# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 5- 10 78

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Dav id J. J ack so n; Lin da R. Bit tn er; Lis a St on e; Lett ie Hod ge s; Dani el W il so n;

Bren da McC ol lu m ; Ro bi n R am ire z,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts ,

v.

Old EPT, LL C, al so kn own as Eag le Pi ch er Tech no lo gi es , LLC,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J op li n

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 17 , 20 15 Fil ed : Au gu st 23 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, GRUEND ER, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Thi s ap pe al ari se s fro m an act io n br ou g ht by ho ur ly pr od uc ti on em pl oyees
ag ai ns t th ei r em

pl oyer, Eagl ePi ch er Tech no lo gi es , LLC, pu rs ua nt to th e Fai r Lab or St an da rd s Act (“ FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 20 1- 21 9, an d th e Mi ss ou ri Mi ni m um W ag e Law, Mo . Rev . Sta t. § § 2 90 .50 0- 29 0.5 30 . The em pl oyees s ou gh t p ay m en t fo r ti m e
sp e n t on va rio us ta sk s, in cl ud in g th e do nn in g an d do ffi ng of wor k cl ot hi ng an dpr ot ect iv e ge ar, walk in g to an d fro m pr od uc ti on li ne s, an d wait in g in li ne to cl oc k in

an d ou t fo r wor k. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t fo r Eag le Pi ch er, an d 1
th e em pl oyees a pp eal . W e aff

irm.

I.

Eag le Pi ch er op erat es a ba tt ery m an uf act ur in g faci li ty in Jo pl in
, Mi ss ou ri. The

c o mp a n y em

pl oys ho ur ly pr od uc ti on wor ke rs at th e Jo pl in faci li ty. Si nc e at l e a s t 19 67
, th os e em

pl oyees ha ve b e e n r e p r es en te d by a un io n, pr es en tl y kn own as th e Uni te d St eel
, Pap er and Fo res try, Ru bb er, Man uf act ur in g, Ene rg y , All ie d In du st ria l

an d Serv ic e W or ke rs Uni on , Loc al 81 2. The pl ai nt iff -em pl oyees are al l m em

be rs of th e u ni on

.

The em pl oyees d on ne d eit he r co ve ral ls or s m oc ks , alo ng wit h s afet y gl as se s, whi le wor ki ng a t t h e f

a c i l it y

. At ti m es , th ey al so wor e va rio us fo rm s of pe rs on al

pr ot ect iv e eq ui pm en t to pe rfo rm th e i r jo b d u ti es

. Beg in ni ng in 19 89
, co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en ts be twee n th e un io n an d Eag le Pi ch er in cl ud ed la ng ua ge ab ou t

em pl o ye e s c h a n g in g in to an d ou t of wor k cl ot hi ng ou ts id e of th e sc he du le d wor k

pe rio d. It is un di sp ut ed th at th e la ng ua ge co ns is te nt ly was in te rp ret ed as ex cl ud in g fro m co m pe ns ab le t i me th e do nn in g an d do ffi ng of wor k cl ot hi ng ou ts id e of th e
reg ul ar p ai d s hi ft.

The la st si gn ed co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t be twee n Eag le Pi ch er an d th e

un io n co m

m en ced in May 20 04 an d ex pi red on May 2, 20 08

. In 20 08
, th e co m pa ny

an d th e un io n at te m

pt ed to ne go ti at e a su cces so r co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t. Dur in g th os e n eg ot ia ti on s, t he un io n m ad e no pr op os al reg ard in g com pe ns at io n for th e do nn in g or do ffi ng of wor k cl ot he s. In a le tt er da te d May 28
, 20 08
, Eag le Pi ch er

The Hon or ab le Bet h Ph il li ps , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e f o r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-de cl ared th at th e n eg ot ia ti on s h ad “ be en at a n i m pa ss e in ba rg ai ni ng fo r qu it e so m e ti m e.” The co m

pa n y w r o t e th at , effe ct iv e Ju ne 2, 20 08
, it wou ld un il at eral ly im pl em en t it s “ Last
, Bes t an d Fi na l Offer” as th e go ve rn in g te rm s an d co nd it io ns of

em pl oym en t fo r th e m em

be rs of t he un io n.

