Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Work prior to shift no pay Florida

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Work prior to shift no pay Florida

    Let's say someone was a service tech that worked for a communications company. When he first started his job the shift was 7:30a - 4:30p. He drives a company van, and covers all of a major county. The expectation from the employer was 7:30a you sign in to company laptop, sign in to VPN, acknowledge jobs, check email, set eta for your first job, plan your route and call customer.

    Now they are changing the shifts on said service techs from 8:00a - 5:00p with the expectation you will arrive at your first job at 8:00a sharp. All the work related tasks I stated previously are still expected of the employee before arrival to first job. My question is the time spent doing all work related activities required by employer, and that must be accomplished before driving to first job, something the said employee should be paid for? If so does that then in turn make the time driving to job payable?because you have to do all those work related activities prior to arrival. Thanks just wondering about this for a friend any help is appreciated.

  • #2
    If you are a non-exempt employee, all time spent working must be paid.

    Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), time spent traveling during normal work hours is considered work time and employees must be paid for this travel time. Generally, time spent commuting* is not work time. (*from home to main office &
    from main office back home)
    Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around. Leo Buscaglia

    Live in peace with animals. Animals bring love to our hearts and warmth to our souls.

    Comment


    • #3
      http://www.dol.gov/compliance/topics...her-travel.htm
      Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around. Leo Buscaglia

      Live in peace with animals. Animals bring love to our hearts and warmth to our souls.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Betty3 View Post
        If you are a non-exempt employee, all time spent working must be paid.

        Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), time spent traveling during normal work hours is considered work time and employees must be paid for this travel time. Generally, time spent commuting* is not work time. (*from home to main office &
        from main office back home)
        so if said employer was to require you to do work activities prior to your shift and before arriving at your first job. Does the clock start when you do those work related activities and stop when you get in your van and drive to the job, then start the clock again once you get there?

        Comment


        • #5
          Any work you do (even prior to the start of your shift) must be paid. Traveling
          from the main office to the first job site & traveling during working hrs. is paid time
          as is traveling back to the main office. You don't have to be paid for the drive
          from your home to the main office or back home from the main office (commute time).

          This is for non-exempt employees.
          Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring, all of which have the potential to turn a life around. Leo Buscaglia

          Live in peace with animals. Animals bring love to our hearts and warmth to our souls.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Betty3 View Post
            Any work you do (even prior to the start of your shift) must be paid. Traveling
            from the main office to the first job site & traveling during working hrs. is paid time
            as is traveling back to the main office. You don't have to be paid for the drive
            from your home to the main office or back home from the main office (commute time).

            This is for non-exempt employees.
            thanks for the info! what about from home to your first job site and back?

            Comment


            • #7
              There is an actual 1940s federal law (Portal-to-Portal Act) that says commutes are not hours worked. The law was very specially was written to overturn a U.S. Supreme Court decision that said commutes could be hours worked. We have this law, plus fifty years of supporting court decisions that say commutes are not hours worked.

              So, the only way travel time is every hours worked is to show that the travel time has nothing what-so-ever to do commuting. That you are doing actual work that has nothing to do with commuting. If for example, you had someone drive you to and from work and you did actual work while the other person was driving, then you likely have hours worked.

              But the Act, plus the very clear intent of Congress backed up by many court decisions is that commutes be unpaid. This is very black letter law.
              "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
              Philip K. **** (1928-1982)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by DAW View Post
                There is an actual 1940s federal law (Portal-to-Portal Act) that says commutes are not hours worked. The law was very specially was written to overturn a U.S. Supreme Court decision that said commutes could be hours worked. We have this law, plus fifty years of supporting court decisions that say commutes are not hours worked.

                So, the only way travel time is every hours worked is to show that the travel time has nothing what-so-ever to do commuting. That you are doing actual work that has nothing to do with commuting. If for example, you had someone drive you to and from work and you did actual work while the other person was driving, then you likely have hours worked.

                But the Act, plus the very clear intent of Congress backed up by many court decisions is that commutes be unpaid. This is very black letter law.
                understood! thank you for the input very informative. Its just funny because its a company vehicle and the said job is not possible to do without it. Also if an employee was in a accident too and from the job site, he would have to take a drug test and be eligible for workman comp. In that same breath if it is on the employees time not the employer, the employee can then take the company van on his way home to a strip club right? lol
                not to mention the work that is required to be done prior to heading to the first job does not put you on the clock. strange world we live in.

                Comment


                • #9
                  There is sort of a company vehicle exception, just maybe not what you mean.
                  - A company owned car does not qualify for the exception. Even if you put "stuff" in the trunk.
                  - A company owned pick up truck per se does not qualify. Even if you "logo" the truck.
                  - However, get say one of those big Ford F-250 trucks, and put thousands of dollars of racks and stuff like a utility company vehicle, then you MIGHT depending on the court jurisdiction fall under the "work vehicle" exception.
                  - Get something that could not remotely be considered a "commute vehicle", say a dump truck or a cement mixer, then you certainly have a "work vehicle", not a "commute vehicle".

                  The key is you are suggesting that the fact the employer owns the vehicle means something. The Act and the courts are very clear that this is not true. Either the vehicle is a commuting vehicle or the vehicle is a work vehicle, no matter who owns. And a "work" vehicle is whatever fifty plus years of court decisions say it is.

                  This is very well established black letter law. Pretty much any argument that can be made has been made (a lot), and well decided. It is just a question of matching the facts against the correct decision.

