Should you be compensated for Stand-by time?
What does the CALIFORNIA LABOR LAW require IF AN EMPLOYEE IS ON-CALL AND MUST RESPOND QUICKLY TO WORK ASSIGNMENTS? IS THE EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO BE PAID DURING THE PERIOD HE IS ON STANDBY?
HISTORY:
ALARMCO is engaged in the business of providing security alarm services to retail businesses throughout California. Specifically, ALARMCO provides equipment, installation, repairs and maintenance services.
In order to provide these services, ALARMCO maintains operating agreements with its customers to provide repair and response services. To provide these services, ALARMCO employs a fleet of technicians.
When a service call is requested, ALARMCO requires that the technician immediately report in an ALARMCO vehicle to the repair site in uniform.
The practical effect of this on-call schedule and the on-call requirements is that the technicians are effectively under the control of ALARMCO while on standby during the entire on-call week. As a practical matter, the response time and the additional restrictions on the use of the company vehicle and the clothing requirement, means that the on-call technicians must remain at home next to their phone and within five minutes of their ALARMCO vehicle. The technicians are severely limited in the engagement of personal pursuits during the on-call time because of the specified time requirements.
Because they must respond immediately to all calls means that the technicians cannot go to dinner or a movie, attend a concert, travel for a weekend getaway, or have a beer while they are on call wherein they are subject to receiving a call that requires driving in an ALARMCO vehicle to perform on site repair services.
On-call status places technicians in a state of constant readiness 24/7 outside of their regular 40 hour work schedule during the standby week. ALARMCO technicians are expected to respond day or night, dropping all other activities including sleep and meals, and remain on the job until it is completed.
The work required of the technicians while on standby is so regularly scheduled and frequent that the time spent waiting for call requests should be compensable as the technicians are not able to engage in personal pursuits during these standby periods.
ANALYSIS:
On-call time for the technicians constitutes employer “controlled standby” which must be compensated. The legal test as to whether standby time is compensable work time was established by the California Supreme Court in Madera Police Officers Association v. City of Madera, 36 Cal. 3d 403 (1984)
In reaching this conclusion we adopt a two-step analysis. We first examine whether the restrictions on off-duty time are primarily directed toward the fulfillment of the employer’s requirements and policies. Second, we analyze whether the employees’ off-duty time is so substantially restricted that they are unable to engage in private pursuits.
Madera, supra, 36 Cal. 3d at 409.
The on-call schedule, coupled with the strict requirements for response time, arrival time and resolution time substantially restricts the technicians’ off-duty time, rendering ALARMCO liable for all the waiting time spent by the technicians during the standby periods.
Applying the two step process under Madera to ALARMCO’s policies and practices, we find that ALARMCO requires that service calls be responded to immediately. The on-call and response time requirements are all directed towards the fulfillment of ALARMCO’s uniform contractual obligations to its customers and in accordance therewith technicians are graded not only on “response” time but also on the time spent actually resolving the call. As a result, the de facto requirement is that technicians drop everything when a call is received, drive to the destination and resolve the service request. These requirements so substantially restrict a technician’s personal time while on standby, that he is effectively unable to engage in private pursuits.
SUMMARY:
Simply being on-call is not enough under Madera for standby time to be compensable. The Madera Court affirms that “on-call status, coupled with other factors, is required to entitle an employee to compensation.” Madera, supra, at 411. In this situation technicians are not only on-call but are required to immediately respond and resolve the equipment malfunction and do so by reporting in an ALARMCO vehicle while in uniform. Given the high frequency of service calls, along with the factors stated above, the technicians are effectively subject to the “control” of ALARMCO while on-call.
In reviewing situations such as this, whereby various factors must be weighed and considered, it should be noted that the wage and hour laws of California are remedial enactments for the “protection and benefit of employees” and therefore the “statutory provisions are to be liberally construed with an eye to promoting such protection.” Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal.4th 785, 794_795 (1999). Any doubts should be resolved in favor of the employee.
If you have any questions regarding your entitlement or rights under the California Labor Code, consult with a California Labor Attorney who specializes in labor law. In many instances your questions may be handled without charge based on the policies of each law firm.
Photo Credit: Shutterstock/Mego Studio