Eag le Pi ch er pr oc eed ed to im pl em en t th os e te rm s. The un io n di d no t de cl are
a st rik e, an d t he Gene ral Co un se l o f th e Nat io na l Labo r Rel at io ns Bo ard ad vi se d i n

a le tt er th at Eag le Pi ch er was pr iv il eg ed to im pl em en t it s la st , be st , an d fin al of fer. The im pl em en te d te rm s co nt ai ne d id en ti cal la ng ua ge to th e 19 89 co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t ab ou t t he do nn in g a nd do ffi ng of wo rk clo th in g.

In su bs eq ue nt ne go ti at io ns in 20 11
, th e un io n pr ov id ed Eag le Pi ch er wit h a li st of pr op os al s th at t h e u n i o n so ug ht to in cl ud e in a ne w co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng
ag reem en t. Am on g th os e pr op os ed t e r ms was a su bs ect io n pr ov id in g th at

“ [e]m pl oy ees who are req ui red to wear pe rs on al pr ot ect iv e eq ui pm en t or cl ot hi ng wil l be al lo wed fif

te en (1 5) m in ut es wit h pa y at th e b eg in ni ng of each sh ift fo r do nn in g of su ch eq ui pm en t or cl ot hi ng an d fif te en (1 5) m in ut es wit h pa y jus t pr io r to th e en d of each sh ift fo r d o f

f in g of su ch eq ui pm en t or cl ot hi ng .” Eag le Pi ch er reject ed th is

pr op os ed la ng ua ge , an d th e un io n with dr ew th e pr op os ed su bs ect io n fro m it s lis t of ba rg ai ni ng pr op os al s. In ne go ti at io ns th e fo ll owi ng y ear, th e un io n di d no t pr op os e
pa y m en t fo r ti m e sp en t do nn in g an d do ffi ng

. The pa rti es ha ve no t ne go ti at ed an d si gn ed a writ te n co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag r e e men t si nc e th e ex pi rat io n of th e 20 04
ag reem en t i n M ay

20 08

.

Cu rren t an d fo rm er ho ur ly pr od uc ti on em pl oyees at th e Jo pl in faci li ty br ou gh t th is act io n, al le gi ng th at Eag le Pi ch er fai le d to co m pe ns at e th em fo r st rai gh t ti m e an d

ov ert im e. The y c l a i m ed
, as rel ev an t to th is ap pe al
, th at Eag le Pi ch er vi ol at ed th e FLSA by fai li ng to co m

pe ns at e th em fu ll y fo r ti m e sp en t do nn in g and do ffi ng wor k cl ot hi ng an d p ro te ct iv e eq ui pm en t.

-3

-The di st ric t co ur t ul ti m at el y co nc lu de d th at no ne of t h e ti m e at is su e was

co m pe ns ab le
, be cau se it was ex cl ud ed fro m th e de fin it io n of “ ho ur s wor ke d” un de r th e FLSA. Se e 29 U.S.C. § 20 3( o ); Ada ir v. Co nAg ra Foo ds

, In c. , 72 8 F.3 d 84 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). The co ur t th us gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t f

o r Ea gl ePi ch er, an d th e

em pl oyees ap pe al

. W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co u r t ’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de

no vo

. Reic h v . Con Agr a, In c. , 98 7 F .2d 13 57 , 13 59 (8t h C ir. 1 99 3)

.

II.

