|
<
Library - Employment Law
Wage Claims, Overtime & Other Employee Compensation
SHOULD EMPLOYEES BE PAID FOR COMMUTE TIME?
(Information That Couriers, Repair Technicians, Service Reps, &
Drivers Should Know)
|
Q:
I am a repair
technician and must travel from my home to the locations
of my employer’s customers in order to do my job. I use
the company car, which my employer tells me is my
“office.” My employer is very strict about how we travel
to these customer locations. We are not allowed to stop
and do personal errands. We are not allowed to use our
phones while driving although we must answer our phones
if our company dispatcher calls to give us instructions
about our job. Should I be paid for the time I spend
commuting to my employer’s customer locations? |
A:
Ordinarily, the law does not require that employees be paid for
commute time. However, California law requires that employees be
compensated for all time during which an employee is subject to the
control of the employer. If, during the commute time, the employee
is really “subject to the control of the employer” then the employee
must be paid for this commute time.
What are the situations where an employee is subject to
the control of the employer during the employee’s commute time? A
recent opinion by one federal appellate court addressed this issue:
Mike Rutti was a technician employed by Lojack
Corporation, Inc. Lojack technicians install and repair car alarms
for Lojack’s clients. Nearly all of the installations and repairs
are done at the clients’ locations. Rutti was required to travel to
the job-sites in a company-owned vehicle. He was paid hourly
beginning when he arrived at his first job location and ending when
he completes his final job installation of the day.
Rutti brought a class action on behalf of himself and
all technicians employed by Lojack. Rutti sought to be compensated
for the time he commuted from his home to his first job-site because
at that time, he was subject to the control of his employer.
During his commute time, Rutti was required to drive
the company vehicle. He could not stop for personal errands, could
not take passengers, was required to drive the vehicle directly from
home to his job and back, and he could not use his cell phone while
driving except that he had to keep his phone turned on to answer
calls from the company dispatcher. In addition, Lojack’s
computerized scheduling system dictated Rutti’s first assignment of
the day and the order in which he was to complete the day’s jobs.
For these reasons, the Court stated that there was no denying that
Rutti was under Lojack’s control while driving the Lojack vehicle en
route to the first Lojack job of the day and on his way home at the
end of the day.
The Court added that it is a mistake to assume that any
employer-mandated travel that begins or ends at home is
automatically noncompensable. This assumption ignores California
law: It is the level of the employer’s control over its employees
during commute time that determines whether the employee should be
compensated for such time.
Was Rutti subject to the control of an employer during
his mandatory travel time? The answer is Yes. Rutti was required not
only to drive the Lojack vehicle to and from the job site, but he
was also forbidden from attending to any persona business along the
way. The Court, thus, held that because Rutti was obviously under
the employer’s control in these circumstances, under California law,
he was entitled to be paid for his commute time.
Aside from repair technicians like Rutti, there are
other employees who travel from their homes to employer-assigned
locations, using company-owned vehicles. These employees include
couriers, drivers, messengers, appliance and cable technicians, and
other service representatives. Their commute times may equally be
subject to control as in the case of the Lojack technicians. If so,
these employees may have a right to additional wages and should
consult with an experienced wage and hour attorney.
©
Law Offices C. Joe Sayas, Jr.
|
