The collective bargaining agreements also obligated Safeway to utilize what it calls an activity based compensation system to determine the drivers‟ wages. Pay was calculated based on (1) mileage rates applied according to the number of miles driven, the time of day the trips were taken, and the locations where the trips began and ended; (2) fixed rates for certain tasks (e.g., rates for number of pallets delivered and picked up); (3) an hourly rate for a predetermined amount of minutes for certain tasks (e.g., paid for 10 minutes at hourly rate for set-up time at each store); and (4) an hourly rate for delays (e.g., breakdowns, impassable highways, time spent at scales, or other causes beyond the driver‟s control).
Drivers logged their mileage and activities for each trip manually on trip sheets. They also logged their activities into an onboard computer system known as the XATA system. Through XATA, Safeway tracked the drivers' moves, including their stops. The drivers input codes into XATA to record specific reasons for delays. Neither the trip sheets nor the XATA system, however, provided a place or means to record meal or rest periods.
So, the compensation system did not include separate payment for contractually and legally required rest periods. Safeway argued that the paid rest periods were included in its compensation formula, presumably because the payment for miles and tasks assumed the rest periods would be taken during these activities. Safeway also had drivers sign time cards to acknolwedge they were authorized and permitted to take rest periods.
The trial court refused to certify a sub-class of rest period claims. But the court of appeal reversed. The court held Safeway's system of compensation was akin to a piece rate method of compensation. And, the court decided, California law does not allow paid rest periods to be included in piece rates because it was an improper averaging of compensation:
under the rule of Armenta v. Osmose, Inc. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 314, 323 (Armenta), rest periods must be separately compensated in a piece-rate system. Rest periods are considered hours worked and must be compensated. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§ 11070, subd. 12; 11090, subd. 12.) Under the California minimum wage law, employees must be compensated for each hour worked at either the legal minimum wage or the contractual hourly rate, and compliance cannot be determined by averaging hourly compensation.The court expressly held that there was a common issue for determining liability - that the compensation system did not compensate employees for paid rest periods separately. The court did so by holding that piece rates may not include payment for rest periods. That is another way of saying that there was no payment for rest periods as a matter of law.
With all respect to the court of appeal, this decision seems to over-analyze the merits of the case. The court seems to be saying the common proof is that all rest periods were paid incorrectly as a matter of law. Without saying so, therefore, the court essentially granted summary judgment for the plaintiff rather than just class certification.
While we're talking about the merits, I am not sure I understand why the piece rate payment cannot include implied payment for rest periods, as Safeway testified it did. An hourly pay rate does not expressly include payment for rest periods either. During the hour that an employee takes a rest period, he is paid the same hourly rate, but simply works less. During the hour that an employee does not take a rest period, she receives the same rate as if she did take one. Employers likely set their hourly rates under the assumption that the employee will take a rest period during one of every four hours worked. The hourly rate therefore "averages" compensation, which the cout said could not be done. Anyway, I don't get a vote. So, I descend from my soap box, dejected.
The court also certified a meal period sub-class class on the basis that there was a common issue regarding whether Safeway adequately provided second meal periods before 2006, which is when the case was filed. The court did not reach the plaintiff's argument that Safeway did not do enough to ensure drivers were relieved of duty, because the one common issue was enough for class certification. This part of the decision may not be all that significant to employers who adequately provide for both meal periods per Brinker. Safeway changed practices in 2006.
Finally, the court of appeal decided the wage statement sub-class should be certified. The court agreed that the wage statement did not adequately spell out wage rates applicable to miles driven, such that the employees would have to refer to their own trip sheets to verify whether they received adequate compensation and engage in mathematical calculations:
Plaintiff‟s argument goes to the structure of the wage statements. As a result, his and the other drivers‟ claims of injury on account of the wage statements will be resolved by means of common proof. The structural omissions in the wage statements, and their alleged violation of Labor Code section 226, are, like employer policies, the types of matters best resolved by class adjudication.There have been other decisions regarding piece rates lately. See, e.g., here. Employers should review their compensation plans to ensure compliance with minimum wage, overtime, meal and rest period laws.
This case is Bluford v. Safeway Stores, Inc. and the opinion is here.
