Opinion
S275431
03-25-2024
HUERTA (GEORGE) v. CSI ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS
Opinion filed
In response to the Ninth Circuit's certification request, we conclude as follows: First, when an employee is required to spend time on his employer's premises awaiting and undergoing an employer-mandated exit security procedure that includes the employer's visual inspection of the employee's personal vehicle, the time is compensable as “hours worked” within the meaning of Wage Order No. 16.
Second, the time that an employee spends traveling between the Security Gate and the employee parking lots is compensable as “employer-mandated travel” under Wage Order No. 16, section 5(A) if the Security Gate is the first location where the employee's presence is required for an employment-related reason other than the practical necessity of accessing the worksite. Separately, this travel time is not compensable as “hours worked” because an employer's imposition of ordinary workplace rules on employees during their drive to the worksite in a personal vehicle does not create the requisite level of employer control.
Third, when an employee is covered by a collective bargaining agreement that complies with Labor Code section 512, subdivision (e) and Wage Order No. 16, section 10(E), and that agreement provides for an “unpaid meal period,” that time is nonetheless compensable under the wage order as “hours worked” if the employer prohibits the employee from leaving the employer's premises or a designated area during the meal period and if this prohibition prevents the employee from engaging in otherwise feasible personal activities. An employee may bring an action under Labor Code section 1194 to enforce the wage order and recover unpaid wages for that time.
Majority Opinion by Liu, J.
-- joined by Guerrero, C. J., Corrigan, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans, JJ.