The FLSA pr ov id es th at “ no em pl oyer sh al l em

pl oy an y of hi s em

pl oyees

. . . fo r a wor kwe ek lo ng er th an fo rty ho ur s un le ss su ch em pl oyee rece iv es co m

pe ns at io n fo r hi s em pl oym en t in ex ces s of th e ho ur s ab ov e sp eci fie d at a rat e no t le ss th an on e

an d on e-h al f ti m es th e reg ul ar rat e at whi ch he is em pl oyed.” 29 U.S.C. § 20 7( a)(1 ). The de fin it io n of “ ho ur s wor ke d” fo r pu rp os es of § 20 7 ex cl ud es “ an y ti m e sp en t in ch an gi ng c lo th es or was hi ng at th e be gi nn in g or en d of each wor kd ay whi ch was

ex cl ud ed fro m m eas ur ed wor ki ng ti m e du rin g th e week in vo lv ed by th e ex pr es s te rm s of or by cu st om or pr act ic e un de r a bo na f i d e c o l l e ct iv e-b arg ai ni ng ag reem en t
ap pl ic ab le to th e p art ic ul ar em pl oyee.” Id

. § 2 03 ( o ).

The em pl oyees arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in it s tre at m en t of ti m e sp en t d o n ni ng an d do ffi ng

. The y em ph as iz e th at § 20 3( o ) ap pl ie s on ly to ti me t h a t i s

ex cl ud ed fro m m eas ur ed wor ki ng ti m e “u n d e r a bo na fid e co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng
ag reem en t.” The em

pl oyees as se rt th at be cau se th e 20 04 co ll ect iv e b arg ai ni ng
ag reem en t ex pi red b efo re th e pe rio d at is su e, th ere is no bo na fid e co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t t o s up po rt t he em pl oyer’s def

en se un de r § 2 03 ( o ).

Und er the la w of th is ci rcu it
, whe n an em pl oyer im po se s un il at eral te rm s and

co nd it io ns aft er th e pa rti es reac h a ba rg ai ni ng im pa ss e, th e co nt in ua ti on of wor k by

a co m pa ny’ s em

pl oyees do es no t, by it se lf, es ta bl is h th e ex is te nc e of an in te rim la bo r
ag reem en t bet ween th e pa rti es

. Uni te d Pap er wo rk er s Int ’l Uni on , AFL-CIO, Loca l

-4

-27 4 v. Ch amp io n In t’l Co rp

. , 81 F.3 d 79 8, 80 3- 04 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). An in te rim la bo r

ag reem en t m ay ex is t, ho wev er, if an em pl oyer m ak es an of

fer an d th e un io n acce pt s th at of fer by m ean s “ ov er an d ab ov e th e fact th at un io n m em be rs co nt in ue d to wor k.” Id

. “ [E]vid en ce of of

fer an d acce pt an ce m

us t rel at e to th e un io n- em

pl oyer ba rg ai ni ng rel at io ns hi p” to pr ov e th at a co nt ract was fo rm ed

. Id

. The un io n m ay acce pt th e of fer

ex pr es sl y or by co nd uc t. An acc e p t a n c e ne ed no t be fo rm al
, “ be cau se an in te rim

ag reem en t i s b y

de fin it io n i nf

or m al .” Id

.

The un di sp ut ed fact s he re sh ow th e ex is te nc e of an in te rim la bo r ag reem en t. Eag le Pi ch er’s im

pl em en ta ti on of it s la st , be st , an d fin al of fer was an of

fer to fo rm an in te rim la bo r ag reem en t, an d th e un io n so un de rs to od it

. The un io n acce pt ed th e of fer by co nt in ui ng to wor k wit ho ut st r i k i n g an d ta ki ng fu rth er act io ns rel at in g to th e ba rg ai ni ng rel at io ns hi p: Uni on m em be rs f i l e d 1 8 2 gr ie va nc es al le gi ng co nt ract ua l vi ol at io ns si nc e th e la st , be st , an d fin al of fer te rm s were im

pl em en te d. Cf

. McNea ly
v. Ca te rp il la r, In c. , 13 9 F .3d 11 13 , 11 22 n.7 (7t h C ir. 1 99 8)

.

