I've been employeed by a company for over 7 years. For the last 6 years or so we have been having Friday lunch meetings (initiated by previous management), the meal is bought and paid for by the company. I have been the only hourly employee in the company, recently two more salary employees have converted over to hourly because they have become part-time. Usually those employees don't attend the Friday meetings but have come in on occasion, I've never asked them if they have been paid for that time but would assume they must have if they were asked to come in. My question is whether or not I should have been paid for that time as well? Considering I usually work 8 hours daily (9 hours minus 1 hour for lunch), is it possible that I am owed OT for that time? In reading some of the other posts regarding how far back I can go, I guess I lose about 3 of those 6 years. Recently it has been decided that the meetings will be held once a month instead of weekly with the possibility of being done away with completely in the future. Provided I actually have a claim, do any of these new changes affect my case?

If you are an hourly, non-exempt employee and you are actually working during the lunch period you are entitled to be paid for the lunch period - along with one hour of extra pay under Labor Code 226.7. You ostensibly could go back 4 years if you filed a lawsuit against the company.

This may sound silly but could you define working? I mean if every one in the company had the impression or was led to believe the lunch period itself was manatory because immediately following it was a company meeting, would that qualify it as work? Would our luncheon still be considered lunch and not work related if not for the fact that we had lunch catered or delivered so that we never left the office exclusively on Fridays?

Cornfused_Worker-B: This may sound silly but could you define working?

Actually, it's not a silly as you may think. Many federal and state courts have wrestled with this very question. In the most technical of terms, if you are "suffered or permitted to work" you are entitled to be paid. Some basic illustrations may help clarify things for you....

1. If your boss requires you to attend to a luncheon, you are "suffered to work" because you are subject to your employer's control. Hence, you must be paid.

2. If your boss doesn't care whether you join him for lunch, sit in you car and take an aftern0on nap, or chit chat with your friends on your cell phone, but you choose to work during lunch, your boss has "permitted you to work." Hence, you must be paid.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs22.htm

Wow. I can clearly see that my situation fits into one of these. Of course I realize that it should be weighed on an individual basis. However I am very much in both your debt for clearing this up for me. They recently changed these meetings to occur only once a month so I suppose I should consider my actions very carefully as well as quickly.

Cornfused_Worker-B: However I am very much in your debt for clearing this up for me.

I hate debt, don't you? Where should I send the bill? ;)

:eek: homina, homina, homina...

Cornfused_Worker-B: However I am very much in your debt for clearing this up for me.

I hate debt, don't you? Where should I send the bill? ;)

LOL, Barry!