Court hears dispute over pay for security checks
Source: AP-Excite
By SAM HANANEL
WASHINGTON (AP) — Workers who fill customer orders for Internet retailer Amazon might be out of luck in their quest to be paid for time they spend going through security checkpoints each day.
Several Supreme Court justices expressed doubts Wednesday during arguments over whether federal law entitles workers to compensation for security measures to prevent employee theft.
The case is being watched closely by business groups concerned that employers could be liable for billions of dollars in retroactive pay for security check procedures that have become routine in retail and other industries.
Workers have battled for decades with employers over what tasks they should or shouldn't be paid for. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that workers must be paid for time putting on protective gear for work, but not for time waiting to take it off. And the court has found that butchers deserve to be paid for time sharpening their knives, which are essential to working at a meatpacking plant.
FULL story at link.
In this Oct. 7, 2014, photo, a police officer is dwarfed amid the marble columns of the Supreme Court in Washington. Some warehouse workers who fill orders for Amazon.com customers say they spend up to 25 minutes after every shift waiting to pass through security checks to make sure they aren't stealing from the online retailer. But they don't get paid for the extra time. The Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit filed by two former staffers at a Nevada warehouse who claim they should be compensated for time spent in security screenings under the Fair Labor Standards Act. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20141008/us--supreme_court-hourly_workers-023aa00332.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
That case involved the "Portal to Portal Act" which was one of the key provisions added to the National Labor Act by the Taft-Hartley act of 1948.
The Portal to Portal Act was passed to undo a 1944 ruling of the US Supreme Court that miners who had to ride underground to their place of work, had to be paid for that time of travel. Under the Portal to Portal Act, an employer can say pay ONLY begins once you get to your work stations, even if it was miles away (and in at least one case, half a world away).
In the above case the employer tried to say preparing the knives for work was like driving to where you were suppose to work and thus NOT work time.
The above case cites Steiner v. Mitchell, 215 F. 2d 171 - Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 1954:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8683117638682018402&q=Butchers+Knives&hl=en&as_sdt=3,39
"
a) Except as provided in subsection (b), no employer shall be subject to any liability or punishment under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, the Walsh-Healey Act, or the Bacon-Davis Act, on account of the failure of such employer to pay an employee minimum wages, or to pay an employee overtime compensation, for or on account of any of the following activities of such employee engaged in on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. * * *
"
1) walking, riding, or traveling to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity or activities which such employee is employed to perform, and
"
2) activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to said principal activity or activities, which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principal activity or activities."Thus this is a Portal to Portal Act case, and the above law is at issue. i.e. Is it like traveling in a cart in a mine to where you are left out of the cart so you can do your mining (the 1944 US Supreme Court rule OVERRULED by the Portal to Portal Act) or is it an essential part of the job for if NOT done would lead to harm to the employee (in the case of lead and the showers and change of clothing in the Steiner case).
The complete "Portal to Portal Act of 1947":
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/chapter-9
The section of the Portal to Portal Act in Question:
Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, no employer shall be subject to any liability or punishment under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended [29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.], the Walsh-Healey Act, or the Bacon-Davis Act, [1] on account of the failure of such employer to pay an employee minimum wages, or to pay an employee overtime compensation, for or on account of any of the following activities of such employee engaged in on or after May 14, 1947—
(1) walking, riding, or traveling to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity or activities which such employee is employed to perform, and
(2) activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to said principal activity or activities,
which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principal activity or activities. For purposes of this subsection, the use of an employer’s vehicle for travel by an employee and activities performed by an employee which are incidental to the use of such vehicle for commuting shall not be considered part of the employee’s principal activities if the use of such vehicle for travel is within the normal commuting area for the employer’s business or establishment and the use of the employer’s vehicle is subject to an agreement on the part of the employer and the employee or representative of such employee.
(b) Compensability by contract or custom
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section which relieve an employer from liability and punishment with respect to any activity, the employer shall not be so relieved if such activity is compensable by either—
(1) an express provision of a written or nonwritten contract in effect, at the time of such activity, between such employee, his agent, or collective-bargaining representative and his employer; or
(2) a custom or practice in effect, at the time of such activity, at the establishment or other place where such employee is employed, covering such activity, not inconsistent with a written or nonwritten contract, in effect at the time of such activity, between such employee, his agent, or collective-bargaining representative and his employer.
(c) Restriction on activities compensable under contract or custom
For the purposes of subsection (b) of this section, an activity shall be considered as compensable under such contract provision or such custom or practice only when it is engaged in during the portion of the day with respect to which it is so made compensable.
(d) Determination of time employed with respect to activities
In the application of the minimum wage and overtime compensation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended [29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.], of the Walsh-Healey Act, or of the Bacon-Davis Act, [1] in determining the time for which an employer employs an employee with respect to walking, riding, traveling, or other preliminary or postliminary activities described in subsection (a) of this section, there shall be counted all that time, but only that time, during which the employee engages in any such activity which is compensable within the meaning of subsections (b) and (c) of this section.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/254