U.S. Borax, Inc., which
has an open pit mine operation in Boron, requires its employees to work 12.5 consecutive
hours per shift with only one 30-minute meal break. (Mine workers are covered
by a collective bargaining agreement.)
Six mine workers filed a
lawsuit challenging the company’s practice of providing only one meal period per
shift. They claimed it conflicted with California Labor Code provisions that
require a meal period after 5 hours in a workday and a second meal period after
10 hours. The law states that a meal period can be waived, with some
conditions, but only with the mutual consent of the employer and employee.
The HR Management & Compliance Report: How To Comply with California Wage & Hour Law, explains everything you need to know to stay in compliance with the state’s complex and ever-changing rules, laws, and regulations in this area. Coverage on bonuses, meal and rest breaks, overtime, alternative workweeks, final paychecks, and more.
Employer Points to Wage
Order Exemption
Borax contended that its
practice complied with the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage order
covering its workers (Wage Order 16, for Certain On-Site Occupations in the
Construction, Drilling, Logging, and Mining Industries). The wage order states
that the Labor Code meal period requirements don’t apply to employees covered
by a valid collective bargaining agreement as long as the agreement:
1. provides for the
wages, hours of work, and working conditions of the employees, and
2. provides premium wage
rates for all overtime hours worked and a regular hourly rate of pay for those
employees of not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage.
Exemption Not Valid
But a
mine workers and invalidated this wage order’s meal period exemption.1
The court explained that
the IWC was a board authorized to formulate wage orders regulating wages, hours,
and working conditions for
employees. The IWC adopted 17 such wage orders covering specific industries or
occupations. (The IWC shut down several years ago when it lost its funding, but
the wage orders remain in effect.) Only Wage Order 16, the one at issue here,
contains a collective bargaining exemption from the Labor Code meal period
rules. However, said the court, the IWC had no authority to create an exemption
that was inconsistent with the Labor Code requirements for meal periods.
Broader Impact?
Although this case
concerned a meal period exemption that only appeared in Wage Order 16, the
decision could have a wider impact with respect to meal period provisions
contained in other wage orders that clash with the Labor Code. For example, the
wage orders permit employees to agree, in writing, to work an on-duty meal
period when the nature of the work prevents the employee from being relieved of
all duty. However, because the Labor Code itself doesn’t address on-duty meal
periods, it’s conceivable that a court, following the reasoning in the Borax
case, could invalidate the on-duty provisions in the wage orders.
The decision is online
at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/.
_
1 Bearden v. U.S. Borax
Inc.,
Court of Appeals (Dist. 2) No. B182625, 2006