In a ruling that may appear to be at odds with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, the California Court of Appeals for the Second District ruled that a security company did not violate the applicable labor laws with respect to rest periods by forcing its security guards to remain “on call” during their required rest breaks. Augustus v. Abm Sec. Servs., 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 9287 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Dec. 31, 2014).
In Augustus, the security firm defendant admitted to requiring its security guard employees "to keep their radios and pagers on during rest breaks, to remain vigilant, and to respond when needs arise." California Labor Code Section 226.7 provides, in pertinent part, that "an employer shall not require an employee to work during a meal or rest or recovery period." It would seem that the security firm's policy would violate Section 226.7. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s finding that the rest breaks violated the employees' rights, noting that the guards were able to and in fact did engage in personal activities, and were relieved of many duties that an active duty security guard was required to actively pursue.
Considering the guards must "keep their radios and pager on" "remain vigilant," and "respond when needs arise", the ruling seems arbitrary and specious to suggest that the guards were not performing all duties required of the position. It could be argued that observation is the most important job duty, and that is not being relieved by the rest period pursuant to the policy at issue.
Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals noted that the rest period rules of the applicable IWC Wage Order did not mirror the meal period rules (meal periods require being relieved of all duty, whereas rest periods do not) and rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the meal break standard should apply.
This is a win for those California employers whose industries require their employees to remain on-call during rest periods. However, applying this decision to other industries and work policies will require an analysis of the particular facts and circumstances.
It is very important that San Diego employers and employees are aware of their rights and responsibilities with regards to meal and rest periods so as to remain in compliance with the law. If you are an employer who would like to ensure that your policies are lawful, or an employee who suspects that your rights are being denied, then do not hesitate to contact Paschall Law for a free consultation.
In Augustus, the security firm defendant admitted to requiring its security guard employees "to keep their radios and pagers on during rest breaks, to remain vigilant, and to respond when needs arise." California Labor Code Section 226.7 provides, in pertinent part, that "an employer shall not require an employee to work during a meal or rest or recovery period." It would seem that the security firm's policy would violate Section 226.7. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s finding that the rest breaks violated the employees' rights, noting that the guards were able to and in fact did engage in personal activities, and were relieved of many duties that an active duty security guard was required to actively pursue.
Considering the guards must "keep their radios and pager on" "remain vigilant," and "respond when needs arise", the ruling seems arbitrary and specious to suggest that the guards were not performing all duties required of the position. It could be argued that observation is the most important job duty, and that is not being relieved by the rest period pursuant to the policy at issue.
Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals noted that the rest period rules of the applicable IWC Wage Order did not mirror the meal period rules (meal periods require being relieved of all duty, whereas rest periods do not) and rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the meal break standard should apply.
This is a win for those California employers whose industries require their employees to remain on-call during rest periods. However, applying this decision to other industries and work policies will require an analysis of the particular facts and circumstances.
It is very important that San Diego employers and employees are aware of their rights and responsibilities with regards to meal and rest periods so as to remain in compliance with the law. If you are an employer who would like to ensure that your policies are lawful, or an employee who suspects that your rights are being denied, then do not hesitate to contact Paschall Law for a free consultation.