The California Supreme Court recently published Augustus et al., v. ABM Security Services, Inc. holding that California law prohibits on-duty and/or on-call rest periods, and instead requires employers to relieve their employees of all work-related duties and employer control during 10-minute rest breaks.
In Augustus, plaintiff security guards sued employer ABM Security Services, Inc. (ABM) for failure to provide state-mandated rest periods. The guards alleged that during rest break periods they were required to keep their pagers and radios on, and to remain vigilant and responsive to calls when needs arose (such as escorting tenants to parking lots and notifying building managers of mechanical issues). The trial court granted class-wide summary judgment to the security guards finding that each and every guard remained on call during rest breaks in violation of California law. The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that state law does not require employers to provide duty-free rest breaks; moreover, "simply being on call" does not constitute performing work.
Reversing the Court of Appeal decision, the California Supreme Court found that rest breaks by their very nature must be duty-free. The Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order 4, subdivision 12, Subdivision 12(A) provides, in pertinent part, "every employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods...." Applying the plain-meaning test to this section of the Wage Order, the Court concluded that a reasonable reader would understand the ordinary meaning of "rest period" to mean "an interval of time free from labor, work, or any other employment-related duties."
The Court further concluded that California Labor Code section 226.7's parallel meal and rest period provisions support an inference of identical employer responsibility as to both. The Court noted that such interpretation is most consistent with the protective purpose of the Labor Code and wage orders.
The Court also addressed on-call rest periods, finding that neither Wage Order 4 nor section 226.7 provides a straightforward answer to whether on-call rest periods are permissible. Nonetheless, the Court found that "one cannot square the practice of compelling employees to remain at the ready, tethered by time and policy to particular locations or communication devices, with the requirement to relieve employees of all work duties and employer control during 10-minute rest periods." Accordingly, the Court determined that requiring the security guards to keep their pagers and radios on and to remain vigilant and responsive to calls did not relieve them from duty.
Employers should examine their policies and practices and train managers and supervisors to make sure employees are relieved of all duty while on break and without interruption. In certain circumstances where it appears impossible to relieve employees of all duty during such breaks, employers may seek an exemption from the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE). Wilson Elser's Employment & Labor practice attorneys are well versed in employment law matters and would be pleased to respond to questions you may have about this ruling or related matters.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.