                  Any "hours worked" argument in this context has to explain why this is not a commute. Period.
                  "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
                  Philip K. **** (1928-1982)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DAW View Post
                    - However, get say one of those big Ford F-250 trucks, and put thousands of dollars of racks and stuff like a utility company vehicle, then you MIGHT depending on the court jurisdiction fall under the "work vehicle" exception.
                    that is an exact description of said work vehicle where can i get more info on this "work vehicle" exception?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      continuous work day this seems exactly what I am talking about.


                      Dooley v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 307 F. Supp. 2d 234 (D. Mass. 2004), which held that automobile damage appraisers who worked from home were entitled to compensation for commutes because activities they performed at home were “principal activities” that formed part of a continuous work day.


                      http://www.chicagobusinesslitigation...inth_circ.html

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        There is no "exact description". What there is are court and administrative decisions, plus some guidance issued by federal DOL. For example, federal DOL has an internal Field Operation Manual which talks about the following (paraphrase, not hard quote):

                        The Fed DOL considers time spent driving a company's vehicle from home to work as hours worked, and compensable, unless all of the following conditions are met. FOH §31c10. The test is closely related to the "principle activity" concept of Portal to Portal.

                        1) Driving the company vehicle between home and work is strictly voluntary and not a condition of employment.

                        2) The vehicle is of a type normally used in commuting.

                        3) The employee does not incur any cost in driving or storing the vehicle

                        4) The work site(s) are within the employee's normal commute.


                        -----

                        Past that, federal DOL handbooks are not the "law". The Portal-to-Portal Act is the law, as is the many related court decisions. There is also a January 29, 1999 federal DOL opinion letter that gets quoted a lot, although technically opinion letters are also not "law". The ABA's FLSA law book also has a good discussion on the subject. If you want some recent court cases to research, try Stevens vs. Brink’s Home Security Inc. and Singh v. New York City. What all recent court cases have in common, is that they go all the way back to the Portal-to-Portal Act, then mention the big original cases in the 1940s, then the most recent important cases, then they spell out which set of cases is the "law" given the facts as described.

                        I understand that this is not the answer that you are looking for.
                        "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
                        Philip K. **** (1928-1982)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DAW View Post
                          There is no "exact description". What there is are court and administrative decisions, plus some guidance issued by federal DOL. For example, federal DOL has an internal Field Operation Manual which talks about the following (paraphrase, not hard quote):

                          The Fed DOL considers time spent driving a company's vehicle from home to work as hours worked, and compensable, unless all of the following conditions are met. FOH §31c10. The test is closely related to the "principle activity" concept of Portal to Portal.

                          1) Driving the company vehicle between home and work is strictly voluntary and not a condition of employment.

                          2) The vehicle is of a type normally used in commuting.

                          3) The employee does not incur any cost in driving or storing the vehicle

                          4) The work site(s) are within the employee's normal commute.


                          -----

                          Past that, federal DOL handbooks are not the "law". The Portal-to-Portal Act is the law, as is the many related court decisions. There is also a January 29, 1999 federal DOL opinion letter that gets quoted a lot, although technically opinion letters are also not "law". The ABA's FLSA law book also has a good discussion on the subject. If you want some recent court cases to research, try Stevens vs. Brink’s Home Security Inc. and Singh v. New York City. What all recent court cases have in common, is that they go all the way back to the Portal-to-Portal Act, then mention the big original cases in the 1940s, then the most recent important cases, then they spell out which set of cases is the "law" given the facts as described.

                          I understand that this is not the answer that you are looking for.
                          I read the Stevens vs brinks case file and its the EXACT same scenario happening here in Florida. Did the fact that it took place in Washington have an positive impact on the outcome?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Maybe. Federal law is supposedly the same with everyone, and states (in this particular area anyhow) generally agree with federal law. So what we are talking about is a bunch of states administrative agencies and courts who in theory are all using the same rules but do not always agree on the fine points. I earlier said the following:

                            - However, get say one of those big Ford F-250 trucks, and put thousands of dollars of racks and stuff like a utility company vehicle, then you MIGHT depending on the court jurisdiction fall under the "work vehicle" exception.
                            This is exactly the situation in the Brinks case. If we take a vanilla Ford F-250, it is a "commute" vehicle. Put a logo on the door, or stuff in the back, it is still a "commute vehicle", as defined by federal court decisions. The problem is just how much do you have to trick up up a "commute vehicle" so that it becomes a "work vehicle". It is possible for state courts/administrators to hard agree on all points of the federal rules, and still come up with a different answer on this one point. Not just possible, but different courts have indeed come up with slightly different answers.

                            If any thing, the situation is worse then described. The WA court did not say that any tricked up Ford F-250 truck is a "work vehicle". What they said is that if you personally trick up a Ford F-250 in EXACTLY the same manner as Brinks did, you have a "work vehicle". But the court decision also said take the exact same vehicle, put a somewhat different set of customization and maybe you no longer have a "work vehicle". And the other 49 states are not legally bound by WA's decision. Any vehicle which COULD be used for commuting is at best a grey area legally. Basically you have to take the rules spelled out by federal DOL, and various court decision, and try to convince some judge that your particular tricked up truck matches those rules. Take the same vehicle to different judges in FL, you could come up with different answers. (Having fun yet?)

                            That is as close as I can get you. Now, get a back hoe or a tractor, then THAT is always a "work vehicle", because it never falls under the definition of a "commute vehicle".
                            "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
                            Philip K. **** (1928-1982)

                            Comment

                            The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                            Working...
                            X