The em pl oyees cl ai m th at th e un io n’s acce pt an ce of th e te rm s ex te nd s on ly to th e g r i e v a n c e pr oc ed ur es

. Bu t th e reco rd sh ows th at th e un io n gr ie ve d th irt y -o ne di sp ut es se ek in g to en fo rce th e im pl em en te d te rm s pe rta in in g to wag es or ho ur s

wor ke d. Thi s un di sp ut ed ev id en ce sh ows th at th e ag reem en t al so en co m pa ss ed te rm s in vo lv in g wag es an d ho ur s. Non e of th es e gr ie va nc e s , mo reo ve r, ch al le ng ed th e ab se nc e o f pa y

for do nn in g a nd do ffi ng

.

A un io n rep res en ta ti ve al so refe rred to “ th e ex is ti ng co nt ract ” whe n no ti fy in g Eag le Pi ch er ab ou t a pr op os ed ne g ot ia ti ng co nf eren ce, an d th e un io n dr op pe d it s
req ue st to be pa id fo r do nn in g an d do ffi n g a f t e r r a i si ng it on ce du rin g th e si x- y ear
p e r i o d

. In a se pa rat e le ga l act io n to co m pe l arb it rat io n, th e un io n as se rte d th a t “an im pl ie d- in -fac t co nt ract ” ex is ts be twee n th e un io n an d Eag le Pi ch er, an d so ug ht

en fo rcem en t of cert ai n im pl em en te d te rm s un de r th at im pl ie d- in -fac t co nt ract

. The se
act io ns by th e un io n, ta ke n to ge t h e r , s h ow th at th e un io n act ed be y on d m erel y

-5

-al lo win g em pl oyees to co nt in ue to wor k aft er an im pa ss e. The y es ta bl is h acce pt an ce of th e o ffer an d t he ex is te nc e o f an in te rim la bo r ag reem en t.

The em pl oyees as se rt th at ev en if th e pa rti es ha ve an in te rim la bo r ag reem en t,
t he re is no “ bo na fid e co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t” wit hi n th e m e a n i n g o f § 20 3( o ). W e se e no m ean in gf ul di ffer en ce. An of

fer m ad e th ro ug h th e em

pl oyer’s

un il at eral i mp l em en ta ti on of te rm s, if acce pt ed by t he un io n, can be th e fo un da ti on fo r an “ im pl ie d- in -fac t co ll ect iv e ba rg ai nin g ag re em en t. ” M cN ea ly
, 13 9 F.3 d at 11 21

- 23 & n.8 ; se e Lu de n’

s In c. v. Lo ca l Uni on No

. 6 of Bak er y, Co nf ect io ne ry & To ba cco W or ker s’ In t’l Uni on , 28 F.3 d 34 7, 36 0- 61 (3 d Ci r. 19 94 ). Alt ho ug h si gn ed co nt ract s pl ay an im

po rta nt ro le in th e fi e l d o f c o l le ct iv e ba rg ai ni ng , se e H.J. Hein z Co

. v. N L RB
, 31 1 U.S. 51 4, 52 4- 25 (1 94 1)
, “ it is well es ta bl is he d th at a co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t is no t de pe nd en t on t h e r ed uc ti on to writ in g of th e pa rti es ’ in te nt io n to be bo un d.” T w in Ci ty Pip e Tr ad es Se rv

. Ass ’n v. Fra nk O’La ug hl in Plu mbi ng & Heati ng Co

. , 75 9 F.3 d 88 1, 88 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ti ng Ca pi to l-Hu st in g C o

