Meat + Poultry - January 2004 - 69

Time clock turbulence

By Richard Alaniz
meat&poultry@sosland.com

he meatpacking industry, perhaps more than any other industry, has been hard hit by wage and hour lawsuits over
the years. The unique nature of the work has prompted employees to seek compensation for every activity related to the job,
including changing clothes, donning safety equipment and maintenance of knives.
Recently employee compensation has again been brought to the
forefront by a major federal court decision issued this past fall finding that an IBP plant in the state of Washington violated the law.
No doubt, eager plaintiffs' lawyers and unions will take this case
and hold it up for comparison with other meatpackers' pay practices across the country. As a consequence, everyone in the industry
should be aware of the decision and its impact.
A shot over the bow
This past August, employees of the IBP plant located in Pasco,
Wash., brought a class action lawsuit. The Pasco plant included both
a slaughter and processing operation. Employees typically worked
eight-hour shifts, which included nine minutes of "clothes-changing
time," thereby reducing the actual work time to 7 hours and 51 minutes. Employees were to use this clothes-changing time for the donning and doffing of various clothing and safety articles used for sanitation and safety.
The company utilized a mandatory, computerized "swipe card"
system. The system was not used in calculating employee pay,
but instead IBP paid its
employees according to
a "gangtime pay" model
where employees were
considered to be performing
compensable
work with the processing
of the first piece of meat
and ending the workday
with the processing of the
last. Employees were provided a 30-minute unpaid
lunch period, which was
considered to have begun
as soon as the last piece
passed on the production
line. Employees were required to be prepared to
resume work as soon as
the break period ended.
The lawsuit attacked the company's policies in three ways. The
first area was whether employees were properly paid for the time
spent donning and doffing special clothing and protective gear. The
second issue was whether employees should be paid for the time
spent walking to their positions after putting on the clothing and gear
JANUARY 2004

necessary for work. Lastly, the court looked at whether the company's meal period practices were permissible in light of the employees'
claim that part of their meal break was used for the necessary removal and donning of protective clothing and safety equipment. Each of
these issues is discussed below.
Both federal courts and the Dept. of Labor have long held that
meatpackers must pay employees for the donning and doffing of certain safety equipment and sanitation clothing. This case, however,
provided a bright line test and did so in a very practical way.
The verdict
Essentially, the court drew a distinction between the donning and
doffing of "unique" clothing and gear (for which payment is required)
and "non-unique" clothing and gear (for which payment is not required). To summarize:
* Time spent donning and doffing clothing and gear unique to
the meatpacking industry (for example, those required for
compliance with applicable U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
sanitation standards and OSHA safety requirements) must
be paid time.
* Employee time spent donning and doffing non-unique protective
gear such as hardhats, safety goggles, or ear plugs, is non
compensable as the time is de minims as a matter of law.
After deciding what items fell within paid donning and doffing time,
the court next turned to whether the time spent walking to and from
employee workstations
should be paid. Employees claimed that once
they put on personal protective equipment and
clothing, the time spent
walking to and from their
workstations should be
paid. As stated earlier, IBP
considered the workday to
commence when production commenced.
The court held that
compensable work time
began when workers
donned their protective
equipment and clothing
because the performance
of this preliminary activity was "integral and indispensable" to the work. As a consequence, the court reasoned
that a reasonable walking time from the locker to the workstation
and back was part of the employee's principle work activities and
should be paid.
Washington, like many other states, allows for a 30-minute unpaid

www.MEATPOULTRY.com

MEAT&POULTRY

http://www.MEATPOULTRY.com

Meat + Poultry - January 2004

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Meat + Poultry - January 2004