• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

work hours

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

H

hokie

Guest
Each morning i report to bus which is a mobile health unit. We travel from site to site to perform health exams. However, my employer does not pay for time travel to and fro site. I am only paid from hours we arrive at site and depart from site, even though I spent about 1-2 hour a day in travel on company vehicle as passenger,not driver. Should I be paid for travel time? This is in State of Florida?
 


I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hokie:
Each morning i report to bus which is a mobile health unit. We travel from site to site to perform health exams. However, my employer does not pay for time travel to and fro site. I am only paid from hours we arrive at site and depart from site, even though I spent about 1-2 hour a day in travel on company vehicle as passenger,not driver. Should I be paid for travel time? This is in State of Florida?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My response:

Here's a brand new California case, right on point.

While it is California law, it is "persuasive authority" in any State. And, while a Florida court is not required to follow California law, your attorney may be able to make an argument that it should be followed, and who knows? You could win all of that "back pay."

EMPLOYER MUST PAY FOR TRAVEL TIME THAT EMPLOYEES ARE
REQUIRED TO SPEND ON EMPLOYER-PROVIDED BUSES

The California Supreme Court has ruled that an employer
who requires its employees to travel to a work site on
its own buses must pay for the time spent on the buses.
That is part of the employees' "hours worked" under the
Industrial Wage Commission's wage orders.

Royal Packing required its agricultural employees to
meet for work each day at specified assembly points.
Royal Packing then transported them in its own buses to
the fields where they actually worked.. At the end of
each day the buses took the employees back to the
assembly points. Work rules prohibited the employees
from using their own transportation to get to and from
the fields.

The Industrial Welfare Commission formulates wage orders
that govern employment in California. Those wage orders
require employers to pay their employees for all "hours
worked." Most of the wage orders, including the one
applicable to agricultural workers, define "hours
worked" as "the time during which an employee is subject
to the control of any employer, and includes all the
time the employee is suffered or permitted to work,
whether or not required to do so."

The Supreme Court ruled that the time on the buses was
included because the employees were under the control of
the employer. The fact that they were not suffered or
permitted to work on the buses did not matter.
"Includes" is a term of enlargement, which means that
the definition is expanded by, rather than limited to
the time that an employee is suffered or permitted to
work.

Royal Packing argued that the employees were not under
its control while on the buses, because they could read
or perform other personal activities. The Supreme Court
rejected the argument, noting that they were foreclosed
from many activities, such as running errands, in which
they might otherwise engage if allowed to use their own
transportation.

Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal. 4th 575 (2000).



------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."

 
H

hokie

Guest
Thank you, however, would this "law" still stand up if I was given option to drive my own vehicle to work site each day, instead of taking employers bus?
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hokie:
Thank you, however, would this "law" still stand up if I was given option to drive my own vehicle to work site each day, instead of taking employers bus?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My response:

Probably not. Why? Because, theoretically, you could take a jaunt to the supermarket, a friends house, or other deviation from your route.

IAAL



------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."

 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top