California Employee Rights Advocate : California Labor Attorney & Lawyer : Southern CA Employment Law : Los Angeles, Orange County : United Employees Law Group

Most people are not paid to drive to work they are paid once they arrive and begin their work. Mike Ritti sued Lojack for his commute time and originally lost. However, Rutti v Lojack, March of 2010, the 9th circuit court of appeal found that Rutti and all other technicians at Lojack were owed their commute time from home to their first stop.

Mike Rutti worked for Lojack as an installation technician. As such he would drive a company vehicle from his home to the client’s location each morning to in install alarm systems. Lojack had several company policies regarding the work vehicle. Rutti was not allowed to: run personal errands in the vehicle, have any passengers other than co workers, use his cell phone while driving and he was required to go directly to the job in the morning and directly home at the end of his last appointment.

Rutti Sued Lojack on behalf of himself and all other technician for his commute time and for the time he spent performing “preliminary” activities, such as, mapping, receiving, prioritizing tasks/jobs, routing before leaving his home every morning. As well as the time he spent at the end of his day when he returned home to wrap up all of the necessary documentation from that day’s work.

Originally the court found that Rutti’s commute time and pre/post work activities were not compensable under the Employee Commuting Flexibility Act (ECFA). Then new case law presented its self: Morillion v Royal Packing Company, where the California Supreme Court found that employees must be compensated during time when an employee is subject to the control of the employer. Rutti filed an appeal and will receive back pay for the time he spend working off the clock during his commute. However, the court determined that the time he spent at home before and after his commute was not compensable based on the language found in the ECFA.

The ECFA states that employers are not required to compensate employees for activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to the employees principal activities. It further designates that even if the activities are related to the employees principal activity the time is still not compensable if it is de minimis.

In determining if an activity is de minimis the court considered:

• The practical administrative difficulty of recording the additional time
• The aggregate amount of compensable time
• The regularity of the additional work

The court found that Rutti’s pre and post activities were not integral to his principal activities and so they are not compensable.

In conclusion, if you have any restrictions placed on you by your employer during your commute to and from work you should have an experience California employment attorney review your case.

If you have any questions about this article or our blog, feel free to call us at:

Long Beach – (562) 256-1047
Los Angeles – (213) 261-0229
San Francisco – (415) 200-0012 or (415) 230-2755
San Diego – (619) 342-1242 or (619) 272-2193

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

California Employment attorneys are at it again- further defining the rights of employees. If you do not enjoy the luxury of working at home, you must spend time traveling to and from your place of employment. Generally, this time is not compensable as “hours worked,” because you are not considered to be under the control of your employer. But what if your employer furnishes you with a company vehicle and requires certain tasks to be completed before and after traveling from home? California Employment attorneys have brought this issue before the Court of Appeals in a class action filed by employees of the Lojack Corporation. See Rutti v. Lojack Corporation, Inc., No. 07-56599, US Court of Appeals (9th Cir.) (March 2, 2010)  The alarm technicians sought payment for time spent driving to and from job sites in company vehicles. In addition, they claimed compensation for certain “off the clock” activities such as logging assignments, mapping routes, and prioritizing jobs.

Upon reviewing the federal Employee Commuting Flexibility Act (ECFA), the Court held that travel time and any de minimus activities were not compensable. While many California employment attorneys representing employees may disagree with this decision, nevertheless at this point this will likely govern compensation in these areas.

First and foremost, the ECFA clearly states that an employer is not required to pay employees for travel time to and from the location of the place where principal job activities are performed. An employer is also not required to pay for any activities that are incidental to the use of the vehicle (i.e. getting gas, having the oil changed, or washing the vehicle). The employer may include mandatory use of a company vehicle and restrictions on the use of the vehicle as a condition of employment. Restrictions are valid as long as they do not constitute additional cognizable work. The Court held that Lojack’s requirement that company vehicles be used only from travel to and from work and that there be no passengers was merely incidental and did not constitute compensable work.

Secondly, “off the clock” activities are not compensable unless they are related to the “principal activities” of the job and not merely “de minimus.” Principal activities are generally those tasks that are performed as part of the regular work of employees in the ordinary course of business. When the tasks are actually performed is irrelevant. On the other hand, de minimus activities consist of additional work that requires a miniscule amount of time and does not take place on a regular basis. The Court in Rutti indicated that the employees’ preliminary activities such as filling out forms appeared to be de minimus and not compensable, but that some postliminary activities such as job dispatches were vital to the business and could be compensable.

In light of Rutti, the important thing for employees to remember is that whether travel and off the clock actvities are compensable is a very fact specific determination. If your job requires the use of a company vehicle or additional work time, you should consider the folllowing:

1. Reach a formal vehicle use agreement with your employer and have it put in writing.
2. Establish regular work hours. If you work more than 40 hours per week, including compensable travel time, you are entitled to overtime.
3. Be aware of any attempts by your employer to turn compensable activities into non-compensable activites.
4. Contact a knowledgable California labor law attorney or other employment attorneys for an unbiased evaluation of your particular situation.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks