Needless to say, as this case clearly shows whether "off-the-clock" work is compensable or not is difficult to assess as there is no clear line as to what is and is not compensable time. 4th 575, 586 (2000) in which the Court held that waiting and travel time in a company provided bus from a pick-up place to the employer's worksite is "compulsory travel time" because the workers were "subject to the employer's control" and "could not drop off their children at school, stop for breakfast before work, or run other errands requiring the use of a car." In the instant case, the majority of the Court held that under California law Rutti was entitled to compensation for the time he spent commuting because as in MorillionRutti was "subject to the employer’s control" in that he was similarly required to use a company vehicle and was not permitted to run a personal errand, or to engage in any personal activities while driving the company vehicle. The Appeals Court also cited the California Supreme Court decision in Morillion v. The Court based its ruling on how California law defines "hours worked." Pursuant to California's Industrial Welfare Commission's Orders, hours worked is defined as "the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." See, DSLE Opinion Letter 1998.12.23 (Dec. § 254(a)(2)), Rutti's commute time was compensable under California law. In the revised opinion, the Court held that while Rutti's commute time was not compensable under federal law pursuant to the Employee Commuter Flexibility Act("ECFA," 29 U.S.C. Time spent Commuting to and from Work in the Company Vehicle is Compensable under California Law. Although all three judges agreed that this activity was an "integral and indispensable part" of Rutti's job, Justice Hall believed the work was de minimis and not compensable under federal law. Two of the three appellate court judges, Callahan and Silverman, held that under California law Rutti was entitled to compensation for the time spent transmitting Company reports "after work," which routinely took 15 minutes per day. Time Spent After Work Transmitting Records to the Company may be Compensable. Upon revisiting the case, all three judges unanimously agreed that Rutti was not entitled to compensation for time spent before work to acquire his assignments and to map his route as such work is deemed de minimus under both California and Federal law. Time Spent Before Work Acquiring Assignments and Mapping Locations is De Minimus and Not Compensable.
Initially, the Court held that Rutti was notentitled to compensation for time traveling to and from work in the Company vehicle, nor for time spent before work to acquire his assignments and to map his route, but that Rutti was entitled to compensation for time spent "after-work" to upload company reports. In Rutti the Court was asked to determine whether an employee is entitled to compensation for time spent commuting in a company vehicle, and for time spent at home after work entering data into the company’s computer. Lojack Corporation and issued a replacement decision. In March of 2010, a distinguished three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed its opinion in Rutti v.
0 kommentar(er)
