Employee Compensation for Travel Time and Vehicle Use
California Employment attorneys are at it again- further defining the rights of employees. If you do not enjoy the luxury of working at home, you must spend time traveling to and from your place of employment. Generally, this time is not compensable as “hours worked,” because you are not considered to be under the control of your employer. But what if your employer furnishes you with a company vehicle and requires certain tasks to be completed before and after traveling from home? California Employment attorneys have brought this issue before the Court of Appeals in a class action filed by employees of the Lojack Corporation. See Rutti v. Lojack Corporation, Inc., No. 07-56599, US Court of Appeals (9th Cir.) (March 2, 2010) The alarm technicians sought payment for time spent driving to and from job sites in company vehicles. In addition, they claimed compensation for certain “off the clock” activities such as logging assignments, mapping routes, and prioritizing jobs.
Upon reviewing the federal Employee Commuting Flexibility Act (ECFA), the Court held that travel time and any de minimus activities were not compensable. While many California employment attorneys representing employees may disagree with this decision, nevertheless at this point this will likely govern compensation in these areas.
First and foremost, the ECFA clearly states that an employer is not required to pay employees for travel time to and from the location of the place where principal job activities are performed. An employer is also not required to pay for any activities that are incidental to the use of the vehicle (i.e. getting gas, having the oil changed, or washing the vehicle). The employer may include mandatory use of a company vehicle and restrictions on the use of the vehicle as a condition of employment. Restrictions are valid as long as they do not constitute additional cognizable work. The Court held that Lojack’s requirement that company vehicles be used only from travel to and from work and that there be no passengers was merely incidental and did not constitute compensable work.
Secondly, “off the clock” activities are not compensable unless they are related to the “principal activities” of the job and not merely “de minimus.” Principal activities are generally those tasks that are performed as part of the regular work of employees in the ordinary course of business. When the tasks are actually performed is irrelevant. On the other hand, de minimus activities consist of additional work that requires a miniscule amount of time and does not take place on a regular
In light of Rutti, the important thing for employees to remember is that whether travel and off the clock activities are compensable is a very fact specific determination. If your job requires the use of a company vehicle or additional work time, you should consider the following:basis. The Court in Rutti indicated that the employees’ preliminary activities such as filling out forms appeared to be de minimus and not compensable, but that some postliminary activities such as job dispatches were vital to the business and could be compensable.
1. Reach a formal vehicle use agreement with your employer and have it put in writing.
2. Establish regular work hours. If you work more than 40 hours per week, including compensable travel time, you are entitled to overtime.
3. Be aware of any attempts by your employer to turn compensable activities into non-compensable activities.
4. Contact a knowledgeable California labor law attorney or other employment attorneys for an unbiased evaluation of your particular situation.
Photo Credit: Shutterstock/Soloviova Liudmyla