Labor & Employment Law

Travel Time Class Action Highlights Necessity To Accurately Determine "Work Time."

By Mark Tabakman

An equipment technician has filed a Fair Labor Standards Act collective/class action against Ingersoll-Rand Company.  The allegation relates to alleged working time, i.e. travel time, that the company did not pay workers for.  These workers drive all over the New England performing installations, service and repairs.  The case is entitled Nelson v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The employee's theory is that the work now being performed off-the-clock work is 'integral and indispensable' to his primary job of being a technician.  Under the FLSA, it is the 'integral' nature of the preliminary or postliminary activity to the main job that determines its compensability or lack thereof.  The actual, main job involved the repairing of equipment such as hoists, cranes, air compressors and air dryers..

The employee contends that before September 2008, the company did pay the technicians for their travel time, but this abruptly ceased.  The company implemented a new 'hours and operations and expectations' policy that specified the daily work hours, but, now, explicitly excluded travel time as compensable hours.  However, the suit charges that although the company stopped paying the workers for travel time, it nevertheless continued to charge its customers for time it took the technicians to travel to and back from the customer location.

The lawsuit also alleges that the technicians are no longer paid for the time it takes them to don and duff what they deem to be protective clothing.  As I posted only a few weeks ago, the United States Department of Labor has recently issued an Interpretation on when such donning and doffing time is compensable.  If these allegations are correct and the gear that must be changed into is for the mens' safety, the time likely would be compensable. 

The workers also claim that the time they take in powering up their equipment, loading tools, communicating with management, i.e. dispatchers and arranging their job schedules and assignments is also compensable.  Again, the focus of the court will be on whether these activities are so essential to the main job that payment is required or whether they fall under the de minimis doctrine.

I gave a webinair on "What Constitutes Working Time" just yesterday.  See www.foxrothschild.com/redirect_webinair_whatIsWorkingTime_063010.asp

Full post as published by Wage & Hour - Development & Highlights on July 01, 2010 (boomark / email).