. v

. N LRB
, 67 1 F.2 d 23 7, 24 3 (7 th Ci r. 19 82 )); se e al so 29 U.S.C. § 15 8( d ) (o bl ig at io n to ba rg ai n in cl ud es ex ecu ti on o f a writ te n co nt ract in co rp or at in g
ag reem en t re ach ed “ if r eq ue st ed by ei th er part y ”); NLRB v. Hab er man Co ns tr . Co.
, 64 1 F.2 d 35 1, 35 5- 56 & n.1 (5 th Ci r. 19 81 ) (en ba nc ). The in te rim la bo r ag reem en t he re was an im

pl ie d- in -fac t co nt ract be twee n th e em pl oyer an d th e un io n reg ul at in g

em pl oym en t co nd it io ns , wag es , be ne fit s, an d gr ie va nc es

. It was m ad e in go od fai th
, wit ho ut frau d o r de cei t. As s uc h, i t m et th e o rd in ary d efi ni ti on s of “ bo na fid e” an d

“ co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t.” Bla ck’s La w Dict io na ry 19 9, 29 9 (9 th ed

. 20 09 ).
Not hi ng ab ou t § 20 3( o ) le ad s us to be li ev e th at Co ng res s em pl oyed di f

f e ren t

m ean in gs of t ho se ter m s.

The re als o is no ge nu in e di sp ut e th at do nn in g an d do ffi ng ti m e was ex cl ud ed f r o m m eas ur ed wor ki ng ti m e by “ cu st om or pr act ic e” un de r th e im pl ie d- in -fac t
ag reem en t. T he ph ras e “ cu st om or pr act ic e u nd er a b on a fi de co ll ect iv e b arg ai ni ng
ag reem en t” si m

pl y res ta te s th e “wel l-e st ab li sh ed pr in ci pl e of la bo r la w th at a

-6

-p a rti cu la r cu st om or pr act ic e can be co m e an im pl ie d te rm of a la bo r ag reem en t th ro ug h a pr ol on ge d pe r i o d o f acq ui es cen ce.” Tu rn er v. Ci ty of Phi la de lp hi a , 26 2
F.3 d 22 2, 22 6 (3 d Ci r. 20 01 ). Befo re th e pr es en t im pl ie d- in -fac t ag reem en t, pr ev io us

co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en ts co ns is te nt ly were in te rp ret ed as ex cl ud in g pr e- an d

po st -s hi ft do nn in g an d do ffi ng ti m e fro m co m pe ns ab le wor ki ng ti m e. The un io n di d

no t ob ject to t h i s in te rp ret at io n or su gg es t pa y m en t fo r th at ti m e un ti l se ve ral y ears aft er th e la st fo rm al co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng ag reem en t ex pi red

. It th eref or e acq ui es ced in th is im pl ie d te rm of th e la bo r ag reem en t. Se e Bhd . Ry . C ar men v. Mo. Pac . R.R. Co

. , 94 4 F.2 d 14 22
, 14 29 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 ); se e al so Tu rn er , 26 2 F.3 d at 22 6. Tha t th e

un io n on c e i n 20 11 pr op os ed co m pe ns at io n fo r do nn in g an d do ffi ng be fo re ab an do ni ng th e su gg es ti on do es no t crea te a ge nu in e is su e of fact ab ou t th e ex is te nc e of a cu st om or p ract ic e. Se e Lu de n’

s Inc.
, 28 F.3 d a t 3 56 -5 7 & nn .15 -1 6, 3 61 , 36 4.

Fo r th es e reas on s, we co nc lu de th at th ere was an im pl ie d -in -fac t bo na fid e

co ll ect iv e-b arg ai ni ng ag reem en t be twee n Eag le Pi ch er an d th e un io n. A c us to m or
pr act ic e un de r th at ag reem en t ex cl ud ed ti m e sp en t do nn in g an d do ffi ng wor k cl ot hi ng fro m m eas ur ed wor ki ng ti m e. Th e d i s t r i ct co ur t th us co rrec tl y ru le d th at § 20 3( o )

ex cl ude d tha t donn ing an d do ffi ng ti m e fro m “ ho ur s wor ke d” fo r whi ch co m pe ns at io n

was du e. The ju dg m en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-