24-Hour Shift Workers Entitled to Pay for All Hours Under the Employer’s Control
By Hina B. Shah
When a receptionist has some down time at work, she surfs the internet or flips through a magazine. Her employer still pays her for this time because she’s required to respond to calls or visitors. It is a benefit to the employer. However, when it comes to employees who work on-call hours or 24 hour shifts at the jobsite, employers and many lower courts have been reluctant to pay workers for this time. No longer. Earlier this month a unanimous California Supreme Court clarified that on-call employees required to spend time at their worksites and under the employer’s control are entitled to compensation for all hours, including sleep time.
The ruling surprised some observers despite the fact that California law plainly requires that employees must be paid “for all hours worked.” In reporting on the 18-year conflict between security guards and CPS Security Solutions, Inc., some legal press described the workers as “idle” and “getting paid to sleep.” This is far from the truth. CPS Security required the guards to spend their on-call time at the jobsite. The guards were required to investigate in uniform all alarm sounds, or any noise, motion or other activity they heard during their on-call time. They had to stay vigilant and not consume alcohol. They were not allowed to have pets, children or adult visitors. Most importantly, the guards had to ask their employer for permission to leave.
Despite these numerous restrictions, CPS Security Solutions, Inc. paid the guards only when they were responding to an alarm or had asked for permission to leave but were either waiting or had been denied relief. Guards who were required to remain on the construction site during their on-call hours were not paid.
The most galling part of CPS’ practice, however, was the way in which the company profited from these rules. While the workers were required to remain on the premises and not paid for this time, CPS charged its clients for the round-the-clock presence of these guards. In fact, the company admitted that these guards were an integral part of their business model.
CPS Security is not the only firm using this business model. Employers of domestic workers, private correctional officers, environmental contractors and others refuse to pay for on-call time unless the worker is actively engaged in responding to calls or emergencies. It would be hard to imagine asking a firefighter to remain on alert at all times, but pay only for the time she responds to a fire, yet this is just what these companies have been doing.
The court’s ruling should be far-reaching. California has long recognized that long hours are harmful to employees’ health. There is a growing body of evidence that links excessive work hours with substantial risks for occupational injury and illness. And despite claims that “paying for sleep” will have a negative impact on business, in fact the decision may boost the economy. One obvious way to cut down on costs is to hire more employees, rather than one employee for a 24-hour shift. Employers benefit when they have on-call workers at their job sites, and so do their clients. Now, more workers may benefit as well.
Hina Shah argued before the California Supreme Court for a number of organizations as amici curiae on behalf of the plaintiff.