Opinion ID: 6498779
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Meal Periods

Text: Finally, no controlling California precedent has answered the certified question of whether Wage Order No. 16 or California Labor Code Section 1194 requires compensating workers for time spent on the employer’s premises, when workers are prohibited from leaving but not required to engage in employer-mandated activities, and that time is designated as an unpaid “meal period” under a qualifying collective bargaining agreement. The answer to this question would dispositively address Huerta’s meal period claim. California law requires employers to pay workers minimum wage, “[n]otwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage.” Cal. Lab. Code § 1194; see also Cal. Lab. Code § 1182.12; IWC Wage Order 16 §§ 2, 4 (requiring minimum wage for all “hours worked”). California law also requires providing workers thirty-minute meal periods, subject to certain exceptions. Cal. Lab. Code § 512(a). California courts have stated the Labor Code requires that the meal periods be paid if work is required, which includes when workers cannot leave the employer’s premises (i.e. an on-duty meal period). See, e.g., Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Super. Ct., 273 P.3d 513, 532–35 (Cal. 2012) (discussing the historical legal basis for off-duty meal period requirements, including ensuring employees “are free to leave the premises”); Bono Enters., Inc., 38 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 556 (supporting the interpretation of the wage order to require “an employer to pay an employee for meal periods during which the employee is precluded from leaving the worksite”); Madera Police Officers Ass’n v. City of Madera, 682 P.2d 1087, 1088 (Cal. 1984) (analyzing whether meal periods were so circumscribed as to constitute “hours worked”). 22 HUERTA V. CSI ELEC. CONTRACTORS But Labor Code Sections 512(e) and (f) expressly exempt from meal period requirements “employee[s] employed in a construction occupation” if “covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement” that: expressly provides for the wages, hours of work, and working conditions of employees, and expressly provides for meal periods for those employees, final and binding arbitration of disputes concerning application of its meal period provisions, premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked, and a regularly hourly rate of pay of not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage rate. Those conditions are met here. Paralleling the Labor Code requirements, Wage Order No. 16 Sections 10(A) and (D) mandate thirty-minute meal periods, which must be paid and counted as time worked unless the worker “is relieved of all duty.” Section 10(E) further states that Sections 10(A) and (D): shall not apply to any employee covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement if the agreement expressly provides for the wages, hours of work, and working conditions of the employees, and if the agreement provides premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked and a regular hourly rate of pay for those employees of not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage. These conditions are encompassed by those in the Labor Code Section 512(e), and also met here. HUERTA V. CSI ELEC. CONTRACTORS 23 Referencing Labor Code Sections 512(e) and (f), the California Court of Appeal has held employers and unionrepresented employees covered by valid CBAs may bargain over (and perhaps bargain away) the right to off-duty meal periods, Araquistain v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 176 Cal. Rptr. 3d 620, 628 (Ct. App. 2014), because of the “express statutory exemption[s] for CBA-covered employees relating to the . . . right,” Gutierrez v. Brand Energy Servs. of Cal., Inc., 264 Cal. Rptr. 3d 173, 183 (Ct. App. 2020) (citing Araquistain, 176 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 628; Vranish v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 166 Cal. Rptr. 3d 845, 848–50 (Ct. App. 2014) (permitting union-represented employees covered by valid CBAs to bargain over overtime rights)). But the Gutierrez court specifically distinguished between minimum wage rights as compared to off-duty meal period and overtime rights, because “[t]here is no equivalent statutory language” permitting bargaining over minimum wage rights for CBAcovered workers. 264 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 183. Thus, while it is clear that union-represented employees covered by a valid CBA may bargain over meal period rights, it is less certain if they may bargain away the right entirely, and it is unclear if they may bargain away their right to be paid minimum wage for “on-duty” meal periods where they are prohibited from leaving the employer’s premises. Huerta contends state law minimum wage protections apply to the time he spent on CSI’s premises during time designated as an unpaid meal period under his CBA because he was prohibited from leaving and so was on duty. But CSI asserts this “minimum wage” claim is merely a meal period claim in disguise, and so properly exempted under Labor Code Sections 512(e) and (f) and Wage Order No. 16 Section 10(E). 24 HUERTA V. CSI ELEC. CONTRACTORS Whether minimum wage laws proscribe, permit, or otherwise affect unpaid, on-duty meal periods in CBAs under Wage Order No. 16 and Labor Code Sections 512 and 1194, such that a CBA can relinquish the right to minimum wage compensation for on-duty meal periods, has not yet been addressed by California courts. And while the record does not show how many workers are subject to a CBA that provides for unpaid meal periods while prohibiting workers from leaving the employer’s premises, the answer to this question will no doubt affect many union-represented workers across California. Thus, we respectfully submit this question to the California Supreme Court for review.