the employer deriving benefit, meaning productive work, is a key component of the analysis.

Also, the airline made no representation that the trainee would in fact receive a position with it following the completion of the training (although the majority of trainees did receive job offers)

The United States Department of Labor has, through issuance of numerous Opinion Letters, adopted a six-part test for determining whether an individual engaged in a training program is an employee and unless all six factors are satisfied, the person is deemed an 'employee' and must receive compensation for his endeavors/efforts for that employer.

The factors are: (1) whether the training, even though it includes actual operation of the employer's facilities, is similar to that which would be given in a vocational school; (2) whether the training is for the trainees' benefit; (3) whether the trainees displace regular employees and work under close observation; (4) whether the employer derives an immediate advantage from the trainees' activities;(5) whether the trainees are entitled to a job after completing training; and (6) whether the employer and the trainees understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the training time.

Under the 'benefit' test, the court made clear that the benefit to the employer must be 'immediate' and cannot be speculative or in the future. Indeed, the court observed that the airline may even have lost money in the training process, because the trainees took up seats that otherwise would have gone to paying passengers. The airline was also required to have a flight fully staffed with regular flight attendants, notwithstanding that the trainees may have performed some minor tasks on the flight, such as service cart work and trash pick-up.' In sum, the employer-airline did not derive the benefit, although the regular flight attendants may have been relieved of some of their usual (tedious) duties.

As with all of these issues, an employer must closely scrutinize the tests applicable to determining employee, as opposed to trainee, status. An incorrect answer will could mean thousands of dollars in potential liability.
 

Full post as published by Wage & Hour - Development & Highlights on March 18, 2009 (boomark / email).