California Appellate Court Rejects Attempted Work Week Change
SAN FRANCISCO - An employer may not artificially designate the work week in a manner so as to avoid paying overtime rates for the seventh consecutive day worked in a work week, a California appellate panel ruled April 14 (Andrew Seymore, et al. v. Metson Marine, Inc., et al., No. A127489, Calif. App., 1st Dist., Div. 3).
Plaintiffs sued Metson Marine Inc. and Metson Offshore Inc. in State Superior Court, seeking unpaid overtime wages under Labor Code Section 1194 and alleging unfair business practices under Business and Professions Code Section 17200. Plaintiffs, who worked as crew members for Metson, worked two-week rotational hitches, alternating with 14-day rest periods.
Each two-week period started on a Tuesday at noon and ended at noon on the Tuesday 14 days later. However, Metson calculated overtime pay on the premise that the work week began at 12 a.m. on Monday and ended at 11:59 p.m. the following Sunday. Based on Metson's methods, the crew members worked six days in the first work week, seven days in the second work week and two days in a third work week. As a result, the employees were paid a seventh-day premium only for one day.
The crew members were paid to work a 12-hour shift each day of the hitch. They were paid an hourly rate for the full 12 hours whether they actually performed any work or not. If they were required to work more than 12 hours in a day while responding to an emergency, they were paid double time for all hours in excess of their usual shift. The remaining 12 hours in each 24-hour period were designated by Metson as "off-duty." However, Metson required crew members to be on "stand by" during their off-duty time.
As for the "stand by" hours, the Court held that although the employees were required to stay on the ship for the eight hours allocated for sleep and were restricted in the manner they could use their remaining four hours, the employees were entitled to compensation only for four hours per 24-hour period.
(Abstract of Article from LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Litigation Report Employment Law, Vol. 7, Issue #10, May 2011).