 Defendants are engaged in the petroleum industry. Particularly, they are a  petroleum and fracking proppant distributor.    Defendants are headquartered in Sandy, Utah, but operate at numerous fracking  sites throughout the United States, including within the state of Texas and within this Judicial  District.    Defendants also maintain satellite offices near their fracking sites.    QCMs operate out of the satellite offices, but report to both their satellite office and  Defendants’ headquarters.    The satellite offices report directly to Defendants’ headquarters.     QCMs are required to contact Defendants’ headquarters for trucking dispatch.  Furthermore, QCMs constantly communicate employment-related issues with Defendants’  headquarters via email and text message.     Defendants employed Plaintiff Hunter and those similarly situated as quality  control managers.    Despite the title, QCMs are not administrative employees.    QCMs are blue collar workers who performed repetitive operations outdoors with  their hands.    Moreover, QCMs were prohibited from exercising their discretion and independent  judgment on significant matters.    For example, QCMs were not permitted to discipline employees, even for safety  violations such as being intoxicated while driving a truck.    QCM’s were also not permitted to cure contaminated sand containers. Instead, they  were only permitted to report these and other types of incidents to their field operations manager.  Furthermore, QCMs did not have the power to hire or fire employees.    Defendants did not require an advanced degree or specialized academic training for  employment as a quality control manager.  A. Facts Pertaining to Defendants’ Pay Scheme    QCMs work twelve (12) hour shifts.     QCMs are required to work twenty-two (22) days straight per month and have the  remaining eight/nine (8/9) days off.     QCMs worked one (1) shift per workday.    If a QCM does not request the eight/nine (8/9) days off in advance, that QCM is  required to work those days.    QCMs are paid semi-monthly.    Defendants issue QCMs their paychecks from their headquarters in Sandy, Utah.    Defendants state to QCMs that they are paid on a “salary” basis. However, it is a  far more complex pay scheme.    If a QCM does not work twenty-two (22) days straight per month, they are only  paid their pro-rata rate calculated based upon the amount of days worked, effectively paying QCMs  on a shift rate basis. For example, if a QCM only works twenty (20) straight days in a month he is  paid a recalculated rate based upon the twenty (20) shifts worked.    Additionally, QCMs are paid at a rate of approximately $230.00 per day when they  work in excess of the twenty-two (22) days straight, effectively paying QCMs on a shift rate basis.    This additional pay of $230.00 per day worked in excess of twenty-two (22) is paid  to QCMs as a “bonus.”    Accordingly, despite Defendants’ contention, QCMs are not compensated on a  salary basis.    QCMs are not compensated on a fee basis.    Defendants pay scheme is a corporate policy.    Upon information and belief, Defendants’ pay scheme policy was conceived at their  corporate headquarters.    Defendants’ pay scheme is implemented throughout its various fracking sites.  B. Facts Pertaining to Defendants’ FLSA Violations    Defendants do not maintain a formal system of recording the QCMs time.     QCMs work approximately three (3) weeks straight every month.    QCMs are required to work twelve (12) hour shifts.    On average, QCMs work approximately eighty-four (84) hours per workweek.    QCMs are not paid the statutorily required rate of one-and-one-half (1½) times their  hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek.    Defendants titled QCMs’ pay basis as salary to knowingly skirt the overtime  provisions of the FLSA.    Defendants titled QCMs as managers and their pay basis as salary, despite the fact  that their duties do not qualify them as exempt, to knowingly skirt the statutory provisions of the   Plaintiff Hunter seeks to bring this suit as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.  § 216(b) on his own behalf as well as those in the following collective:   All quality control managers employed by Defendants during the  past three (3) years through the final date of disposition of this  action, who are or were required to work in excess of forty (40)  hours per workweek without compensation at the statutorily  required rate of one-and-one-half (1½) times their hourly rate for all  hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek.    At all relevant times, Plaintiff Hunter was similarly situated to all such individuals  in the FLSA Overtime Collective1 because, while employed by Defendants, Plaintiff Hunter and  all FLSA Plaintiffs performed similar tasks, were subject to the same laws and regulations, were  paid in the same or substantially similar manner, were paid the same or similar rate, were required  to work in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek and were subject to Defendants’ policies and  practices of willfully failing to pay them at the statutorily required rate of one-and-one-half (1½)  times their hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek.   A. FLSA OVERTIME COLLECTIVE    I.  General Facts    Violation of The Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., Made by Plaintiff  Hunter on Behalf of All FLSA Plaintiffs  (Failure to Pay Overtime)  108.  Plaintiff Hunter and the FLSA Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all  allegations in all preceding paragraphs.  109.  Throughout the period covered by the applicable statute of limitations, Plaintiff  Hunter and other FLSA Plaintiffs were required to work and did in fact work in excess of forty  (40) hours per workweek.  110.  Defendants knowingly failed to pay Plaintiff Hunter and the FLSA Plaintiffs the  statutorily required rate of one-and-one-half (1½) times their hourly rate for all hours worked in  excess of forty (40) per workweek.  111.  Defendants’ conduct was willful and lasted for the duration of the relevant time  periods.  112.  Defendants’ conduct was in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 