From: Wage and Hour Articles
Recently, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued an
Administrator's Interpretation (AI) reversing DOL positions
published during the Bush Administration and stating that employees
must be compensated for time spent donning and doffing certain
kinds of "protective equipment" even if under the terms of the
relevant collective bargaining agreement (CBA), or the CBA's custom
and practice, such time is to be unpaid. See Administrator's
Interpretation No. 2010-2, available on the DOL web site at:
http://www.dol.gov/whd/opinion/adminIntrprtn/FLSA/2010/FLSAAI2010_2.htm.
The AI also reverses other DOL interpretations and states that
while time spent changing "clothes" (as opposed to "protective
equipment") can still be treated as unpaid time pursuant to the
terms of a CBA or custom and practice,...
Respond to this topic on your own blog
Click and press Ctrl+C to copy and paste this discussion on your blog or site
Related Articles
DOL Addresses Meaning Of "Clothes" Under FLSA.
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently clarified the
definition of "clothes" under Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). Section 3(o) provides that time spent
"changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of each
workday" is excluded from compensable time under the FLSA if the
time is excluded from compensable time pursuant to "the express
terms or by custom or practice" under a collective bargaining
agreement. The DOL now has concluded that this exemption "does not
extend to protective equipment worn by employees that is required
by law, by the employer, or due to the nature of the job."
DOL Addresses Meaning Of "Clothes" Under FLSA.
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently clarified the
definition of "clothes" under Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). Section 3(o) provides that time spent
"changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of each
workday" is excluded from compensable time under the FLSA if the
time is excluded from compensable time pursuant to "the express
terms or by custom or practice" under a collective bargaining
agreement. The DOL now has concluded that this exemption "does not
extend to protective equipment worn by employees that is required
by law, by the employer, or due to the nature of the job."
DOL redefines "clothes"
On June 16 the DOL issued an Administrator's Interpretation on the
meaning of the § 203(o) "changing clothes" exemption to
FLSA compensable time. Returning to pre-2002 interpretations, DOL
says: "Based on its statutory language and legislative history, it
is the Administrator’s interpretation that the
§ 203(o) exemption does not extend to protective
equipment worn by employees that is required by law, by the
employer, or due to the nature of the job. This interpretation
reaffirms the interpretations set out in the 1997, 1998 and 2001
opinion letters and is consistent with the
“plain meaning†analysis of the
Ninth Circuit in Alvarez. Those portions of the 2002 opinion letter
that address the phrase “changing
clothes†and the 2007 opinion letter in its entirety,
which are incons...
Update: Court Might Have Rejected Donning/Doffing "Administrator Interpretation" Without Citing It. A Subtle Dig?
We previously posted about the U.S. Labor Department's
Administrator Interpretation saying that unionized employers cannot
exclude time spent donning and doffing certain protective equipment
from compensable "hours worked," even if an applicable union
contract or practice treats the time as unpaid. On August 2, 2010,
the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that unionized
workers at a Kraft Foods plant could sue under Wisconsin state law
for wages relating to their time spent donning and doffing certain
safety gear and other items at work. They made their claim even
though Kraft and the union had earlier agreed that this time would
be non-compensable under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's
Section 203(o). Spoerle v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 16 W.H.
Cases2d (BNA) 711 (7th Cir...
Update: Court Might Have Rejected Donning/Doffing "Administrator Interpretation" Without Citing It. A Subtle Dig?
We previously posted about the U.S. Labor Department's
Administrator Interpretation saying that unionized employers cannot
exclude time spent donning and doffing certain protective equipment
from compensable "hours worked," even if an applicable union
contract or practice treats the time as unpaid. On August 2, 2010,
the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that unionized
workers at a Kraft Foods plant could sue under Wisconsin state law
for wages relating to their time spent donning and doffing certain
safety gear and other items at work. They made their claim even
though Kraft and the union had earlier agreed that this time would
be non-compensable under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's
Section 203(o). Spoerle v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 16 W.H.
Cases2d (BNA) 711 (7th Cir...
