As long as the meeting is scheduled, it constitutes scheduled work.” The Court aptly noted that “anyone who has ever sat through a work-related meeting would certainly consider the meeting to be work. The Court found that the reporting time pay law was unambiguous and held that when an employee is scheduled to work – whether it be for a meeting or a retail shift – the reporting time pay requirement applies only if the employee is furnished work for less than half the scheduled time. Moreover, employees were only required to be paid for the time they spent attending the meetings. Thus, the meetings constituted work just like any other shift. For example, if an employee “normally” works 6 hours, then (according to the plaintiffs) employee should be paid at least 3 hours of reporting time pay when he attends a training meeting that lasts less than half their typical 6 hour shift.ĪirTouch argued that no reporting time pay was due because the meetings were scheduled in advance and listed on the employees’ work schedules. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to reporting time pay when they attended training meetings because the meetings lasted less than the shifts they normally worked. The employees of AirTouch Cellular worked as retail sales representatives who were required to attend occasional work related meetings once or twice on a Saturday or Sunday before the stores opened and which would last an hour to an hour and a half. The Court held that no reporting time pay is due, split-shift premium pay is not due in these circumstances and attorneys’ fees may not be recovered by prevailing defendants for split-shift premium pay.
AirTouch Cellular has addressed for the first time (1) whether reporting time pay applies to training meetings which are scheduled in advance (2) whether Split-shift premium pay should be paid if an employee earns more than the minimum wage for all hours worked plus one additional hour of pay in a workday and, (3) whether employers may recover attorneys fees if they successfully defend against reporting time and split-shift premium pay claims. The California Court of Appeal in Aleman v.
0 kommentar(er)
